|
Andrew E. Mathis, Ph.D. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, accuses Mr Irving of endorsing thuggish behaviour like the supporters of Deborah Lipstadt, Monday, May 17, 2004 
Thinking thugs Dear filth, -- Whenever a friend of colleague points me to your Web site, I always read with disgust. But I read with particular disgust your reaction to the thugs looting your planned address in Sussex -- not so much because thugs carried out an exercise in cultural fascism and denied you the right to speech, but rather because you made this statement: "From Chicago to Portland to Copenhagen, and now quiet little Arundel in Sussex, these adorable people, these supporters of Deborah Lipstadt and the people like her, all follow the same washing-list of instructions, issued by the same sinister folks, and don't seem to realize it."
I can't decide who constitutes the greater filth. Perhaps you can help. Is it the actual thugs who threaten people like me with violence after you post my public information, or is it you, who gives your tacit approval to such behavior? Or perhaps you're filth independent of the thugs who support you? Well, it's not important. I will not sign off, however, without first offering you some advice. That most famous of Jews reportedly said that those people who live by the sword die by the sword. So a suggestion: Perhaps if you reigned in the simians who predominate among your supporters, then over-zealous anti-Irvingites would be less inclined to violence and other unproductive activity. Think it over, on the day you put aside per week for thinking.
THE inclusion of the name of scholar Deborah Lipstadt was deserved. It was earned by virtue of two documents that were disclosed to me in her Discovery, relating to violent measures that had been prepared if I should have the cheek to be amongst the audience during her "keynote address" at the London Book Fair some years back. The Chief Rabbi assured her that certain thuggish measures had been taken to ensure my silence. I was so shocked to read these two messages that I placed them on my website. Within a matter of hours her lawyers, Mishcon de Reya, required that they be removed from public view, as they pointed out -- quite rightly -- that the two documents were privileged and covered by what is known in law as the Implied Undertaking. I removed the documents from the website at once. At a different hearing, before Mr Justice Moses, her lawyers tried to have me committed to prison for posting documents they considered to be privileged. Moses J wisely did not agree with them on that occasion. I was ready to repost the two documents and others like them instantly, had Lipstadt given evidence at the January--March 2000 trial, since they would then have come into the public domain. She decided not to enter the witness box, -- in effect, she pleaded the Fifth -- so the documents remain secret. Yes, most of the whiners and whingers are on the enemy side, and all of the apologists for thuggery*, it seems, including our correspondent above. [* The correct Indian word is, I understand, thuggee rather than thuggery, but the latter is the more common usage].
| |||||||||||
![[]](../../online/std/dings/list.gif){kind=small}
Mr.
Irving, if you are under some sort of dual delusion
that (1) Prof. Lipstadt's supporters resort to
thuggery, or that (2) your own supporters don't,
then I'd be happy to forward to you the several
dozen e-mails I received after you
unscrupulously
DAVID
IRVING writes: 
