As I predicted in my previous post Europe's Dilemma - Holocaust Denial vs Caricatures, David Irving has been found guilty of Holocaust Denial and sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.
For the Europeans, especially Austrians or Germans, the clarion cry to defend ‘freedom of expression’ has to be subordinated to Jewish feelings plus their [Europeans'] collective guilt.
Though Irving pleaded guilty and admitted he was wrong in denying the existence of the Nazi gas chambers at Auschwitz concentration camp during WWII, obviously hoping for a suspended sentence, he was not spared the imprisonment. He has been lucky not to receive 10 years, which is the maximum penalty for Holocaust Denial.
The presiding judge Peter Liebetreu said: "The court did not consider the defendant to have genuinely changed his mind. The regret he showed was considered to be mere lip service to the law."
I agree with the judge’s perception because this morning I heard David Irving on the radio saying he had no choice but to plead guilty, on advice from his lawyer.
While Irving deserves to be condemned, does his Holocaust denying merit such a punishment? This is a disproportionate imprisonment for nothing more than his crackpot theory, which I suspect has more to do with the commercial exploitation of an equally crackpot market, the neo-Nazis and white supremacist groups. Where was the much touted western value of ‘freedom of expression’?
I reckon David Irving, repulsive as his theories might have been and unscrupulous as he may be, he has been made the sacrificial lamb for Austrian atonement for the Holocaust.
"The one who has stolen what was set apart for destruction will himself be burned with fire, along with everything he has, for he has broken the covenant of the LORD and has done a horrible thing in Israel." (Joshua 7:15)
The Europeans must now shut their mouths up, and cease their hypocritical pontifications of the ‘freedom of expression’, and accord to Muslims the considerations of sensitivity that they have correctly accorded to the Jews.