Irving v. Lipstadt

Transcripts

Holocaust Denial on Trial, Trial Transcripts, Day 32: Electronic Edition

Pages 186 - 190 of 222

<< 1-5221-222 >>
    And also the broader surrounding countryside, if
 1deems that to be, reach up for the full transcript of
 2whatever that speech was, and ask yourself why I have put
 3that remark in and see what else is in that speech. Then
 4I submit that the alleged anti-Semitic remark fails into
 5insignificance, if it is even taken to be anti-Semitic at
 6all.
 7     For 30 years, as I set out earlier in this room
 8this afternoon, I have found myself subjected to vicious
 9attack by bodies, acting, as they freely admit, as Jews.
10For 30 years I endeavoured to turn the other cheek and did
11nothing about it. I hope I succeeded. Mr Rampton drew
12attention to the fun I poked at Simon Wiesenthal. I made
13a joke in a public meeting about his, an explicit joke
14I made about his other than good looks, if I can put it
15like that. Mr Rampton called that remark "anti-Semitic".
16It was not. It was a joke about the man's looks, of the
17same genre that Mr Rampton made when he enquired
18rhetorically of Professor Funke whether a certain
19outer-fringe Swedish revisionist seen in one video shown
20to the court with long blonde hair was a man or woman. It
21is exactly the same kind of throw-away remark.
22     In view of the manner in which the two Simon
23Wiesenthal centres have been abusing my name in their fund
24rasing leaflets, and endeavouring to destroy my own
25livelihood, the court might think that my fun-making,
26while tasteless, remark was not undeserved, possibly it

.   P-186



 1was even rather reserved. It was not anti-Semitic.
 2Mr Wiesenthal is no more immune from criticism either as a
 3person or as a public figure than I am.
 4     Searching hopefully for evidence of
 5"anti-Semitism" in me, the investigation by he Board of
 6Deputies in 1992 came up empty handed in their secret
 7report which they planted on Canadian government files.
 8They confirmed that I had dealings with my Jews in my
 9professional life, and they added that I "used this as an
10excuse" to say that I am not an anti-Semite. These people
11are hard to please. "He is far too clever an opponent"
12the Board wrote in this secret report, "to openly admit to
13being an anti-Semite". "We endorse all condemnation of
14anti-Semitism", they quote me as writing in my newsletter
15back in 1982. All of these things, including the actual
161992 secret intelligence report filed by he Board of
17Deputies, were disclosed to these Defendants in my
18discovery. The Defendants quoted a passage from a speech
19delivered, they said, in May 1992. In fact, as my diary
20confirms, it was delivered in May 1993. So it may be that
21the year was not accidental, because by that time my
22family and I had been subjected to a catalogue of insults
23by the leaders of these various bodies. If a writer's
24books are banned and burnt, his bookshops are smashed, his
25hands are manacled, his person insulted, his printers are
26burnt down, his access to the world's archives is denied,

.   P-187



 1his family's livelihood is destroyed, his phone lines are
 2jammed with obscene and threatening phone calls, death
 3threats, his house is beset by violent, angry mobs, the
 4walls and posts around his address are plastered with
 5stickers inciting the public to violence against him, and
 6a wreath is sent to him with a foul and taunting message
 7on the death of his oldest daughter, then it ill-behoves
 8people to offer cheap criticism if the writer finally
 9commits the occasional indiscretion and lapse in referring
10to the people who are doing it to him.
11     I singled out in this -- well, I am not going to
12comment at length on these evil allegations and slurs.
13They lend fire and fury to the original libel complained
14of, that is my view. I submit that the word "racism" in
15the ears of the man in the Clapham Omnibus is about
16Stephen Lawrence and cone heads in the Ku Klux Klan. It
17conjures up images of murder and thuggery and violence and
18foul-mouthed graffiti. In deliberating on the conduct of
19the case and on the appropriate scale of damages, your
20Lordship will no doubt bear them in mind, these
21allegations made against me.
22     I voluntarily provided all my entire private
23diaries to the Defendants in this action. They asked to
24see a few pages and I said "take the lot". Fifty-nine
25volumes of private diaries, 20 million words on paper and
26on disk. Mr Rampton produced from them one nineteen-word

.   P-188



 1ditty attached to another quite harmless one about the
 2"messica dressica" of my daughter Jessica. To find in
 3all those diaries and telephone conversations written
 4since 1959 just one nineteen-word ditty that you could
 5trot out for the media, does not suggest that I am as
 6obsessed with race and racism as learned counsel and, for
 7that matter, the newspapers that report this case too.
 8     I repeat, this multi-million dollar Defence team
 9has found one nineteen-word nonsense poem, recorded in my
10diary with other Lear- or Belloc-type rhythmic verses as
11having been recited to my own nine-month old infant who
12has, I am glad to say, grown into a delightful girl of six
13now, bearing none of the traces of the poison that
14Mr Rampton recklessly suggested that I had fed to her.
15Fortunately, I did not sing to her "Three Blind Mice".
16     Similarly, from my hundreds of lectures and
17talks these very proper spaniels have sniffed out a few
18lines of music-hall whit of the type that a Dave Allen
19might indulge in, with Mr Trevor McDonald as one of the
20butts. That in Mr Rampton's words is racism. One wonders
21which well-shielded part of the modern world is inhabited
22by learned counsel. Can anyone go and live there?
23     The references that I have made to what is now
24formally called the Instrumentalization of the Holocaust,
25have also been adduced as evidence of anti-Semitism. Are
26non-Jews disbarred from making a criticism that is made

.   P-189



 1increasing vocally now by others like Professor Peter
 2Novak or by Leon Weiseltier, the literary editor of the
 3New Republic who wrote on May 3rd 1993: "It is a sad
 4fact, said the principal philanthropist of the grotesque
 5Simon Wiesenthal Centre of Los Angeles, that Israel and
 6Jewish education and all the other familiar buzz words no
 7longer seem to rally Jews behind the community, the
 8Holocaust though works every time."
 9     I turn to page 89, my Lord, the third
10paragraph. In general, I would invite your Lordship to
11pick out one such utterance as a sample, to reach then for
12the transcript of the entire speech, to take note of the
13rest of its content, its clear reference to the very real
14sufferings of the Jews, the liquidations, the Bruns report
15and the rest, and then ask: Was the remark true? Was it
16explicable? Was it rhetorically justified as part of the
17skilled lecturer's armoury?
18     Your Lordship has been told of my remarks that
19more women died on Kennedy's back seat than in the gas
20chamber at Auschwitz, the one shown to the tourists. It
21is a tasteless but quite literally true. It is, as I have
22shown in this court, even true if the main gas chamber at
23Birkenau is brought into the equation, crematorium (ii),
24the factory of death, because the eyewitnesses lied about
25that one too. The Poles have admitted that the Auschwitz
26building and its chimney are a post-1948 fake. My

.   P-190


<< 1-5221-222 >>