David Irving to speak in NUI Galway

Freedom333

Hi there, I'm a newbie to all this, but I thought that it would be a good place to have views aired on the matter. If you weren't already aware, David Irving is a historian of sorts, a definite Holocaust denier, and a definite anti semite. He has written numerous book on the second world war, focusing primarily on the Nazi Party and it's leaders.
He has been invited to speak in NUI Galway this year. It was decided by vote by the student body that he should be allowed come to speak. I'm wondering what you guys think about it. Will anyone be going there, be it to listen or protest?

ionix5891

year 2050

Gaza occupation denier to speak at NUIG

Will anyone be going there, be it to listen or protest?

Fratton Fred

OP, you might want to read the holocaust deniers thread, it is very informative.

Personally i don't have any time for david Irving, but as the saying goes, I may not agree with what he says, but I will defend his right to say it.

conlonbmw

Fratton Fred wrote: »

OP, you might want to read the holocaust deniers thread, it is very informative.

Personally i don't have any time for david Irving, but as the saying goes, I may not agree with what he says, but I will defend his right to say it.

Exactly, he has as much right to say what he wants, I cannot believe Germany have a law about this.

OhNoYouDidn't

No free speech for Nazi's.

Get him milled.

Het-Field

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

No free speech for Nazi's.

Get him milled.

I hope you are joking !

The last thing the thought police need do is to make a big issue out of him attending again. Last year Irving got more public coverage by being denied a platform then he would have by being allowed to speak in UCC. Again, he will appear on an RTE Radio show or something if the lefty nazis try to stop him speaking.

The vote was put to the student body, there should be no opposition to this.

Forums

Let him speak I say, he is a bit of a eejit as far I know

The Corinthian

Freedom333 wrote: »

Hi there, I'm a newbie to all this, but I thought that it would be a good place to have views aired on the matter. If you weren't already aware, David Irving is a historian of sorts, a definite Holocaust denier, and a definite anti semite. He has written numerous book on the second world war, focusing primarily on the Nazi Party and it's leaders.
He has been invited to speak in NUI Galway this year. It was decided by vote by the student body that he should be allowed come to speak. I'm wondering what you guys think about it. Will anyone be going there, be it to listen or protest?

Let him speak. I've read a number of his articles and books and have actually had conversations with him in the past, and can say that if you do that you can actually pull much of his 'Holocaust denial' arguments apart in a rational debate.

Additionally, he's written some good stuff on the period too. Remember, all historians are revisionists - otherwise history would have been written the once and we would have no further need to examine it. And WW2 should be no different to this.

Deny him the possibility to speak and his message becomes magical - a secret that we are not supposed to know. When this happens, people start to imagine that there must be something to it, otherwise it wouldn't be so dangerous.

And indeed, it is only dangerous if you think that people are too dumb to work things out for themselves. And who knows, maybe that's the case...

...which segway's nicely into who will likely most militantly oppose his speaking, which would be organizations such as the Anti-Nazi League (historically a front for the Socialist Workers Party). Groups like those need an 'enemy'; it gets the kids out, boosts memberships, sells papers.

OhNoYouDidn't

Het-Field wrote: »

I hope you are joking !

The last thing the thought police need do is to make a big issue out of him attending again. Last year Irving got more public coverage by being denied a platform then he would have by being allowed to speak in UCC. Again, he will appear on an RTE Radio show or something if the lefty nazis try to stop him speaking.

The vote was put to the student body, there should be no opposition to this.

I am 100% serious.

Physically stop him getting on the stage and then seek a proper explainiation as to what brain surgeon invited him to NUIG and hold them accountable.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ChocolateSauce

I would love to see him. I really want to see someone try and deny the holocaust, I don't see how it could be done with a straight face. Anyway, he should be allowed to speak, that's what free speech is (sadly, Germany is not yet ready to deal with the problem).

dresden8

Has anybody who wants to hang Irving ever actually read any of his stuff or heard him speak?

Or is "A bloke down the pub told me" enough on which to base your feeling the need to assault, shout down, obstruct and threaten people?

Just wondering.

The Corinthian

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I am 100% serious.

Physically stop him getting on the stage and then seek a proper explainiation as to what brain surgeon invited him to NUIG and hold them accountable.

Your cogent and well researched arguments are very convincing...

conlonbmw

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I am 100% serious.

Physically stop him getting on the stage and then seek a proper explainiation as to what brain surgeon invited him to NUIG and hold them accountable.

Wow, do you hold the same views about paedo priests and religon then?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well said.

DeVore

Let him speak and stand outside with a peg on your nose. That would be my advice.

Conflict didnt stop the KKK, frowning and superman did far more damage to them.

DeV.

OhNoYouDidn't

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There is no legitimate academic reason for him to be there. He is a disgraced researcher who was caught tampering with records to fit his agends and has no tenure anywhere. Its my understanding he has been invited by a debating society, so I really don't see the academic angle.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Your cogent and well researched arguments are very convincing...

Its cogent at least. No platform for Nazi's, especially publically funded ones.

I appreciate its a cliché, but I think this is apt.

When they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;

And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;

And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;

And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up

I refuse to stand idly by and watch a man try and santise the third reich.

dresden8

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I refuse to stand idly by and watch a man try and santise the third reich.

Why? What does he say?

OhNoYouDidn't

dresden8 wrote: »

Why? What does he say?

I know its Wiki, but lots there

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving

Edit

Just reading that, I forgot he wrote that Ann Franks diary was a forgery. Yes, vital to academia that he spew his bile.

dresden8

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I know its Wiki, but lots there

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving

Edit

Just reading that, I forgot he wrote that Ann Franks diary was a forgery. Yes, vital to academia that he spew his bile.

Take him on so and prove him wrong.

OhNoYouDidn't

dresden8 wrote: »

Take him on so and prove him wrong.

Because in this instance he has been taken on by every historian in the field, numerous courts etc and still propigates the same lies and attempts to sanitise Hitler and the Third Reich. Challenging him is useless.

I believe in free speech, but this man abuses it for the most dangerous agenda possible and should get the welcome he deserves. For the record this is the only type of speaker I object to.

The Corinthian

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

There is no legitimate academic reason for him to be there. He is a disgraced researcher who was caught tampering with records to fit his agends and has no tenure anywhere. Its my understanding he has been invited by a debating society, so I really don't see the academic angle.

Then allow respected academics and all others to expose him rather than allow him to hide in the safety of censorship.

Its cogent at least.

You may have missed my sarcasm. Up to your last post you made no attempt at anything that resembled cogent and well researched arguments. You came out with emotive tripe.

No platform for Nazi's, especially publically funded ones.

He's a Nazi? Perhaps so, but should people not decide for themselves rather than take your word for it. Or do you know better than us great unwashed?

I appreciate its a cliché, but I think this is apt.

That would be in keeping with the rest of your posts.

brianthebard

The Corinthian wrote: »

Let him speak. I've read a number of his articles and books and have actually had conversations with him in the past, and can say that if you do that you can actually pull much of his 'Holocaust denial' arguments apart in a rational debate.

Additionally, he's written some good stuff on the period too. Remember, all historians are revisionists - otherwise history would have been written the once and we would have no further need to examine it. And WW2 should be no different to this.

And taking his argument apart has done exactly what to slow him spreading his hate? Nothing.

Additionally, he's doctored documents and made up figures. He's not a historian, he's a fiction writer. Its intensely insulting to real historians to call him a revisionist-he's a negationist hatemonger.

OhNoYouDidn't

The Corinthian wrote: »

Then allow respected academics and all others to expose him rather than allow him to hide in the safety of censorship.

He has been exposed, repeatedly and spectacularly. What has it done? This is why he does these types of talks now, he has no tenure and academics wont play with him. He is not an historian in any meaningful sense anymore

The Corinthian wrote: »

You may have missed my sarcasm. Up to your last post you made no attempt at anything that resembled cogent and well researched arguments. You came out with emotive tripe.

How do you research a call to action exactly?

The Corinthian wrote: »

He's a Nazi? Perhaps so, but should people not decide for themselves rather than take your word for it. Or do you know better than us great unwashed?

Yes, people can look back at his criminal record, Nazi links and the fact he has destroyed records that done back his agenda.

Meanwhile he should not be afforded the very free speech he wants to remove.

The Corinthian wrote: »

That would be in keeping with the rest of your posts.

Good man. Lucky I believe in free speech so won't report that one.

The Corinthian

brianthebard wrote: »

And taking his argument apart has done exactly what to slow him spreading his hate? Nothing.

The point is this has not happened publicly. A few interested parties have had a few debates, but outside of that all we see is people like OhNoYouDidn't coming out with moronic clichés and slogans.

Your average man on the Clapham omnibus has no idea if his arguments are valid or not. He's not heard them, he's only heard a number of people of often questionable partisan leanings that he's an evil hate spreading Nazi.

Do you think he should take your word for it?

Additionally, he's doctored documents and made up figures. He's not a historian, he's a fiction writer. Its intensely insulting to real historians to call him a revisionist-he's a negationist hatemonger.

Again, and I am not suggesting you are wrong, should we simply take your word for it?

OhNoYouDidn't

The Corinthian wrote: »

The point is this has not happened publicly. A few interested parties have had a few debates, but outside of that all we see is people like OhNoYouDidn't coming out with moronic clichés and slogans.

Moronic? Easy tiger.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Your average man on the Clapham omnibus has no idea if his arguments are valid or not. He's not heard them, he's only heard a number of people of often questionable partisan leanings that he's an evil hate spreading Nazi.

And he is likely to hear them in the debating chamber of the UCG students union?

The Corinthian wrote: »

Do you think he should take your word for it?

Again, and I am not suggesting you are wrong, should we simply take your word for it?

The guy has done time for holocaust denial for ****s sake. Are you denying he doctors figures and was caught tampering with library records?

The chap is happily going about doing his bit to create the fourth reich and abusing naive idealists like yoursleves devotion to a peace and love version of free speech. Newsflash. He is a committed Nazi. Not some cheeky chappy down the college bar arguing for the sake of it. He cannot be reasoned with. This is the real wold.

You may be happy to take a risk that he may not cause damage, but I, and the hundreds who will be there, are not. There is no academic justification for this man to be in a university.

The Corinthian

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

He has been exposed, repeatedly and spectacularly. What has it done? This is why he does these types of talks now, he has no tenure and academics wont play with him. He is not an historian in any meaningful sense anymore

Exposed? Not exactly publicly. There's been a few cases where judgements went against him, but no one is the wiser on the details. At least the great unwashed are not.

How do you research a call to action exactly?

Penny hasn't dropped yet, I see. Never mind.

Yes, people can look back at his criminal record, Nazi links and the fact he has destroyed records that done back his agenda.

You're kind of missing the point. People what to know what is so damning about what he says and why some are so frightened that he might say it. If you can't actually see that this actually gives him more legitimacy than anything he might actually say, I really would have to give up on civilization.

Meanwhile he should not be afforded the very free speech he wants to remove.

Nice, you're back to clichés. That didn't take long.

Good man. Lucky I believe in free speech so won't report that one.

Would it make more sense to you if I wrote it in Newspeak?

brianthebard

The Corinthian wrote: »

The point is this has not happened publicly. A few interested parties have had a few debates, but outside of that all we see is people like OhNoYouDidn't coming out with moronic clichés and slogans.

Your average man on the Clapham omnibus has no idea if his arguments are valid or not. He's not heard them, he's only heard a number of people of often questionable partisan leanings that he's an evil hate spreading Nazi.

Do you think he should take your word for it?

What do you mean it hasn't been done publicly? Late late show, independent interviews, austrian courts, does he need to be put in front of a television camera, with coverage on every station and have you dissect his argument before that will be publicly enough for you? Arguing that the poor working class man on the bus can't make up his own mind either is a bit rich of you.

Again, and I am not suggesting you are wrong, should we simply take your word for it?

This is rhetorical is it? Otherwise, am I just to take your word for everything you've said in your argument?

Het-Field

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I am 100% serious.

Physically stop him getting on the stage and then seek a proper explainiation as to what brain surgeon invited him to NUIG and hold them accountable.

What business is it of yours ? If other people wish to hear him (discredited or otherwise), then they should be allowed do so. As has been articulated, a democratic vote has been taken, and that should be respected. A vote to remove an invitation to Justin Barrett was voted down at a 2004 L&H Immigration Debate in UCD. The far left decided that they didnt like that result, so they physically assaulted him in the manner that you have suggested.

If you think he is a useles historian, not worth hearing, or irrelevant then dont bother going along. Nobody is entitled to physically assault him, or stop other people from hearing him.

The Corinthian

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

And he is likely to hear them in the debating chamber of the UCG students union?

More likely than from you.

The guy has done time for holocaust denial for ****s sake. Are you denying he doctors figures and was caught tampering with library records?

Nice one. Can't win an argument so you try to call you opponent a Holocaust denier so as to stifle it.

I made my point in my first post on this subject. Deny him the opportunity to speak and you actually create sympathy for him and give others the belief that there's something to what he's saying, not to mention all the publicity you give him to sell his books and send him off on his speaking tours where he is paid to speak.

The only people who benefit from such campaigns are those who make a living from political activism.

The chap is happily going about doing his bit to create the fourth reich and abusing naive idealists like yoursleves devotion to a peace and love version of free speech. Newsflash. He is a committed Nazi. Not some cheeky chappy down the college bar arguing for the sake of it. He cannot be reasoned with. This is the real wold.

You may be happy to take a risk that he may not cause damage, but I, and the hundreds who will be there, are not. There is no academic justification for this man to be in a university.

Up the revolution and all that jazz, so.

brianthebard

Het-Field wrote: »

What business is it of yours ?

What business is it of yours so if he protests?

The Corinthian

brianthebard wrote: »

This is rhetorical is it? Otherwise, am I just to take your word for everything you've said in your argument?

Take my arguments as arguments and nothing more. If I come out with 'facts' too, which I have not done, but you have, then please do not.

Het-Field

brianthebard wrote: »

What business is it of yours so if he protests?

Protests are fine...and I fully expect them. Its a business of mine if he encourages an act of assault against another Human Being. Where is the line drawn between vaild assault and invalid assault. Blurring the line could be a very dangerous thing

OhNoYouDidn't

Het-Field wrote: »

Protests are fine...and I fully expect them. Its a business of mine if he encourages an act of assault against another Human Being. Where is the line drawn between vaild assault and invalid assault. Blurring the line could be a very dangerous thing

Look, I 100% understand yourself and Corianthian on this. I have appointed myself a moral guardian and censor here and that is not a particularly good thing. There are dangerous potential outcomes to my approach here.

But I will make a stand on Nazi's and holocaust deniars who do so to sanitise the Third Reich with a view to increasing the possibilty of the fourth and feel quite justified in doing so. It as an extraodinary danger requiring extraordinary response.

Someone mentioned Justin Barratt. A dangerous little twerp, but a different league to Irving. I would not defend denying him a platform.

My final word to Corinthian. Much as I hate to clash swords with a fellow Gaiman fan, your condescending tone towords me and the 'plebs' does you no favours.

Zynks

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I am 100% serious.

Physically stop him getting on the stage and then seek a proper explainiation as to what brain surgeon invited him to NUIG and hold them accountable.

If I didn't know any better, looking at this statement I would wonder what are you trying to avoid being exposed. You should notice you are making a disservice to your cause.

OhNoYouDidn't

Zynks wrote: »

If I didn't know any better, looking at this statement I would wonder what are you trying to avoid being exposed. You should notice you are making a disservice to your cause.

Exposed?

Proven lies about the Holocaust, Hitlers role in it and an attempt to favourably compare Allied actions during the war like Dresden to Axis ones like Auschwitz which is what he does.

He calls Ann Franks diary a forgery ffs.

Thats what I don't feel falls under the 'freedom of speech' bracket. And you know the rest.

People may disagree with the no free speech for Nazi's line, but don't pretentend you don't understand it.

Kama

I don't understand it; I find it logically incoherent, it translates as 'no free speech for stuff I happen not to like' tbqfh. I think it's more honest and coherent to say that one isn't for free speech, than to qualify it with 'except Nazis'. Arguing that its a singular incomparable case also seems misguided and difficult to support: no free speech for Terrarist, Zionists, Anarchists, insert your group of choice.

Yet the strongest argument for me is that pragmatic one: ban them, and you grant them mystique, grant them the position of the victim, and create an impression that their arguments are so strong that they can't be refuted. As far as I can tell, Irvings career and livelihood now relies on him exploiting his 'controversial' or 'banned' nature. Student groups with little imagination of what a 'radical' statement is invite him, equally imagination-limited groups call for him to be beaten the crap out of.

Everyone wins, YAY! :rolleyes:

In my epeenion, the 'platform' and 'intellectual capital' is being given him by the 'No platform for Nazis' approach; it's seems quite counter-productive to me. Rather than 'starving them of oxygen', it's a little more like mushrooms tbh; keep em in the dark and feed them sh1t, and they keep growing...

Zynks

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Exposed?

Proven lies about the Holocaust, Hitlers role in it and an attempt to favourably compare Allied actions during the war like Dresden to Axis ones like Auschwitz which is what he does.

He calls Ann Franks diary a forgery ffs.

Thats what I don't feel falls under the 'freedom of speech' bracket. And you know the rest.

People may disagree with the no free speech for Nazi's line, but don't pretentend you don't understand it.

I started with "If I didn't know any better". i.e., if I was a student that didn't spend much time looking into certain aspects of history I would wonder what's with your intolerance.

If I just saw this attitude I would become far more interested in finding out why this guy is being censored by people who claim to be supporters of freedom of speech. You will do much more for your cause if you go to the session to argument and destroy the guy's message with valid and well constructed argumentation.

By censoring and threatening him you are giving him the image of the oppressed underdog.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Het-Field

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Look, I 100% understand yourself and Corianthian on this. I have appointed myself a moral guardian and censor here and that is not a particularly good thing. There are dangerous potential outcomes to my approach here.

But I will make a stand on Nazi's and holocaust deniars who do so to sanitise the Third Reich with a view to increasing the possibilty of the fourth and feel quite justified in doing so. It as an extraodinary danger requiring extraordinary response.

Someone mentioned Justin Barratt. A dangerous little twerp, but a different league to Irving. I would not defend denying him a platform.

My final word to Corinthian. Much as I hate to clash swords with a fellow Gaiman fan, your condescending tone towords me and the 'plebs' does you no favours.

But if you look at it this way. In February 2008 David Iriving was given a platform to a potential 4 million citizens. He aired his views over 20 or so minutes. In the months subsequent, we have not seen one iota of evience that his appearence has brough Ireland more to the far right. In fact since the economic crisis began, the scene has been ripe for all kind of mad anti immigrant nut jobs to air their prejudiced greviences about the credit crunch, and whos fault it was. In reality, not even Aine Ni Chonaill and her "pressure group" the Immigration Control Platform have appeared.

I have not seen or heard of the rise of any Neo Nzi activity on Dublin's streets, nor have I heard of any clandstine plans for marches or rallys !

The wonderful thing about history is hindsight. I am always open to new views on the scale of the holocaust....but I will never deny it. There is unequivocale proof that it occured, and it is vital that we learn about it. It is highly unlikely that there will be any "fourth reich". So I suggest you dont loose any sleep over Iriving's appearence ata debate, which may not even be that well attended

brianthebard

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I don't say this to stir shít, but I wonder if you actually studied the holocaust or fascism at university df, because if you had you should be familiar with the fact that those sort of questions are still asked in academia. No one here who said they don't want Irving to visit Galway are saying the holocaust is beyond revision. But it is beyond negation.

Also to say that Germany Austria and others will not allow the holocaust to be revised is nonsense, holocaust denial laws are not holocaust no you can't research and question the facts laws.

regards free speech, one of the "compelling" arguments for bringing him to the uni was so that the collective could berate him and his views. There was no question of debate, or of considering his opinions. Why would there be? at no point did the yes side say his views should be heard because they are equally valid as a real historian. That's because they are not.

DeVore

Ironically if you silence him by force, you do a great deal more to revive the ideals of the Third Reich then that muppet ever will.

DeV.

DeVore

DeVore wrote: »

Ironically if you silence him by force, you do a great deal more to revive the ideals of the Third Reich then that muppet ever will.

DeV.

QFT.

When I was in UCC this exact same debate kicked off. I think anyone who doesn't realise that silencing the voices of those that we disagree with is tantamount to fascism has a deluded sense of freedom.

nesf

Ironically if a big song and dance wasn't made about the man then the vast majority of the country wouldn't even know he was speaking in NUIG again. I've never understood why groups that want to prevent the spread of a particular viewpoint, give said viewpoint so much free publicity.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

brianthebard

What did you say about adult responses before? Also if you did then you know that most of your own argument is invalid.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

OhNoYouDidn't

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You have dodged this one, so I'll ask again. On the basis he is not an academic and is not presenting a paper to academics, what 'academic inquiry' and 'academic freedom' are you trying to protect?

The Corinthian

nesf wrote: »

I've never understood why groups that want to prevent the spread of a particular viewpoint, give said viewpoint so much free publicity.

As far as radical groups such as the ANL-SWP are concerned, it increases memberships, gives them a platform, sells papers.

As to how organizations like the ADL benefit; some such Norman Finkelstein has been very critical, and so have subsequently been targeted politically.

OhNoYouDidn't

The Corinthian wrote: »

As far as radical groups such as the ANL-SWP are concerned, it increases memberships, gives them a platform, sells papers.

As to how organizations like the ADL benefit; some such Norman Finkelstein has been very critical, and so have subsequently been targeted politically.

So its those greedy commies and crazy Jews? :rolleyes:

The Corinthian

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

So its those greedy commies and crazy Jews? :rolleyes:

Yes, let's oversimplify everything as clichés.

Is Finkelstein a sane Jew then? Maybe Stalinists are more altruistic than those money-grubbing Trots?

Zynks

OhNoYouDidn't, your views are too intolerant.

At least respect the fact that UCG students have freely decided to invite Irving to speak, and he has freely accepted. It is not your call if this should go ahead or not.

Your freedom goes as far as it doesn't undermine other people's rights. All the people involved are adults that are capable of making their own minds, and don't require censorship nor babysitting.

It really is that simple.