Irving v. Lipstadt

Transcripts

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

Pages 196 - 200 of 222

<< 1-5221-222 >>

 1     I may secondly point out that were it not for
 2the clandestine activities of the violent and extremist
 3bodies dedicated to destroy my right to free speech and
 4the rights of all audiences in the United States and
 5elsewhere, at Berkley, at Dublin, Pretoria or wherever, to
 6hear my opponents and equally dedicated to intimidating my
 7publishers and smashing bookstall windows, where it not
 8for their hate campaign I would have been able to continue
 9in the normal manner with my exemplary professional
10career. It rings hollow that the same shabby bodies who
11have generated the hatred against me now point their
12crooked finger at my and abuse me using the very
13considerable privileges afforded to them by this court, to
14continuing to make my voice heard whenever I can. When
15I use words to describe them in detail, which they well
16deserve, they ring their hands lament about extremism.
17     I have pointed out that so far as Germany is
18concerned, none of the German bodies who invited me to
19speak was illegal or banned. In fact when first invited
20to address the German Peoples Union I wrote to and
21telephoned the Germany Embassy, as the documents in my
22discovery show, and asked them specifically whether this
23was a legal and constitutional body. The Embassy
24confirmed in writing on July 25th 1984 that was. The
25extremism was in the eye of beholder. The further to the
26left the beholder squinted from, the more distant these

.   P-196



 1bodies may have seem from him.
 2     We have heard a lot from Professor Funke, the
 3sociologist of the Free University in Berlin. My Lord,
 4I am now going to pass over the next two pages and
 5continue from the bottom of page 94. As for his
 6allegation, the allegation by Professor Funke, here in
 7court, my Lord, I also ask you to disregard those two
 8pages.
 9 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     Yes, I think I know why, and I think that is
10very right and proper.
11 MR IRVING:     As for his allegation here in court that I should
12have known that various allegations were going to be
13banned in years ahead, it is difficult for an Englishmen
14coming from a country with deeper democratic traditions
15than Professor Funke's, to implant himself into the brain
16or mindset of the authoritarian German mould where book
17burning is now once again de rigueur, where a German
18academic like Funke does not bat an eyelid upon hearing
19that a teacher is still serving a seven-year jail sentence
20imposed for chairing a lecture at which I spoke, where two
21District Court judges who acquitted that teacher were
22reprimanded and finally retired in disgrace by order of
23the Minister of Justice, and where governments recently
24have begun routinely banning fringe opposition parties and
25circumscribing even their legal activities.
26     My general response to this attempt at "guilt by

.   P-197



 1association" which we have seen a lot over the last few
 2weeks, is to compare it with the worst accesses of the
 3inquisitions conducted by Senator Joseph McCarthy. In
 4Britain the courts have always viewed it as repugnant;
 5most recently I believe Morland J in another court in the
 6same building. Hollywood's finest scriptwriters, many of
 7them Jewish, had their careers vernichtet, to use that
 8word again, by the reckless allegation that they had
 9associated with known communists. Now come these
10Defendants levelling the mirror image of these same
11charges at me. McCarthyism was rightly exposed for what
12it was in more recent years and more enlightened years,
13and these Defendants for their own purposes are seeking to
14turn the clock back.
15     As far as the United States are concerned, apart
16from the Institute of Historical Review, which I shall
17deal with separately, the one organization identified by
18learned counsel for the Defence, as I understand it, is
19the National Alliance. First let me point out that, no
20doubt with good reason, the Defendants have decided not to
21call their expert on political extremism in the United
22States, Professor Levin, and they have withdrawn his
23expert report. I think "junked" was the word. Mr Rampton
24used the word "junked" or "dumped" I believe. Had they
25not I would have "debunked" it I think. We have,
26therefore, no general expert evidence as to the nature of

.   P-198



 1he National Alliance, and I think I ought to emphasise
 2that matter. The court is probably as much in the dark
 3about this group as anybody else.
 4     The Defence invites the court to study the
 5leaflets put about by that body at one meeting, but could
 6offer to the court not the slightest evidence that I was
 7aware of such leaflets or, for that matter, if they are
 8once again falling back on negligence, that I ought to
 9have been aware of them.
10     If, as I submit, the meetings were organized by
11individual friends of mine acting outside whatever their
12capacity, if any, within the National Alliance may have
13been, there is no reason why I should have read such
14leaflets if they were indeed on offer.
15     As for the IHR, the Institute of Historical
16Review, I have little to add to what I have stated in my
17various written replies and on the witness stand. It is
18clearly unsatisfactory, though not surprising, that
19establishment scholars feel the need to dismiss any rival
20body of scholars or historians as extremists, merely on
21the basis that these others propagate a different version
22of history from their own consensus versions.
23     The officials of the IHR nearly all hold
24academic qualifications. True they are not trained
25historians, but then neither are some of the most famous
26names of historians in both ancient and contemporary

.   P-199



 1times. It is clear from correspondence before the court
 2that I recognize he short-comings in the old IHR, and
 3I was keen to introduce them to new speakers, including
 4mainline scholars, historians like John Toland who did in
 5fact speak there, Professor Ernst Nolte and Michael
 6Beschloss. I am not and never have been an official of
 7the IHR. At most, one of many friendly advisers. As for
 8speaking engagements, my association with the IHR has been
 9the same as my association with (I use the word
10"association" again), for example, Cambridge University
11Fabian Society because I spoke there too, or the Trinity
12College Dublin Lit. &Debc., or any other body of
13enlightened people keen to hear alternative views.
14     Professor Evans in his odious attempts to smear
15and defile my name which I hope will long haunt him in the
16common rooms at Cambridge, called me a frequent speaker at
17the IHR, and may I say "so what?" None of my lectures had
18a Holocaust denial or anti-Semitic or extremist theme.
19I spoke on Churchill, on Pearl Harbour, on Rommel, on the
20Goebbels' Diaries, on my Eichmann papers find, and on
21general problems of writing history. The court has
22learned that I have in fact addressed functions of the IHR
23only five times in seventeen years, one lecture each
24time. No amount of squirming by this expert witness could
25increase that figure. It is true that I socialized before
26or after the event with the IHR officials and their

.   P-200


         
<< 1-5221-222 >>