IN
a homosexual journal in New Zealand,
GayNZ.com,
Craig Young wrote an article entitled:
"Comment:
David Irving, a Gay
Perspective".
New Zealander Tim Darlington replied to him
from Kuwait: 
IT's always been a depressing
feature of us on the left that we're usually
willing to throw out the loftiest principle for the
sake of the smallest political victory over
right-wing enemies. The ban
on David Irving is an excellent case in
point and I have to tell you, unfortunately you've
written a wonderful illustration of it.
You write that this isn't a freedom of speech
issue. Well, that's partly right - it isn't
just about freedom of speech, it's rather
more about freedom of movement and freedom of
opinion. Why so? When you look at the issue
objectively, without a whole lot of huffing and
puffing about nazis and racists, the New Zealand
government has just banned someone from our country
because of his opinions. To my mind that's a return
to the absolute worst of the Muldoon years and an
utterly shameful day for New Zealand. I had hoped
the bill of rights would mean a little more to us
than this, but most depressing of all is the
cheerleading for the move from people supposedly of
a liberal persuasion. You wrote that this is in fact a "hate speech"
issue. Well, if you like, but "hate speech" is just
speech you don't like. I'm willing to bet that
David Irving could go through your piece on him and
pick out a dozen examples of hate speech. The point
is, everybody hates somebody - if you want to stop
them saying so, where's the silence going to end? I
don't doubt that labour MP Diane ("I
consider myself a liberal, but...") Yates
and her pals on whichever committee it is will
eventually manage to get a law in place banning
"hate speech", but my suggestion is to bear in mind
the example of Dworkin and McKinnon -
they managed to get a ban on pornography in Canada
back in the 1980s, and who was first to get hauled
before the judge? Gays, that's who. Right-wingers
don't care who makes stupid laws, they'll happily
use them for whatever advantage they can get. You wrote that you
agree with the NZ Jewish Community, immigration
authorities and the Prime Minister on this one.
Doesn't that fact alone have alarm bells going
off in your head? Do you agree with the
immigration authorities and the Prime Minister
about Ahmed Zaoui as well? There's
another shameful episode to make the expat NZer
cringe, and another section of our bill of
rights Helen Clark's cheerfully flushed
down the toilet.  Do
you know for a fact that you agree with the New
Zealand Jewish Community? The only people I've
heard from are David Zwartz (left) and
Dov Bing, two people with whom I definitely
absolutely don't agree (not that that counts very
much, seeing as I'm not Jewish). The "Jewish
community" includes Norman
Finkelstein, Noam Chomsky, Ariel
Sharon and Bob Dylan - care to try and
come up with a composite statement of opinion based
on those members? How about a little recognition
that the "NZ Jewish community" isn't a homogenous
mass spoken for by David Zwartz? Would you accept
anyone talking about the "gay community" like
that?
It's not liberal, anti-racist or anti-fascist to
line yourself up with Zwartz and Bing. These guys
are not representatives of an oppressed minority,
they're much closer to the apologists for apartheid
that littered NZ in the 1980s. I didn't like
apartheid spokesmen back then and if anyone wanted
to call that anti-Afrikanerism on my part, what the
hell? Same deal with these spokesmen for zionism
now - Mr Zwartz, who's written hate-filled letters
about Palestinians to the Dominion newspaper,
doesn't hesitate to bleat about anti-semitism if
anyone criticises him in return. Frankly, I think
the apartheid guys had more guts. 
I HAVE to admit I've read a number of David
Irving's books, and he's actually a pretty damn
good historian. I take it from your article that
you're not very knowledgable about the history of
WW2 - well, I'm not either but I am interested in
it so probably know more than the average NZer.
The thing that fascinates me about it is not
only that it was so important in forming the world
as it is now, but more importantly that it is so
thoroughly and comprehensively documented and yet
almost none of the "facts" we all think we know
about it can be taken for granted. Most of what I
thought I knew about WW2 before I started reading
about it turned out to consist largely of things
I'd picked up from fiction and movies, or
propaganda that no-one had ever questioned. For
most people, that's still what they know about
WW2. Sorry this is so long-winded, but I am getting
to a point, I promise you. Historians of WW2 tend
to come from one of two moulds - the first is the
conservative mould, which emphasises "their finest
hour" or "the greatest generation" depending on
whether they're British or American, and the second
is the socialist mould, which emphasises the Soviet
Union and the "great war against fascism". Both are for the most part a complete load of
old cobblers. The nice thing about Irving is that
he doesn't fit into any moulds - he basically
doesn't like anybody very much, and that's what
appeals to me. No good guys, no bad guys, just
politicians acting in their own interests and
calling it the national interest. For his pains,
both types of "mould" historians have claimed him
to be an apologist for fascism - I guess if you
consider failing to treat fascists as
one-dimensional cartoon-character bad guys to be
promoting fascism, maybe that's true. Personally I
like my historians to be a little less lazy. The most you could say about the court case that
Irving lost is that he represented himself and
therefore had a fool for a client. History is none
the wiser for the proceedings, and the extensive
quoting from the case in the NZ media does nothing
more than demonstrate who had more money to spend
on lawyers. If he chooses to write racist nursery
rhymes for his daughters, who knows, maybe he's not
a nice person. So should I cheerfully sit back and
shut up while Helen Clark and David
Zwartz decide who's a nice enough person to
visit New Zealand? Hell no, and the rest of you
shouldn't either. Tim
Darlington
Kuwait City  
Dossier:
attempts by New Zealand Jews to stop David
Irving's 2004 visit
FAQ:
Answers to frequently asked questions about Mr
Irving's visit-
NZ
Parliament's stance on Irving, anti-Semitism
eases strains with Israel
 -
-
Prof
Christopher Browning interviewed by The
Atlantic Monthly, Feb 2004: he
now seems to say that there was no Hitler order
to kill the Jews, no document exists, there were
no plans. The so-called "final solution" just
sort of happened. (He is probably right.)
-
Dossier:
The Books of David Irving: Free
downloads
|
write to David
Irving