3-10-05-
Deborah Lipstadt discusses history, Holocaust denial, British vs. US libel law and David Irving, convicted denier and liar ...
Lipstadt is interviewed by Allan Stypeck and Mike Cuthbert, "The Book Guys".
http://www.bookguys.com/archives.htm
(Scroll down the page to item #0510)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Irving is not a "convicted denier". You cannot be convicted for something which is, a. Not a crime and, b. For which there has been no trial. Irving lost an action against Lipstadt.
You colonials seem to have a problem with British libel law, which is based on the priciple that if you say something bad about someone you had better be able to substantiate it. I think that this principle is grounded in something called pressumtion of innocence. Don't you have that in the land of the free?
Nonsense. You cannot be proven "guilty" of something which is not a crime. Irving was deemed to be a holocaust denier by judge Grey. Not a crime, no guilt.
What have "racist beliefs" got to do with anything? The phrase I'm objecting to is "convicted denier". If you can't understand that a person cannot be convicted of something which is not a crime and for which he or she has not been charged maybe you should analyse the vapidity of your own pronouncements.
Yes, very good semantic legedermain David. In the context of the quote, however, the phrase "convicted denier" was clearly intended to convey a spurious impression of legality.
Using the terms "convicted" and "guilty", in reference to Irving, in the context of this trial gives the impression that Irving was on trial, rather than Lipstadt. That's not an assertion, it's an observation.
"As you can see, when all else fails -- and in Irving's case, all else certainly failed -- Irving's supporters turn to vapid word games."
Wrong. Irving is not a convicted denier because he hasn't been convicted for denial. It's that easy. No amount of apologia will change that fact. These are the same games Irving likes to play.
Post a Comment