.
Criminalisation of revisionism ~ a bullet in the Shoah lobby’s foot
by Alison Chabloz | April 23rd, 2019
During my three-day appeal last February, the prosecution’s main argument regarding the facts — i.e are my songs “grossly offensive” under S. 127 of the 2003 Communications Act — relied on Judge Charles Gray’s 2000 ruling in the Irving vs Lipstadt case. According to both James Mulholland QC and Judge Chris Hehir, Judge Gray’s ruling provided the appropriate benchmark by which to (a) define “Holocaust denial” and (b) prove that the Holocaust happened according to the standard narrative
(viz. six million Jews killed mostly in gas chambers as part of a pre-planned mass-extermination of Jews by the Nazis).
In response to the court’s decision to uphold my sentence, I wish to cite a passage from the end of Thomas Dalton’s book
Debating the Holocaust – a new look at both sides that deals with Cambridge historian Richard Evans’s 2001 book
Lying About Hitler. Evans acted as Lipstadt’s expert witness; his book describes his impressions of the case.
Dalton’s scathing treatment of Evans’s chapter on the Irving vs Lipstadt trial raises serious concerns not only regards Evans’s intellectual capabilities; Dalton’s appraisal also calls into question Judge Gray’s ruling and its consequences for further revisionist witch-trials here in England. The passage comes at the very end of the book, in the Epilogue, on pages 293 to 294.
Dalton’s work is highly recommended reading. It can be found
here where you can also download a free PDF “peek” preview. Here’s the relevant passage:
6. The anti-revisionist response is highly revealing
Since the year 2000, there have been only a few attempts by orthodox historians to respond directly to revisionist challenges.[…]
In Chapter 4 of his book – “Irving and Holocaust Denial” – [Richard] Evans attempts to summarise and rebut the revisionist point of view, with the ultimate goal of proving David Irving a ‘denier’. In order to do so, he must define ‘Holocaust denial,’ show that it is wrong, and demonstrate that Irving supported it. On the first count, Evans proposes four pillars of denial: (1) less than six million Jews killed; (2) gas chambers were not used to any large degree; (3) the National Socialists’ intention was deportation and not mass murder; and (4) the Holocaust story is “a myth invented by Allied propaganda,” and “the supposed difference… was fabricated after the war”. We can agree with the first three, but the last is not defended by any revisionist of the past 30 years or so.
Evans then reviews the revisionist movement, employing a number deceptive tactics...
Alison's blog and the rest of this entry can be found
here
