| |||
Unless correspondents ask us not to, this Website will post selected letters that it receives and invite open debate. |
Snsenica
of USA, writes
Sunday, July 29, 2001
Amen to that
I'N NO lawyer, but before reading the incoherent ramblings of the Court of Appeals in thjis case, I had a lot of respect for the British penchant for reason in discourse. It seems rather simple to me. What the hell is a "Holocaust Denier"? The term must have some definite meaning since it is the basis of a goldmine for the accuser. Did the court spend any time defining the term? Not from what I could see.
I have to admit that I don't have a week to read carefully the longwinded wandering discussions. Anyway, if ever visit England I will be very cafefull to obey the laws lest I be brought before a rambling judge.
DAVID IRVING writes: I must admit there are puzzling bits in the judgment of the Court of Appeal. I would have been ashamed to introduce such fuzzy logic into one of my books. See below:
Department of How-Do-They-Figure-That-Out? |
Three British Lord Justices of Appeal get their wigs in a twist over the smear-phrase Holocaust Denier:
-- Lord Justices Pill, Mantell, and Buxton, explaining their reason for refusing the Irving Appeal. [Full judgment] |
We
are not persuaded that the expression can be
given any precise technical meaning or that
'Holocaust denier' defines a class of persons
precisely. Having regard to the views expressed
by [David Irving] about a range of
events in the history of the Third Reich, we
agree with the Judge that the applicant may be
described as a Holocaust
denier.
David Irving