⚠️ Historical Documentation Notice
This document is part of a historical archive and is presented for scholarly research and educational purposes.
The content reflects historical perspectives and should be understood within its historical context.
avid Irving responds to Australia’s challenge (“why should we let you in?”) David Irving (Australia) David Irving Comments on letter dated January 17, 2002 ( attached ) Although your letter of January 17, 2002 states “Matters to be taken into account include the following,” I clearly cannot comment, as required, on any matters which are not explicitly included, and I presume that your Minister will not expect me to do so either.
It would manifestly unjust if he did. I therefore address below those matters specifically included in your letter. 501(6)(i) — the person’s past and present criminal conduct There is no allegation of present criminal conduct. Your letter mentions only one alleged offence, of early 1990.
It is submitted that (a) the one alleged offence was not severe, even under German law; (b) the event lies twelve years back; (c) I do not associate with criminals and have scrupulously observed the law. 1. ” German criminal conviction in 1992 “.
On April 21, 1990 I stated in a public lecture in Munich, Germany: “We believe that, just as the gas chambers which the Americans put up here [outside Munich] in Dachau in the first few days after the war were fakes, those gas chambers facilities which tourists can now sightsee in Auschwitz were set up by Polish authorities after the Second World War.” For uttering these words I was eventually fined DM30,000 by a Munich court in 1993.
It was, the German authorities admitted in internal correspondence, a political, not a criminal, offence (see e.g. the letter from Weinheim Magistrates court to Ministry of Justice, Baden-Württemberg, June 25, 1997: “In view of the political background of the trial, I request …” etc. Tab A): Germany had enacted a law making it an offence to debunk any aspect of the Holocaust.
I consider however it is my duty as an historian to write what I find to be true, regardless of political expediencies. The central criminal register located in Berlin confirmed to Weinheim
on December 9, 1996, three years after the Munich penalty was imposed, that I have no criminal record, Keine Eintragung in the Zentralregister (see facsimile of register certificate , Tab B).
In January 1995 the present Polish authorities conceded to a leading French news magazine that the building in question at Auschwitz, the “gas chamber” that is shown to tourists, was in fact erected in 1948, three years after the war ended, and they stated explicitly: Tout y est faux, adding that they did not know how to bring this awkward fact properly to the attention of visiting tourists ( L’Express, Paris, January 19, 1995 ). I had therefore spoken the truth, as is my wont.
It is to be remarked that the leading “exterminationist” authority on Auschwitz, Professor Robert Jan Van Pelt, of the University of Waterloo, has recently again conceded the post-war character of this exhibit in his latest book on Auschwitz (this passage can be downloaded from my website as a pdf — it is to be observed that I have always given equal weight to the views of my opponents).
I would not have the slightest hesitation in making the same remark in Germany again, were it not for the absurd law which criminalizes it. It is not a criminal offence to make such a remark in Australia, and I have never committed criminal offences while visiting Australia (or any other country), as your own police authorities confirmed to your prime minister’s office in the turmoil following my 1992 visa application; nor were there grounds to anticipate that I would do so.
These facts I know from the government documents properly disclosed to my solicitors in Perth at that time. I submit that it is perverse that Australia would consider that every “criminal offence” committed in a foreign country is an automatic ground for exclusion, particularly when that offence is not known to Australian law. The whole civilized world now criticizes Germany for its laws suppressing free speech. What about other countries’ so-called “crimes”?
It is a crime to drink beer in Saudi Arabia. Eleven ordinary Englishmen are awaiting trial in Greece for train-spotting. It used to be a crime to criticize Joseph Stalin in Moscow. It still is a crime to criticise Saddam Hussein in Iraq. On the other hand some leading Australians are reported to turn a blind eye on pædophilia, which is a felony in the U.K.
In my view Australia is mature enough to distinguish between real crimes — e.g., arson, drug-dealing, murder, Nazi genocide, Irish terrorism — on the one hand, and the “thought crimes” of which author George Orwell warned us, on the other. 2. “Expelled from Germany” No comment. A minor official in a Munich municipal body crafted and signed this order, which has nationwide validity. It is a patently political decision.
It is illegal under the Helsinki Accords and under European law, but since it was served on me in November 1993 I have complied with it rigorously as I find I can do very well without the Germans and their country.
I do not believe that the majority of Australians will take kindly to the notion that Canberra is effectively allowing Berlin or any other foreign capital or body of aliens to decide who can and shall visit them in Australia. 501(6)(ii) — the person’s past and present general conduct It is not alleged in the reasons stated by the Minister that I have committed criminal fraud, evaded debts, disregarded family maintenance, or been involved in any other class of crimes or war crimes.
On the contrary, your prime minister Mr John Howard stated in public in London
on October 19, 1997 that the reason he had refused me a visa was because of my views as an historian ( full transcript on my website ) Verbatim: “[…] And the reason for that decision was, uh, based upon my government’s perception of the Australian national interest, and, uh, uh, the reasons that relate, uh, in part, as you know, to some of views that you have expressed about matters which we believe, if propagated in Australia, would not be in the Australian national interest.”
He did not mention any other reason, and in particular he did not mention your reasons adumbrated above and below. 3. “Found in November 1992 to have lied on oath before a Canadian Immigration Adjudicator” The facts of this ten-year-old controversy and injustice are well known, but I recite them here again.
Following a campaign by Canadian Jewish and leftwing organizations, which wished to prevent my lecture tour, I formally agreed to leave Canada under a Voluntary Departure Notice (Tab C) on or before midnight on November 1, 1992, in order to obviate protracted immigration detention and hearings which would have vitiated my lecture tour anyway. Such a Notice permits a perfectly legal