Archive/File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/transcripts/day020.14 Last-Modified: 2000/07/24 MR IRVING: All four? A. It is a package, but that, of course, it is a kind of fluid, and I said earlier on that there are some people who will deny one, deny the other, partially deny one proposition, partially affirm another. It is not something that ---- Q. It sounds to me as though the package is adjusted according to whom you are trying to sling it around the neck of? A. No, that is not the case. Q. Well, you are just saying that one has to be a member of all four except in some circumstances when it can be less which seems to be ---- A. Sorry, no. What I am saying is that it is a matter of degree and so on, but I would describe Holocaust -- I would have no doubt that someone who subscribed to all four propositions was a Holocaust denier in the sense that is generally understood. Q. Yes. A. And, indeed, appears in Professor Lipstadt's book. Q. So we rapidly wrap up that passage, the second criterion is that the person says that gas chambers were not used? . P-122 A. Yes. Q. If somebody says they were used in some places but not in other places, does he qualify or ---- A. Well, no, not if he or she is accurate. I mean, clearly, gas chambers were used in some ---- Q. If somebody says that they were used in a small scale but not on a large scale? A. I am trying to give you an extremely brief summary of a rather lengthy section of where I go into these in a great deal more detail. Q. This is what is at the root of the case, you appreciate that? A. Of course I do. That is why I have written this section. Q. Well, it is quite a brief section and I am trying to establish ---- A. No, I mean the whole section on Holocaust denial, not this very brief conclusion. Q. But if somebody denies that the gas chambers were used on a mass factories of death basis, but they were used on a smaller scale, wherever, would he be a Holocaust denier? A. Well I have explained earlier on that this very, that what I mean is that gas chambers were not used for the systematic extermination of large numbers of Jews, that is what... Q. The third criterion is that there was no systematic killing of Europe's Jews, in other words ---- . P-123 A. Yes, that is right, that it was not systematic, yes. Q. I think we all understand what we mean by that. A. Yes. Q. If it was haphazard, if somebody accepts it is haphazard but denies it was a government action, State action? A. Yes. Q. Then he qualifies, he is a Holocaust denier. Then the fourth one is the propaganda story, the fact ---- A. Yes. Q. --- that the Allies invented this story as a propaganda? A. That is right. Q. Yes. But as you are having difficulty even now in determining to the satisfaction of myself, certainly, and a large number of people in this court, perhaps, exactly what is meant by these four criteria, it is a bit of a vague concept, is it not, but it is like an elephant, you know what it is, you cannot necessarily describe it, is that right? A. I am not having difficulties, Mr Irving. Q. Well, I am having difficulty getting a clear definition from you on any one of these four. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving, I have been told what the definition is. It is for me to decide whether it is a satisfactory definition, but I am in absolutely no doubt what the definition is. It could not be more clearly set out. . P-124 MR IRVING: You accept that one has to be a member of all four or just one of them? MR JUSTICE GRAY: Well, I think I said a few minutes ago when reciting what Professor Evans has said, no, he does not think you have to subscribe to all four view points. MR IRVING: But am I right in believing that it is your Lordship who decides rather than the witness's definition? MR JUSTICE GRAY: Of course it is. MR IRVING: Yes. Can we now proceed to "Connections with Holocaust deniers" which is section 3.5, page 174? The burden of the charge you are trying to make here, am I right, is guilt by association? "Tell me who your friends are and I will tell you who you are", I think is a Spanish expression, is that correct? A. No, it is not, no. Q. You list here a number of names of people who you identify as Holocaust deniers and you say because these people have been seen in the same room as me, effectively, this makes me one too. Is that putting it too simply? A. Yes. Q. Right. Can we leap straight ahead to page 183 because this, I think, justifies me in doing the leap? Beginning at paragraph 15, we are talking about the institute of Historical Review, is that right? A. Yes. . P-125 Q. And you do not consider this is a bona fide Institute at all, do you? A. No. Q. It is just comprised of people who have no qualifications and have the wrong views or views you disapprove of? A. No, I do not say that. Q. Yes. But what you do make plain at the beginning of this paragraph 15, and I quote: "Irving has denied that he is affiliated to the Institute in any formal capacity, and this is strictly speaking true"? A. Yes. I go on to say: "He is a member neither of its Board nor of the Editorial Advisory Board of its Journal". I think it is only fair of me to point that out. Q. Well, do you accept that this is true? A. Yes. Q. That I have no affiliation whatsoever with that body. A. No formal affiliation. Q. Well, what other kind of affiliation can there be? A. An informal affiliation. Q. What do you mean by informal affiliation? That they send unsolicited materials to me? Is that an informal affiliation? A. No. I go on to describe that in the rest of the paragraph. Q. "He has been a frequent visitor", line 3 on page 184, is . P-126 that correct? A. Yes, you have been a frequent visitor. Q. "... frequent visitor to the annual conferences organized by the Institute of Historical Review"? A. That is right, yes. You spoke. Q. Can you estimate how many times in the last 17 years I have visited these conferences to justify the word "frequent"? A. Why have you chosen 17 as a number? Q. Because it is 17 years. A. Since what? Q. Between -- over the period you are talking about. A. Oh, I see. Well, it is -- you are ---- Q. How many is frequent? 20, 30, 50? A. Your contacts of -- your speech of speeches ---- MR JUSTICE GRAY: They are annual, so it could not be more than 17, could it? MR IRVING: My Lord, I can cut to the bottom line, as we say, and say the answer is five. Would you say that the correct number of occasions on which I have attended their annual conference in whatever capacity is five? A. Well, speaking. I say here: "To date you have spoken to audiences at the Institute five times. You spoke at the ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth conferences in succession". So at that time, therefore, that is in the 1990s, I think, am I right, you are ---- . P-127 MR IRVING: It is a span of 17 years. A. No, at that time, that is to say, in the immediate run up to Professor Lipstadt' book, you were there on an annual, virtually an annual basis. There were also many articles about you in the Journal that the Institute prints and many articles by you. Q. I am picking on this word "frequent" visitor to the annual conferences and it turns out to be five times in 17 years? A. You spoke at the ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth conferences in succession and at one other conference. Q. That sounds like five to me. A. Well, that is four and one other conference, and at that time you were a frequent visitor. I do not say you are a frequent -- I do not say, "He is a frequent visitor at the annual conferences", I am saying you have been and I then go on to say precisely which conferences you spoke at. Q. Five times in 17 years does not -- but I do not want to keep on hammering this point in otherwise I shall earn a rebuke. A. Four times in four years, Mr Irving, that is frequent. Q. Five times in 17 years is not a frequent visitor, by any reckoning, is it? A. Four times in four years is a very frequent visitor, Mr Irving. Q. What makes you think that the ninth, tenth, eleventh and . P-128 twelfth conferences were on an annual basis? A. Ah, you may be -- you may have me there. Were they not? Q. No. But you are assuming that they are? A. Yes, I thought they were, I must say. Q. So the word "frequent", in other words, is wrong? A. Are you telling me they are not then? Would you like to tell me the dates of those conferences? Q. They are either every two or three years. A. So in that case, 17 years, there would be eight, seven or, let me see, eight or nine conferences, so that five visits is actually rather frequent; it is the majority of them, is it not? Q. Do you agree that five times in 17 years does not qualify for the word "frequent visitor"? MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think the point he is making is that if they are every two or three years, you have been to every single one. I mean, that is the result of what you -- -- MR IRVING: I must have learned English at a different school. The word "frequent" to me does not imply five times in 17 years, my Lord. A. But, Mr Irving, if you are saying that the conferences took place every two or three years, then in 17 years there can only have been six or seven, or at most eight conferences, and you admitted, you said that you were at five of those, that is almost every one; and that certainly justifies saying that you are a frequent . P-129 visitor. In fact, if that is the case that the conferences were not, as I had thought, annual, then I would have said an "almost 100 per cent attender", not "frequent visitor". Q. Not a frequent visitor? A. Almost 100 per cent attender if they were at greater intervals than one year each. As it is, I say, "He has been a frequent visitor to the annual conferences". Then I say, I give when these conferences were, the ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth conferences in succession. That is frequent to me, that period. I am unclear now as to whether you think the conferences were annual or not. Q. The conferences were held (and I can tell you this) I am sure on the basis of once every two years? A. Right. Q. And sometimes less frequently. A. In that case, in the last 17 years we are talking about majority of the conferences and I think that justifies saying that you were a frequent visitor at them. Q. Five times is not a frequent visitor and I am sorry to have to keep on ---- A. Five times is a frequent visitor when there have only ---- MR JUSTICE GRAY: This is becoming utterly futile ---- A. --- been eight conferences. MR IRVING: Let us move on. We are now moving on. You quite rightly say there have been articles about me in the . P-130 Journal. Are you suggesting that I have in any way engineered these articles about me in the Journal of the Institute? A. In the fourth and sixth issues of Volume 13. That shows, I think, that the Journal thought highly of you. Q. I now start six lines from the bottom: "The first issue of volume 13 included one article by Irving and two others about him. The next issue had another article by Irving, and he also printed two more articles in the first volume of" -- have you any evidence that I have on any occasion whatsoever written an article for the Journal? A. Well, we have been through this before, Mr Irving, last Thursday. Q. Yes, and what was the answer? A. The answer was that these are edited versions of the speeches you gave at your frequent visits to the Institute's conferences, and that I presume that these versions appeared as articles in the Journal with your approval and permission since, presumably, they are copyright, its copyrights assigned to you. Q. Do you accept that ---- A. Are you suggesting that they appeared without your knowledge and without your permission?
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor