|
What does this trial mean to holocaust revisionism? Nothing. Irving is not a
revisionist and has never claimed to be one. And no one can paint him as one
and maintain honesty. He has never written on the subject. He says he finds
it boring.
Let us review the trial.
It was a civil trial. I have no feeling for civil trials in England. I know
in the US if you buy hot coffee and spill it in your lap you can collect
millions in civil court because the coffee was hot. English courts may be
different. I do not know.
Irving acted as his own attorney. Following the ancient dictum he had a fool
for a client and a jackass for an attorney. All proceedings have to be
viewed in light of incompetent counsel and foolish client.
On top of this Lipstadt's attorney was from one of the most prestigious
firms in England. By analogy, if you sue someone and decide to act as your
own attorney and the other guy hires the equivalent of Alan Derschowitz, the
verdict is only remarkable if you win.
Keep in mind the only substance of the trial is the Lipstadt
characterization of Irving as a historian. It has nothing to do with the
physical evidence. It has only to do with how people called historians
commonly view what his available, without noting what historians view is not
physical evidence.1
So even if civil courts are not a crap shoot in England as in the US the
plaintiff was not competent.
In my view of the trial he was too clever by half playing to a mistrial. He
tried for a mistrial because the judge permitted an expert witness to
testify outside of his expertise but Irving in fact asked the question. It
was the duty of Irving to object if the defense had asked such a question.
Asking it himself gives the impression the plaintiff thought him competent.
But do not the court's findings on Irving reflect upon the holocaust
revisionist movement? No. The movement has never relied upon anything
produced by Irving nor upon any of his observations of the absence of
evidence. Irving is rather a bugaboo of the holohuggers and has never been
more than that.
Irving himself has never written for publication on holocaustic subjects. He
says he finds the subject boring. He is not a spokesman, icon, or even an
active participant in holocaust revisionism. Holohuggers have attempted to
make him into something he is not solely for the purpose of attacking him.
So only fools make an issue of the outcome of the Irving v Lipstadt trial.
As of this writing it can still be overturned on appeal at which point those
pointing to it will be saying many of the same things I am saying, that a
civil trial is meaningless, that it was only over a characterization of
Irving. They will cease to point to it as they do at present.
1This never humble author is both a scientist and an engineer and
has never seen anything remotely resembling physical evidence of gas
chambers.
|