New Zealand, Sunday, August 8, 2004 More hits from
the politically correct songbook By Frank Haden THE shameful attempts to silence
British author David Irving, Maori Language
Commission chief executive Haami Piripi and
whistleblowing Lake Alice nurse Neil Pugmire
are all sung from the same songbook. We pretend we
have freedom of speech, but we are grotesquely
inconsistent when people use it to say things that
offend influential groups or lobbies. We crack down
on a select few like a ton of bricks, while letting
others get away with offensiveness. There should be
far more offensive things said. They do us good. I
write a lot of things that offend people, but I'd
be astonished if anyone tried to stop me.
The government is doing its best to exclude
Irving simply because the objections to his entry
come from a tightly organised lobby. Nobody's
saying it too loudly, but many influential Jews
will be offended if Irving is allowed to accept a
National Press Club invitation to speak at lunch in
the Beehive. These people will feel affronted if Helen
Clark bows to arguments quoting the Bill of
Rights Act to secure Irving's entry. The act says
everyone has the right to freedom of expression,
including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart
information and opinions of any kind in any form.
The Jewish lobby has no business pressuring the
government to make an exception in Irving's
case. As for Piripi, he was speaking on behalf of his
Ahipara community in Northland when he offended the
government by warning its foreshore and seabed
legislation could lead to civil war. He was talking
a load of rubbish, but so what? Too bad if he
offended people in high places. He should have
exactly the same Bill of Rights protection as
Irving seeks. Pugmire was sacked in 1994 after he offended the
government by going public with his concerns over
the release of dangerous psychiatric patients into
the community. He was tragically proved right in
the end, and we're still paying the price, but
that's not the point. What matters is the fact that
he was punished for talking. He joined the ranks of
those we silence in contempt of the right of free
speech. 
IN the Irving case, something peculiar is going on,
with Clark unexpectedly recanting her civilised
July 23
stand on the historian's right to enter New
Zealand. She said then she vigorously supported his
right to express repugnant views. I am not the only
one wondering what pressure was put on her to make
her change such a forcefully expressed opinion.
The excuse for refusing him entry doesn't hold
water, anyway. Clark says we deny entry to people
who have been deported from another country, but it
has now been revealed that last year the
Immigration Service approved visits by 34 people
originally banned under the same law. Freedom of speech means nothing if it does not
give you the right to say offensive, unpopular or
inconvenient things unhindered or unpunished,
unless what you say is libellous or aimed at
inciting violence or hatred. Simple as that. And it
should apply to everyone, never mind who is
offended. All the Press Club wants is to
demonstrate its belief in freedom of speech by
letting Irving talk freely about his controversial
views on things such as the Holocaust and question
him afterward. We all know Irving is reviled internationally as
a "Holocaust denier".
What we also know is that the Holocaust happened,
so it doesn't matter if Irving questions the
evidence for it. He maintains the standards of
historical research on the Holocaust do not measure
up to the standards of historical research demanded
of scholars in less controversial fields, but he
won't win any converts to his way of thinking. He's
not going to convince anyone, least of all at the
Press Club. I've seen more evidence of the Holocaust than
many New Zealanders because I've taken the trouble
to visit concentration camps such as Auschwitz,
Majdanek and Dachau.  There's
not much chance of getting into bed with Holocaust
deniers when you've seen mountains of human ash,
smelled the traces of poison gas that still linger
in the duckboards of those lethal "shower rooms",
and walked through Jewish neighbourhoods where the
legal title of every building is still being
negotiated because the owners were obliterated 60
years ago.
But I'd still be the last to deny Irving his
right to express his views on any public platform
he chooses. Irving has written 30 best-selling
books. He made a lot of enemies with his first,
The
Destruction of Dresden. The meticulously
researched work left no doubt the unnecessary
bombing of Dresden - a virtually undefended city
and one of the triumphs of civilisation - in
February 1945, when the Nazis were known to be on
the brink of capitulation, was a war crime. We
shouldn't give him any reason to say we commit
crimes against the right to freedom of
speech. 
Dossier:
attempts by New Zealand Jews to stop David
Irving's 2004 visit FAQ:
Answers to frequently asked questions about Mr
Irving's visit-
Steven
Sedley writes a letter on Mr Irving and free
speech |
The
name rings a bell
-
Jailed
gang leaders defer to Israelis jailed by NZ,
says paper. Mossad autopsy on bungled NZ
operation: graves desecration was
unplanned
-
| ![[]](../../std/dings/list.gif){kind=small}
write to David
Irving