David Irving Invited to Speak at NUI Galway

“… I don’t know if the organisers have considered the consequences of the EU Framework Decision on racism and xenophobia, which was agreed to by EU ministers at the Justice and Home Affairs Council in Luxembourg on 19 April 2007. The text requires that EU States make it a punishable crime to publicly condone, deny or grossly trivialise crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour religion, descent or national or ethnic origin. Member States may choose to punish only conduct which is either carried out in a manner likely to disturb public order or which is threatening, abusive or insulting. Whatever position one takes about whether Irving should be punished for such crimes, it is an entirely different matter to welcome this vile bottom-feeder to our university and give him a prestigious platform …” (more)

[William Schabas, PhD studies in human rights, 26 January]


16 Responses to “David Irving Invited to Speak at NUI Galway”

  1. […] writing my previous post, I have read (hat tip: Ninth Level Ireland) a trenchant statement of the opposite view by Prof William Schabas, Director of the Irish Centre […]

  2. I don’t know if anyone has clued you in, but tyranny masquerading as law is still tyranny. Take away one’s freedom of speech and people will find other ways to express themselves. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind, you fool.

  3. Nigel McNamee Says:

    In Ireland questioning the number of Holocaust deaths is not illegal nor is it contrary to EU law. We have by law the right to free speech. Is Irvings opinions anymore severe than say Chris Andrews TD whose views on Israel’s aggression a few weeks ago were condemned by the Israeli government? We are not the former USSR. Irving has the right to speak at UCG and UCG has the right to hear him and question him and those who disagree may debate him. Censorship is not an option.

  4. Robert Lynch Says:

    In this world, at least in the West so far, you can question the existence of God!
    You can question any scientific theory with impunity.
    THERE IS ONLY ONE THING YOU CANNOT QUESTION! The “Holocaust.” At the end of WWII the Jews started the litany of the “Holocaust of 6 million.” Sound familiar? That was the practice run.
    Interestingly neither Churchill nor Eisenhower ever wrote one word about the “Holocaust.”
    That is not one German record of any plan to kill jews. This from the most compulsive record keepers of any nation on earth. The explanation is that the plan was so secret that it was never committed to writing, yet everyone knew about it!
    If you believe that I have several toll bridges to sell CHEAP!

  5. John Tillmann Says:

    Sending people to jail only because of their questioning of the “holocaust”,
    only serves to illustrate the lack of merit upon which this issue stands. If it were a true event and its supporters were not afraid of it being freely debated, then there would be no need to have a Middle Ages law where people are imprisoned for their dissent on this ludicrous subject.

  6. grendon underwood Says:

    Robert Lynch sums it all up perfectly.
    Mr Schabas should back up his ravings with some facts.
    How about some science and forensics to prove even a part of the
    holocaust story may be true. No doubt many jews and non jews were
    victims of WW2 but there is virtually no evidence of homicidal mass
    gassings ever having taken place in the camps or elsewhere. Witness
    statements all discredited in many court hearings around the world.
    I could be wrong of course,those clever German Nazis May have found
    a way of suspending the laws of physics during those years.
    I also have toll bridges for sale, and there is an elephant in my basement.

  7. Hans Schneider Says:

    if the holocaust really happened to the degree that it is claimed, no one would question the facts at all. However it is the blatant and excessive number of 6 Million that caused the questioning in the first place.

  8. And you honestly think that the text on so-called ‘racism and xenophobia’ isn’t an infringement of human liberation and the very health of objective debate?

    This is quickly turning into the introduction of ‘Newspeak’! What next? Televisual viewing monitors behind our living room landscape painting above the fireplace?!

    People who make comments like yours give themselves away. You clearly have an agenda. You also have clearly never read any one of Mr Irving’s books either. He, like hundreds of other historians and researchers, has made an honest attempt to tell the impartial and objective truth about the events of WWI and it’s origins. The truth may not be what you have been taught in schools and it may not be in alignment with whatever religious groups dictates that it MUST be, but the fact of the matter is, goverment archives get opened up more and more as the years pass, some reveal diaries and documents that hadn’t been known existed before, scientific research is done that others ere either too afriad to do, or didn’t think need done.

    READ Mr Irvings books (they are available as free downloads from his website), read the work of Mr Germar Rudolf, Mr Mattogno etc (also available as free downloads from vho.org) THEN make up your mind. You have NO RIGHT to vilifiy and verbally abuse someone based on work they have done or comments they have made in reference to their work when you know NOTHING of their work!

    Have some dignity, be objective, have an open mind before you make your judgments.

  9. I beg your pardon, that should read “…WWII and it’s origins.” (line 11)

  10. “… it is an entirely different matter to welcome this vile bottom-feeder to our university and give him a prestigious platform …”

    This sounds like he’s promoting “hate” against David Irving. What a hypocrite!

  11. Laszlo Bardos Says:

    Article 19 of the UN Human Rights Charter explicitly states:
    “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

  12. William Shabas has too many predjuidices to comment rationally on anything. In reality his Phd is worthless and won’t stand the test of time. Dismiss him as a crank.

  13. In japan they put the month and then the day. It is february 6 in japan.

  14. Does Schabas’s definition of ‘Human rights’ extend to my right to hear someone else’s opinions without people like himself worrying how my thought processes might be affected as a result?

    I’ve assigned myself the task of ‘protecting’ Schabas from lies and hateful ideas that might cause him to attack Jews and homosexuals.

    I’m going to spend a few hours in his private library with a marker pen, carefully deleting anything that might cause him to be incited to hatred. He probably won’t thank me for it, but I’ll explain that I’m better equipped than he is to manage ‘controversial’ points of view due to my superior education and intellect, so really I’m doing him a favour. If I allow him to read “Hitler’s War” it’ll simply give David Irving ‘legitimacy’.

    While he’s reeling by the patronizing insult I’ve just thrown at him I’ll place a filter on his internet connection. He doesn’t know it yet, but he’ll be far happier and less prone to violence if I ‘protect’ him from these dangerous lies.

    Censorship is never about silencing the speaker – it’s about deafening the audience.

  15. It’s rather well-known that Irving is not just a noted bigot, but a shameless fraud.

    And it’s an embarrassment to an academic institution to host a historical fraudster, even as a curiosity I would think.

    Why not have the bloke share a podium with a convicted child molester who wishes to continue working with children, or a convicted wife beater to talk about marital relations?

  16. Brian, why are you comparing Irving with child molesters and wife beaters? As far as I’m aware Irving has never hurt anyone in his life. He’s not even inciting people to break the law. Are you seriously comparing offensive opinions with child abuse?

    It’s a common cheap trick, slandering your opponent by associating him with genuine criminals.

    Put it this way, why allow YOU a platform? I mean we wouldn’t allow child murderers or rapists a platform, would we?

    I certainly wouldn’t like it of someone who thought child abuse was as harmless as free speech started hanging around a school. You don’t live near a school, do you Brian?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: