Wednesday, April 06, 2005

The details of the Irving/Lipstadt Trial are a lot more complicated than most people realize.

For example, Lipstadt did indeed spread a false report about Irving. Lipstadt writes in her current book, "After my book was published I learned that this report was indeed false." p72 "History on Trial"

Lipstadt is still misleading people about basic facts. At her talk at Barnes & Noble she talked about a Dachau survivor being grateful to her for fighting Irving in court. This gave the false impression that Irving denies Dachau! And to claim, as Lipstadt does, that Irving says "some Jews may have died, but just a few" is a malicious lie. Irving said on day 2 of the trial, "whether it was of the order of millions or not, I would hesitate to specify, but I would say it was certainly more than one million, certainly less than four million"

Lipstadt has a pattern of untruth. She pulled the comments off her blog complaining that some people were saying "that Irving did not lose the trial". Now that is just stupid, the woman distorts things. NO ONE posting comments on her blog said Irving didn't lose, what was said was that Irving should not have lost the trial. See the difference? Lipstadt's version is as dishonest as her term "Holocaust Denier"

There is such an immature, arrogant and dishonest approach by Lipstadt and others to this entire thing. On page 107 of her book we learn that one of her lawyers at her trial, Rampton, dishonestly acted like he could not remember the name of the Institute for Historical Review. Like a child Rampton asks Lipstadt, "Did it scare you when I could not remember its name?" Pretending not to remember is Rampton's game he reveals to Lipstadt, "this was my way of showing how insignificant an organization I think it is."

Lisptadt's campaign against C-SPAN is vicious and dishonest. She writes on her blog, " Finally, I was not trying to deny Irving a right to speak. I was simply refusing to be pushed into a debate which is no debate and with someone who is a proven liar. How can you debate a liar?"

First of all, C-SPAN was not asking her to debate Irving. Second, her damn book is about the trial with Irving, there is nothing wrong with C-SPAN wanting to show Irving talking about the trial too. All C-SPAN was trying to do was give its audience a chance to hear Irving's version of the trial. For God sakes this vindictive campaign against C-SPAN (the best thing on TV) is disgusting AND it is also hypocritical: In her book's notes p 312, Lipstadt writes "For Irving's version of his youth and his legal travails, see www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/PQ17Libel/Background220170.html" There are even more links to Irving's web site in the notes of her book, here is another from page 315: http://www.fpp.co.uk/Inner/Circle.html

And speaking of hypocrisy, are the intellectuals of Jewish Studies and Holocaust studies going to continue to sweep this under the rug?: At the end of World War II, thousands of Jews set up 1,255 concentration camps for German civilians -- German men, women, children and babies. There Jews beat, whipped, tortured and murdered the Germans. Lipstadt had the gall to refer to Jewish author John Sack as one of the "anti-Semites" and "neo-Nazis" for daring to write a book about the actions of the Jews who ran these concentration camps.

Troy writes, "yes, calling Irving a racist is a fair cop IMV; but Irving sued Lipstadt on more than just this"

It may be fair to call Irving a racist but not with regard to the libel trial because Irving didn't sue Lipstadt for calling him a racist. Irving sued over specific things Lipstadt had written, he didn't mention "racist" and I don't think she wrote that in her book. (she may or may not have but since Irving wasn't suing about it, it should not have been an issue at the trial and it was not fair to use it in the decision)

In fact in Irving's "Statement of Claim", "The Words Complained of" does not mention "racist" but the first thing Irving mentions in his complaint is the part of the book where Lipstadt writes that he had agreed to appear at that conference. Irving explains "The Natural or Ordinary Meaning of the Words Complained of" is that he was "agreeing to appear in public in support of and alongside violent and extremist speakers including representatives of the violent and extremist anti-Semitic Russian group Pamyat and of the Iranian-backed Hezbollah and of the fundamentalist Islamic organization Hamas" and that a false report claiming he did libeled him.

The fact is Lipstadt was wrong on that point. She admits in her latest book, "I learned that this report was indeed false." p72 "History on Trial"

Why the Judge did not find in his favor on this point is beyond me. I think the Judge felt pressure with all this "history on trial" nonsense. The case was not about that but rather if Lipstadt had libeled him. Introducing this "racist" stuff when Irving was not suing about that was unfair in my opinion. Even racists can be libeled. Being a racist or not has nothing to do with if one has been libeled or not on the points Irving raised.

And what the hell does Lipstadt's term "dangerous" spokespersons for Holocaust denial supposed to mean? What exactly is "dangerous" about it even if he was denying the Holocaust? The woman is reckless.

No comments: