| ||
Unless correspondents ask us not to, this Website will post selected letters that it receives and invite open debate. |
S.G.
of St Paul's
School, London, writes on Wednesday, November 28, 2001
and an interesting discussion develops ...
Richard Rampton to address British scholars
I AM a 16 year old student at St Paul's School,
London, and am 
aware
that Mr. Richard Rampton, QC, is soon going to
perform a speech about "the historical facts of the
Holocaust", and, more specifically, your denial of it in
the current Libel case.
I await this speech with much interest. I am currently learning about the Third Reich, and moreover take time outside of lessons to research the topic. I find it astounding that anyone could merely suggest that the Holocaust did not happen.
Rising above the obvious magnitude of the topic, and the propaganda that therefore goes with it from all angles, the historical evidence is so overwhelming that I am truly amazed by your "beliefs". I am Jewish. However, even if my religious inclinations lay elsewhere, I do not believe I could ignore the quite blatant fact that you are a deep-rooted anti-Semitist.
Your website itself is written in such an overly-formal, spiteful manner, that it seems your attempts to hide your anti-Semitism are weak.
Your labelling of Ms Lipstadt as a "dragon-slayer" would suggest you bear a bitter grudge towards someone who has exposed your "historical truths" as intrinsically prejudiced propaganda.
It is indeed ironic that one of your main arguments against the Holocaust is that British propaganda was so powerful at the time of the Second World War, and yet the biased opinion that you put forward is, by virtue of your evidently widespread number of supporters, the most powerful propaganda of its kind.
I would be grateful if you would write back in some form.
[Website note: we are withholding S's full name as a courtesy]
Dear
S.,
IN the interests of fair play and free speech, I think that I should be allowed to come and address your school after Mr Rampton, or perhaps with him. Why do you not suggest this? I will be willing to do so, without a fee. As for denial, I think "debunking" is a better word. There is a lot of bunkum spoken about the Holocaust, and a lot of truth. Defaming those who try to separate the one from the other is not the answer.
David Irving (now writing in Key West)
p.s. -- allow me to commend you on the quality of your letter to me, which is every bit as good as I have come to expect of your school. It is well written and well argued, and I am sure a great future lies ahead of you. I wish you well.
S.G. replies:
TO be honest I did not expect a reply, certainly not so quickly! However it would be great if you would come and speak, I am sure many societies in the school would be very interested. Certainly the history department would!
AS
Rampton may well intend to resume his campaign of
denigration against me, might I request a fair
opportunity to defend myself in the interests of free
speech? Is his talk to be open to the public? Would you
be good enough to inform me of the time and place? I
would be willing to come, either then or on a later
occasion, and make a formal and tactful response to any
part of his talk that assaults me or my reputation.
I
might add that I am frequently invited to talk to pupils
at the UK's major schools, like
[names omitted] and
you may recall that Rampton and I were scheduled to
debate on Free Speech at the Oxford Union earlier this
year -- the debate never took place after he pulled out
and the Union came under pressure. I have asked my London
office to provide a copy of my latest work, Churchill's
War, vol.ii, free for your school library. It has
been reviewed rather well in a recent New
Statesman and the Literary
Review.
Related items on this website:
Oxford
Union debate storm | boycott
threat | threat
to Oxford Union over Irving appearance |
Australian press reports: Oxford
slaps ban on Irving | Atlanta
Journal-Constitution: Debating
society opts to disinvite Holocaust denier |
Invitation
to debate was a travesty, huffs Jewish Chronicle
editor | Jewish Chronicle gloats: Oxford
bar on Irving applauded | editorial: Missing
the point | New York: Jewish
Telegraph Agency kvells | [Oxford
Student union leaflet]
| [Cherwell:
Storm over Irving Invite]
| London
Evening Standard: Oxford Union bans Irving from debate
on free speech | Editorial:
"Error of judgment" | Daily Telegraph: "Free
speech under threat at Oxford Union" | David
Irving's comment on the inevitable rise in
anti-semitism that these methods will cause
S.G. replies on Wednesday, November 28, 2001:
THE talk is actually this week one lunchtime. There is a society at St. Paul's that has published posters about his talk, that read along the lines, " Richard Rampton QC, defence barrister for Deborah Lipstadt in the David Irving libel trial will be talking about the case and the Holocaust denial".
The talk is open to the pupils and teachers of the school but not supposed for the public, as far as I know. To be honest I am not sure how others would react (i.e. teachers and Mr. Rampton himself) if you were present.
Wednesday,
November 28, 2001
LATER this morning I shall send you three questions that I would ask you or one of your friends to put formally to Mr Rampton on my behalf! That should liven things up.
Here are some questions I would like put to Mr Rampton:-
- By the time the trial ended you and your fellow counsel had been paid fees of £509,989.36 and your expert witnesses were paid £543 240.49, a total of £1,053,229.85 by one defendant, Penguin Books alone. We don't know the amounts paid by Lipstadt and her backers, or the costs of the appeal. Do these kind of figures not put justice out of the reach of the ordinary citizen like Mr Irving, since there is no legal aid in Defamation Cases?
- Some of your witnesses were paid over £100,000 each by Lipstadt and Penguin, on top of their academic salaries, to state their expert opinions in this case. Mr Irving paid them nothing. How can they possibly claim to have been neutral, as required by the law? The books they have subsequently published show that they were in fact totally biased against Mr Irving from the start, although they denied this on oath in the witness box. So aren't their opinions on the differing interpretations of Nazi documents almost worthless?
- According to the press, the Israeli ambassador and armed bodyguards sat in the well of the High Court, all carrying loaded weapons, on the day Mr Justice Gray read out his judgment. Is this not unique in the history of the Queens Bench?
Finally: Do you think Mr Justice Gray, as a novice judge, was intimidated by the money that your clients poured into the courtroom, and by the press campaign mounted even during the trial against Mr Irving?
If you go to my website you'll find my diary of the trial.
David Irving