Talk by jailed historian David Irving axed
Jan 12 2008 by Ben Turner, Liverpool Echo

A TALK by controversial historian and Hitler expert David Irving was scrapped after bosses at the Liverpool venue discovered who he was.

Today Jewish leaders said they were glad tonight’s talk by Irving, jailed last year in Austria after he was convicted of Holocaust denial, an offence in that country, had been cancelled.

Mr Irving, 69, was due to speak at the city centre’s Liner hotel as part of a series of UK talks entitled “Who dug the grave of the British Empire – Hitler or Churchill?”

But a spokesman from the hotel said they cancelled a booking made in the name of a history society after receiving tip-offs Mr Irving would be among the speakers.

The spokesman said: “We took a booking from a company calling themselves the Historical Society of Liverpool two months ago for a talk about the history of Liverpool and Winston Churchill.

“But on Friday we received a telephone call and information that David Irving would likely be attending.

“As an organisation we do not accept bookings for groups who promote their own religious or political views and therefore we decided to cancel the booking and cut all ties, which has been accepted by the organisers.”

But Mr Irving claimed threats to “silence” him were behind the cancellation.

He said: “I was due to speak in Liverpool on Saturday. But organisers inform me there may be problems and it may have to be cancelled because of the threat of violence.”

He denied the talk was deliberately timed to coincide with National Holocaust Memorial Day claiming: “This is something that has been planned for months.”

A Merseyside police spokeswoman said they were “unaware” of any threats against Mr Irving.

Mr Irving was sentenced to three years in jail in February 2006.

But he claimed he had changed his views and told the court: “I made a mistake when I said there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz.”

He was deported from Austria in December 2006 after an appeal court ruled he should serve his sentence on probation.

Karen Pollock, chief executive of the Holocaust Educational Trust, applauded the hotel’s “welcome and appropriate” stance.

Whilst I don't have any time for Irving myself, or his views, I nevertheless believe that he has the right to air them. We hear a lot on this site about freedom of speech - very often from people who would deny it for others. For them freedom of speech is great - so long as the views of others are in accord with their own.

Freedom of speech as you represent it would mean we are all obliged to endorse every theory and ideology conceivable. Which taken to it's logical extreme is suggesting we have a moral obligation to nihilism. Which just silly.

Irving has his rights to speak intact. The venue withdraw its support. He can still speak where he is wanted.

Why not put your money where your mouth is and let anyone who has been no platformed use your living room?

Thought not.


P.S. I love how journalist describe any supernaturalist that wears a funny costume as being an ethnic "leader".

Has his rights intact???

I can just hear the screams of agonizing hysteria, were the "right wing" to organize similar campaigns of harressment at targeted "left wing" historians - who had, say, been jailed in countries the "left" detests, for speaking their minds.

The pompous self righteous hypocrisy of it is staggering.

Well you sir are quite clearly an idiot. This is an anarchist site, we hate Stalin more than you do!

And where the hell does it state in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that anyone, let alone racists, have a right to speak at any location they choose irrespective of anyone else?

I'll save you the bother. It doesn't.

so that you can ease that other foot into yer mouth

cant find anywhere here that states that this is an "anarchist site"

funny kind of anarchist that seeks justification for their fascism and bully boy tactics by reference to existing or non existing LAWS

could it be that you are practicing that old ex-post-facto rationalisation

sure, no platform, the UNIVERSAL declaration of human rights DOES NOT state that fascists have any rights

it does, however, accord rights to humans in regards to free speech

mr (you are a man) anarchist superceeds this declaration by sub-dividing the human race into those with the privalage of free speech and those without - a tactic favoured by all dictators including stalin, yer mate

you may very well think to disagree with irvine - hard not to given both the controversal subject matter and his treatment by the zionist favouring/controled/owned media - but if you can not defeat his arguments/reasoning/research with your own, then do not think that any LAW gives you the right to deny anyone else the right to their own notions therein

but of course, that is not the issue

the issue is, co-opting as many to the idea that history and research are subordinate to pubic opinion/governance and legal mandates

you are just the pointy end of an old fashion stick

a conveinience for those that rule

a tool

a fool

call me an idiot again and me and my mates will come round and ensure that our boots will do the talking (oh I get how this works now, quite useful this violent intimidation thing innit?)

"call me an idiot again and me and my mates will come round and ensure that our boots will do the talking"

You are now twice the idiot you were before.

Indymedia is not an anarchist site.

So despite the arguments that are going on here - that statment 'mr no platform' is wrong.

The 'anarchist' movement is irrelavent - though there are many people who may identify with anarchism doing good work

probably also the attitude your fellow irvine adopts when faced with your threats and intimidations of physical violence;

"F*** U an that, I am carrying on and doubling my efforts"

now just imagine that, if you engaged him in discussion, all the killer aguments you have to defeat his weak ones, all the pertinant facts that overide and superceed his

why he may even be a human being and not a sub-class that you can morally abuse without impinging any awkward human rights you may have accidentily accorded him

your engagment might influence his thinking (or perhaps you imagine your arguments, your facts and your ability to present them will not be enough to make him believe what you want?)

then again, I would be suprised if you did anything other than fume and plot unspeakable revenge on he and I alike - much easier, more convinient, less work, more macho

ho hum

I see that you Nazis have gone all soft. You are too lily livered to do anything publically - that is talk to the public at a meeting, and instead are the keyboard warrior type now.

Hahahahahaha

The only boots doing the talking will be the masked ranks of anti fascist boots giving you a kicking nob ed.

I've never threatened IrvinG with anything. He's an ineffectual twat. Why would I bother.

I do however support anyone who decides they don't want him in their venue and I wouldn't complain if a venue banned me because they were fascist twats. We all have the right to decide who we play host to.

I don't need to engage his points. He's already been blown out the water over Auschwitz at the trial he brought about himself.

I don't fume at idiots like Irving he's a sad bastard marginalised by his own hatred of foreigners.

I don't fume at all. I either act or I move on.

Oh and when you come by to give me a kicking, bring some milk.


P.S. @ dan smith: well 'anarchist' is shorter than 'non-heirarchical automomous'. Depends what you mean by 'anarchist', but 'non-hierarchical itself is pretty much synonymous with all that is common among anarchists.

Irrelevant to whom??? Certainly not irrelevant to most of the quality material posted here.