Victory for Irving
The Journal of Historical Review
[Transcription note: for another perspective on Irving's failure to
make headway in Australia, see the 1995
Australian Federal Court judgment, and the 1996
Australian Federal Court judgment, both of which denied him entry
into the country. knm, 98/08/14]
Defenders of the orthodox Holocaust extermination story predictably
deny that repression of dissident views on this question involves any issue
of free speech. Most Australian newspapers sharply disagree, even though
none seems to think very highly of
Irving.
An editorial in the Perth West Australian (May 20) reflected what
might be called a consensus view:
It is one of the measures of a truly democratic system that even those
whose views and values are anathema to a majority of people are
entitled to a fair hearing.
Indeed, the ultimate strength of a democracy rests on its ability
to accommodate a free flow of ideas -- even ones which may be repugnant
and which may be seen in some quarters as posing a danger to cohesion
in the community...
The Federal Government's decision early this year to refuse a visa
for an Australian visit by controversial British writer
David Irving
was an affront to principles of free speech.... [This] action has
diminished the rights of all Australians.
...Perversely, by banning
Mr. Irving, the Government and those who
support the decision have given him an international platform from
which to campaign. Canberra's heavy hand has ensured that
Mr. Irving's
warped material has been disseminated more widely and attracted more
publicity than would ever have happened if he had been allowed into
Australia this time -- as he has in the past.
Professor Paul Wilson, Dean of Arts at Queensland University of
Technology, wrote in the Canberra Times (May 24):
...
Mr. Irving has visited this country on two other occasions and
there is no record of violence being perpetrated against the Jewish
community as a result of these tours.
...To ban a person on the basis of what might occur as a result of
what he might say establishes a dangerous precedent. Such a ruling
could be used effectively against any international visitor wishing to
enter this country who has opinions that conflict with the views of any
religion, ethnic, political or special-interest group.
...The ultimate irony is that if
David Irving is banned from our
shores he can justifiably claim (as he already has) that free speech is
threatened in Australia.
An editorial in the Canberra Times (May 20) opined:
The Commonwealth film censor has shown considerably better
judgment in classifying British historian
David Irving's video so that
it can be shown publicly, than the Government showed in February by
banning the man from Australia.
...Instead of attracting a small amount of critical press
attention for his views, the ban has generated a public debate about
his right to free speech. He has attracted respectable defenders (of
his right of free speech, not of his history) who otherwise never would
have allowed their names to be associated with his.
As is so often the case, if the Government had simply let events
take their course his views would have been more than adequately
exposed by the light of public debate.
The Melbourne Herald Sun (editorial, May 21) expressed a similar
view, but upset a few readers with a reference to "that article of faith for
post-war Jews, the Holocaust":
The
David Irving affair is an assault on our basic democratic
right -- freedom of speech. This newspaper holds no brief for
Mr.
Irving, a historian with widely contested, controversial views. But we
believe that he has an absolute right to express them. Just as the
many people who fiercely oppose him have an equal right to publicly
disagree.
As we said in this column in February, the Federal Government was
wrong to refuse
Mr. Irving entry. We also believe Australian Jews have
been mistaken in seeking to stop screening of a video of his lecture,
passed by the Office of Film and Literature.
Central to
Mr. Irving's unpopularity is his challenge to that
article of faith for post-war Jews, the Holocaust.... But by
campaigning to silence
Mr. Irving, Australian Jews have succeeded in
focusing unmerited public attention both on the man and his claims.
Side Issues
In the media discussion surrounding
Irving's efforts to visit
Australia, marginal side issues have sometimes obscured the larger picture.
Irving's opponents, for example, have accused him of supporting Australian
far right groups, of provoking outbursts of anti-Jewish graffiti, and of
erring as an historian. In this last instance, one paper went so far as to
claim that
Irving was wrong in his views about Winston Churchill, and cited
revisionist historian John Charmley's critical book on Churchill as proof.
(For more about Charmley's highly critical biography of the British leader,
see the March-April Journal.)
As part of the general debate provoked by the
Irving ban, critical
attention has been given to the issue of improper Jewish influence on the
Australian government, the totalitarian tactics of those who would deny
Irving the right to enter Australia, the pointless wastefulness of war
crimes trials over allegations dating back to the Second World War, and the
precious nature of free speech.
As
Irving has pointed out, and as the recent events in Australia
underscore, each new effort to censor or ban revisionists has ultimately
proven to be another boost for the revisionist cause. Clearly, it is
becoming ever more difficult for those who seek to monopolize history to
rely on help from venal and repressive government officials. With active
support from the growing worldwide revisionist community, each attempt at
censorship provides yet another opportunity to broadcast the revisionist
viewpoint to additional thousands who otherwise would never hear of it.
[end of article]
This article was scanned by the System Operator of the "Banished CPU"
computer bulletin board system, which is located in Portland, Oregon, U.S.A.
[end of file]
-Dan Gannon
The
original plaintext version
of this file is available via
ftp.
[
Previous |
Irving
Press Index |
JHR
Index ]
Home ·
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Search
Nizkor
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and
to combat hatred.
Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.
As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may
include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and
provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist
and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.
in Australia Free Speech Struggle
Vol. 13, Number 6 (Nov./Dec. 1993)
The Free Speech Debate
Another Victory