In article <dvln88$20fo$1@otis.netspace.net.au>, "Ben Cramer"
<[remove]bencramer7@gmail.com> wrote:
<deletions>
Not at all Gord. The case wound out seeing Irving on trial, and all
questions of lipstadt's alleged slander were ignored.
You are wrong here, Ben.
David Irving knew that if he was going to bring what should have remained
an academic dispute into the courtroom, British libel law places the
burden of demonstrating that the statements regarded by the plaintiff to
be libelous are actually true on the defendant.
Thus he had to know that Prof. Lipstadt's and Penguin Books Ltd.'s defense
team would do everything possible to show that the criticism leveled at
David Irving in Prof. Lipstadt's book had a factual basis. Since she had
accused him of systematically distorting historical evidence and
fabricating references, they had to go through his production and find
examples that verified Prof. Lipstadt's claims.
When such evidence was presented, David Irving backtracked, said he had
changed or was changing his views, admitted that he had pulled a few fast
ones, and, most importantly, conceded that he had been making
authoritative pronouncements about an area of history that he had never
really studied in depth and in which he had little interest or expertise,
essentially admiting to charlatanry. In other words, he effectually
conceded to the court that Prof. Lipstadt's 1993 criticism of his
historiography was more than well founded. David Irving was his own worst
enemy in court, and there was really no other option open than dismissing
the suit as frivolous. The claims that David Irving had regarded as
slanderous were demonstrated to be true both by the evidence that the
defendant's team was able to dig up *and* by David Irving's
self-destructively foolish grandstanding in court.
To put it simply:
Deborah Lipstadt in her 1993 book: David Irving is a malpractitioner of
history because he does such things as fabricates references and makes
what he claims to be authoritative and provocatively inaccurate statements
about things he has never really studied in depth.
David Irving: How dare she! I shall silence her, have the book pulped, and
claim several million pounds in aggravated damages by suing her for
libel!
David Irving in court to judge Charles Gray: My Lord, I know very little
about the historical events known as the Holocaust, I have never studied
them, and I have little interest in them. I have answered questions about
them when asked, and I have made some sensational claims about them that
have offended many people, but they are not based on any serious research
or expertise on my part.
The Lipstadt/Penguin Books Ltd. defense team: Professor Deborah Lipstadt
claimed that David Irving's lame excuse for historiography includes
systematically fabricating references. Here are a dozen representative
examples from the 347 that we found of such fabrications from his
production.
David Irving in court [blushing]: Well, maybe I did take a few shortcuts.
But, hell, no normal reader really checks the bloody references.
The Lipstadt/Penguin Books Ltd. defense team: Deborah Lipstadt claimed
that David Irving's malpractice of historiography includes systematically
mistranslating and manipulating historical documents. Here are a dozen
representative examples of the 251 that we found of such mistranslations
and manipulations from his production.
David Irving in court [with a W.C. Fields-like arrogant nonchelance]:
Well, you know how it is. Add a word here, omit a word there, and the
passage takes on an entirely different meaning. It's called agenda-driven
pragmato-semantic enhancement. Learned it from Dr. Göbbels himself...
Judge Gray [whistling]: Pheeyou! It seems to me that what Deborah Lipstadt
stated about you is based on solid evidence.
David Irving [sweating and nervous]: Well, mein Führer excuse me my
Lord, I concede that I am guilty of a few methodological infelicities. I
retract them, and promise that I shall clean up my act in the futyaah.
Now [rubbing his hands and salivating], let's talk about those aggravated
damages that I am going to be paid for having won this case. Libel hmmm
£5,000,000, the fee for my legal council, $5,000,000, compensation for the
time I had to spend in court, £5,000,000, the damage to my reputation
£10,000,000, the mental agony I underwent knowing that the community of
professional historians was rejecting me £5,000,000,...that's going to
work out to a tidy sum, considering how deeeep the pockets of Penguin
Books Ltd. are. How about thirty...
Judge Gray [cutting him off]: Sorry, Mr. Irving, on the basis of the
evidence presented and your own statements and deportment in this court, I
conclude that only a fool would *not* consider you to be a malpractitioner
of history, a fabricator of references, and a manipulator of historical
documents. You have also revealed yourself to be a racist and anti-Semite,
something that Prof. Lipstadt did not call you, but which I take the
privilege of adding to your already long list of deficiencies. If
anything, professor Lipstadt *understated* the degree to which you have,
by your own admission here in court, been peddling ******* as "real
history". And of course we all know what a person is who functions as his
own legal council in court instead of making use of professional legal
council. You've been wasting our time long enough. Case dismissed!
Ben Cramer, leaving the courtroom to Morghus [angrily]: Hot damn! The
opinion of just one lousy Jew shitcans a man's entire career. The Jews
have conspired to destroy yet another good man! Jew professor, Jew
lawyers, Jewish publishing house, Jewish money, Jewish rules for writing
history, Jew judge, Jewish-dictated libel law, Jewish-run legal
system...Here a Jew, there a Jew, everywhere a Jew Jew...
Morghus [snarling]: Are you daft! David Irving is a fraud and a charlatan,
just as the court said he was. He didn't deny the historical factuality of
the Holohoax even once. Serves the bugger right!
Regards,
Eugene Holman
.
|
