Archive/File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/transcripts/day019.12
Last-Modified: 2000/07/24

   Q.   --- to make?  Yes.  It would render him virtually
        unpublishable in the world of serious writers?
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   What do you think the Second Defendant meant and the First
        Defendant in publishing it when they describe me as being

.          P-104

        the most dangerous spokesman for Holocaust denial, the
        word "dangerous"?
   A.   Yes, I think what was meant by that was that you more than
        people like, well, I think it is because you had a
        reputation for being a serious historian in the 1970s,
        1980s, and that, therefore, that gives you a certain
        authority which is not the case with, say, Professor
        Faurisson, exProfessor Faurisson, or the other Holocaust
        deniers, Arthur Butts, and so on.
   Q.   So did I suddenly go mad or something that changed me from
        being a translator who did not distort and did not
        manipulate, and I suddenly abandoned all my principles and
        methods and everything I had taught myself and I suddenly
        went wrong in some way?  Is this what the allegation is?
   A.   No, I have just described what I think the allegation is.
   Q.   Apparently, you say that until the 1970s or 1980s I was OK?
   A.   No, I did not say that.  I was talking about your
        reputation.
   Q.   Reputation?
   A.   Even in that case, and when one goes into it (as I did)
        and we have been over that, there are some historians who
        had pointed out in the 1970s and 80s that you did engage
        in distortion and manipulation.  Nevertheless, I think,
        and I have tried to convey this in talking about your
        reputation, that you did have quite a widespread

.          P-105

        reputation as an expert historian of the Second World War,
        and that is I think what Professor Lipstadt meant by
        saying that you were a dangerous spokesperson for
        Holocaust denial.  You did change your views -- you
        describe yourself how you changed your views as a result
        of the Leuchter report at the end of the 80s and the court
        has been into that over the past few weeks.
   Q.   Yes, but the word "dangerous" is what I am looking at.
        Why is the word "dangerous" used instead of
"formidable"
        or "one to be taken seriously"?  The word "dangerous"
        implies that I am a danger to something, does it not?
It
        presupposes that I am a danger -- would you say I am a
        danger to somebody's interests?  Is this what is
implied
        by that?
   A.   No, I do not think that is what that means.  It is
        difficult to second guess why the word "dangerous" is
used
        here rather than, as you say, "persuasive" or
        "formidable", but I think, in the context of Professor
        Lipstadt's book, that means that you are more likely,
        indeed, to be persuasive than some of the other
figures in
        this scene.
   Q.   I am dangerous to the whole of existing history of the
        Holocaust?  Is that what is implied by that?
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Well, that is, in the end, a matter for
me,
        what Professor Lipstadt would have been understood to
        mean, but it seems to me it is pretty clear that the

.          P-106



        danger is that a lot of people will -- I was going to
use
        the word "swallow", that is a bit offensive -- accept
the
        denial case.
   MR IRVING:  Yes, or take it seriously and start asking
awkward
        questions, my Lord.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Let us proceed on that footing.
   MR IRVING:  If you would now turn the page, my Lord, we now
        come to page 67, and this is where I have to ask your
        Lordship's guidance.  The expert witness is here
giving an
        opinion on the meaning of words, and all the
authorities
        that I have consulted suggest that this should not be.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Well, I am not sure I really agree with
        that.  On the other hand ----
   MR IRVING:  Your Lordship agrees there are authorities that
say
        that expert witnesses cannot give evidence on the
meaning
        of words?
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, there are, but, I mean, not in this
        context.  I think Professor Evans is perfectly
entitled to
        say what he understands the Holocaust to be referring
to,
        but is it going to help me because, in a sort of broad
        sense, everybody knows perfectly well what is referred
to
        by the Holocaust.
   MR IRVING:  I strongly disagree, my Lord, with the utmost
        respect.  We were asked this very early on by Mr
Rampton,
        your Lordship will remember.  Your Lordship will
remember
        that I said that, to my mind, the Holocaust is the
visual

.          P-107



        image that people have.  I, first of all, defined it
as
        being the immense tragedy inflicted on the Jewish
people
        by the Nazis and their collaborators during World War
II
        which I think is a very fine definition, but there are
        countless other definitions.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  What I would suggest to you is that time
in
        cross-examination of Professor Evans is not going to
be
        well spent by discussing various meanings ----
   MR IRVING:  Meanings of words.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  --- or definitions of the Holocaust.  You
can
        do that in submission, and I think it would be much
more
        sensible to deal with it in that way.
   MR IRVING:  Yes.  On page 71, my Lord, you will find the
vague
        footnote that I referred to earlier.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes.
   A.   That simply says:  "If you want to know more about
        Auschwitz read Professor Robert Jan van Pelt's
report".
   MR IRVING:  All 770 pages of it?
   MR RAMPTON:  My Lord, it is only fair to point out that
this
        report is directed at the court and the author of this
        report, Professor Evans, is entitled to assume that
the
        court will read the whole of van Pelt's report.
   MR IRVING:  It is a rather superfluous kind of footnote, is
it
        not?
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Well, I understand it is a general
reference
        to van Pelt.

.          P-108



   A.   I am simply trying to say there I really am not --
        I really do not, I want to save space, I do not want
to
        say too much about Auschwitz because that is a subject
        dealt with by another report.  That is really all that
        footnote is trying to say.
   MR IRVING:  Page 74 -- are we making fast enough progress,
my
        Lord, now?
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Faster.
   MR IRVING:  3.1.14, line 2, you say: "The essential point
is
        that there is wide agreement that there was a
systematic
        attempt".
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   Now, I am nervous.  As soon as we have the word
        "systematic" coming in, of course, then the court
pricks
        up its ears?
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   Is "wide agreement" sufficient proof, in your view, or
do
        you want to be more rigorous with our methods?
   A.   I am trying to summarize here what the concept of the
        Holocaust or, well, what I am saying actually is that
the
        term, the word "Holocaust", is a secondary issue.  I
think
        in order to ----
   Q.   Are wide agreements always right?  There was wide
        agreement that the earth was flat ----
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  We had this almost exact exchange on
        Thursday.

.          P-109



   A.   We have had this before.
   MR IRVING:  I am glad that your Lordship is familiar with
        that.  In other words, "wide agreement" is not
sufficient
        evidence alone; we do need more rigorous support, do
we
        not?
   A.   What I am saying, of course, is that there is wide
        agreement based on an enormous amount of research into
a
        very large quantity of documentation ----
   Q.   Well, did you say three lines from the bottom ----
   A.   --- which I do not think you can say is true of the
belief
        that the earth is flat.
   Q.   You do say three lines from the bottom:  "The Nazi
        authorities also left an enormous quantity of
        documentation providing detail of the policy of
        extermination".
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   Have we not been hearing now for four weeks that there
is
        no such documentation?
   MR RAMPTON:  No, my Lord, that is simply not right.  I do
not
        know if Professor Evans has been in court all the
time,
        I am sure he has not, but your Lordship will recall
that
        Mr Irving himself, on the basis of a very considerable
        volume of documentation, has conceded -- I use that
word
        advisedly -- not only that the systematic shooting of
vast
        numbers of Jews in the East, in Russia, happened, but
that
        it happened on Hitler's authority.

.          P-110



   MR IRVING:  Of course we are not talking just about the
        shootings on the East, are we?
   MR RAMPTON:  Just, no.
   MR IRVING:  We are talking about we have a major problem
with
        what happened elsewhere.
   MR RAMPTON:  We are talking about something like 1.2
million
        people, on Mr Irving's figures.
   MR IRVING:  I think that the question I should have asked
is,
        is there a vast body of documentation giving evidence,
        providing details, of the policy of extermination in
        Auschwitz and the other camps like that?
   A.   That is not what I say.  All I am trying to do here is
to
        advise the court that there is a very large quantity
of
        documentation, something which I am sure the court now
        realizes.
   Q.   On page 79 at line 5 you refer to a recent Holocaust
        denial work.  Is this a massive tome by one Barbara
        Kulaszka with the title:  "Did Six Million Really
Die"?
   A.   I cannot recall whether it is a massive tome.
   Q.   It is about 650 pages, A4 size?
   A.   Edited.
   Q.   Edited.  Am I right in saying that this is an account
by
        Barbara Kulaszka of the trial in Toronto on the
history of
        Auschwitz, shall we say?
   A.   I think that is right, on the Zundel trial.
   Q.   Am I right in saying that Barbara Kulaszka, being a

.          P-111



        solicitor of the Court of Ontario, is an officer of
the
        court and well qualified to write this kind of
summary?
   A.   That, I am not sure.  I think she has some kind of
legal
        status.  I took this to be a work of Holocaust denial
from
        it contents.
   Q.   So that a summary of the evidence for the Prosecution
and
        the Defence in a law court can be taken to be a work
of
        Holocaust denial?
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Whether it could or it could not, it has
        nothing to do with this case.
   MR IRVING:  My Lord, the reason I am bringing it to your
        Lordship's attention is that I have provided in the
little
        bundle a two-page summary at pages 20 and 21 by this
        solicitor of the issues of Holocaust denial which is a
        very useful summary of what is said about it and what
the
        various authorities are.  That is from that particular
        publication.  Your Lordship might find it useful at
some
        time just to digest its contents.  I put it no
stronger
        than that.
   A.   I do take Barbara Kulaszka to be an advocate of
Holocaust
        denial from the contents of what she writes.
   Q.   In other words, because a solicitor writes an account
of
        the trial of a Holocaust denier, giving the
Prosecution
        and Defence case, it is the work of Holocaust denial?
   A.   Let me say, I do not think it is a neutral account and
the
        fact that she is a solicitor is neither here nor
there.

.          P-112



   MR RAMPTON:  No.  In fact, I am told that she was Zundel's
        solicitor and also Mr Irving's.
   MR IRVING:  Well, of course, Mr Rampton will be familiar
with
        the concept that she is an officer of the court and is
        subject to certain basic principles and etiquettes.
My
        Lord, might I suggest that we pause there for our
lunch
        break?
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, the time has come, certainly.  Where
are
        we going after the adjournment?
   MR IRVING:  We will make future progress into the parts
your
        Lordship is interested in.
   MR RAMPTON:  I have laid hands on (because they have been
given
        to me) some pages showing recent references on Mr
Irving's
        website, I think it is Mr Irving's website, to what he
        calls some "traditional enemies of free speech".
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Have you got a copy?
   MR RAMPTON:  We have had these printed out.  It may not be
the
        whole story by any means.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  That is very helpful.  Thank you very
much.
        Then you can return to this, if you want to, Mr
Irving,
        briefly at 2.00.  So 2 o'clock.
                       (Luncheon adjournment)
   (2.00 p.m.)
                  Professor Evans, recalled.
            Cross-Examined by Mr Irving, continued.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, Mr Irving?

.          P-113

   MR IRVING:  My Lord, we are now well into Holocaust denial and
        trying to make forward progress.  Professor Evans, have
        you had any discussion since Thursday with anybody else
        about the evidence you are giving, or with the instructing
        solicitors in this case?
   A.   No.

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor