Freedom of Speech, Satire, and Revisionist History...

Walking home on the Upper East Side on Wednesday night, I saw a cluster of ten policemen and two patrol cars. It seemed quite unusual for a customarily innocuous and quiet block. They were standing at the door to a church, one that is respected in the community for its school and other activities. "What's going on?" I asked. The officer pointed across the street. There was a small group of people with signs. "Demonstration," he announced. "We got a 911 call."

I crossed over to get a better look at their posters. "NO TO NAZIS." "What's going on?" I inquired. "David Irving, the Holocaust denier, is in that church giving a lecture. We're here to say he's unwelcome," replied a woman. "Who is we?" I asked. "We're here as individuals," she said, "but we're part of a broader anti-racist action group. We confront all neo-Nazis and all Fascists."

No one was eager to give their names. Once identified, they can be "harassed by neo-Nazi groups." Another woman gave me her take on how Irving ended up at this particular location. "They rented him the space, after another church found out who he was and cancelled his appearance."

A conversation with the congregation's Pastor on Thursday revealed a far more complex story. He told me that a young man had come into their church as a "representative of a small book club." He wanted to rent space for a meeting of about 25 people. When asked by a staff member if there was any political content involved he said, "No." The church was more than a little surprised when a crowd of 50-60 people showed up. An FBI task force specializing in "extremist groups" joined the NYPD, and advised the church that it was too late to get the people out. The pastor was visibly upset when I spoke to him. "I'm outraged," he told me. "This goes against everything we stand for. They're feeding people that already have a lot of anger."

Apparently, Irving has been traveling around the east coast giving talks. One of the demonstrators told me, "The way our government seems to be moving to the right, his thinking paves the way for ... His voice trailed off and he started a new line of thought. "Irving's politics advocate genocide. He is against people of color, Jews, gays, communists, and socialists. The neo-Nazis are always at anti-immigration rallies," he informed me. He handed me a flyer. A woman walking by with her dog stopped to listen. "What's going on?' she asked, in what was quickly becoming the mantra for the night. When told of Irving's presence and background, her eyes widened. "What the hell is he doing in there?"

I crossed back to the church. A man with a briefcase was talking to the police. He gave me a handout about David Irving. I read both leaflets while waiting for the lecture to end. The Irving piece was printed on glossy stock with large cap letters declaring, "The World's Leading Expert on World War Two." It featured credits for his appearances on Good Morning America and the Today show. It had quotes from journalist Christopher Hitchens and Mr. Justice Gray (who presided over Irving's libel lawsuit against Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books).

On white stock paper, with an acknowledgement at the bottom -- "labor donated" -- the Anti-Racist Action Points of Unity were outlined. They included, "We go where they [Fascists] go; We don't rely on the cops or courts to do our work for us; Non-Sectarian defense of other Anti-Fascists" ... and "We Intend to Win!" Their banner phrase was, "Shut down the Holocaust revisionism industry; Stand up to Holocaust revisionist David Irving."

Attendees started to file out at approximately 9:30pm. Very few were anxious to talk. Most walked past me, ignoring my question, "Can you tell me about the lecture?" An African-American man stopped to speak with me. He told me that he didn't see any neo-Nazis and that he didn't feel uncomfortable as a person of color (based on allegations that Irving was a racist). "I was interested in hearing Irving's story. He talked about his time in prison."

A woman who had traveled from Brooklyn to hear Irving was at first hesitant to speak, but then became quite willing to share her thoughts. "I wanted to hear another point-of-view," she said. "I'm tired of the PC crap." When I asked her to clarify she said, "The six million Jews ... no way that many were killed." I asked her how many she thought had died. "Under two million," she said flatly. "Listen," she continued, "Look at the numbers that came crawling forward looking for their lost land and art, seeking restitution." She then expounded on some of her other ideas. "This whole thing with Anne Frank ... she wasn't shot or gassed. She died of typhus." When I suggested that it might have been the result of being imprisoned in a concentration camp she responded, "She wasn't even there that long." In an effort to be clear she emphasized, "I'm a lover of history, all history. I want people to just report the facts ... and this man has a lot of facts." She gave her background as German-Irish, 53 years old, and made it unambiguous that she was not an anti-Semite. "My first friend was a Jew. I even work for them. This is about me wanting to know the facts."

As she walked off, a man who had been standing outside the church approached me. He was a science and technology writer. He gave me his insights. "After World War II, between 100 - 140,000,000 people were killed by the Communists. Many of these communities have received zero attention about their losses."

I looked up from my notepad, and noticed that the protestors were gone and the police were leaving. When I got home, I turned on my computer to Google all the players. There was plenty to explore, especially on YouTube. My inbox chirped to let me know that I had five messages. Four were from friends wanting to know what I thought about the New Yorker illustration. The fifth asked me to sign a petition to the magazine asking for a retraction of the cover (from the website and newsstands) and an apology. It urged the editors to "stop peddling racism and religious intolerance in their magazine."

My head was spinning. Perception vs. authenticity. Satire vs. defamation. The right to free speech vs. the right to protest.

No wonder it's getting harder to keep a sense of humor.

Comments

[MagisterLudi]

Holocaust controversy does not exist in reputable historical circles.
It is the invention of a collection of long-time anti-Semites and apologists for Hitler.
These charlatans use the techniques used by Intelligent Design revisionist.
White supremacist groups use the same kind of obtuse reasoning.

[PSD827]

This guy, Max Blumenthal, got into the church and interviewed Irving and his supporters.

Check it out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70T6-8INUGw&eurl=http://www.maxblumenthal.com/

[MichaelSantomauro]

Irving"s mother was Jewish. David Irving happily confirmed it: yes, his mother was Jewish, but he was never interested in this fact, nor was he raised within the Jewish tradition. He therefore never considered it to have any relevance. Thus, according to orthodox Jewish tradition, David Irving is a Jew, plain and simple. Of course, Holocaust promoters can have no interest in advertising that the "main exponent" of "Holocaust Denial" is a Jew. Oy vey, what a publicity disaster that would be! (Even though Irving is, strictly seen, not even a Holocaust revisionist, but merely a benevolent observer.)

[bryantim]

Anyone who questions the events surrounding the Jews during WWII is called an Anti-Semite? If someone investigates the Civil War, does that make them anti-American?

[PSD827]

This is specious analogy. It does nothing to further this conversation, and it doesn't even make any sense.

From reading this article, it seems that what Yerman was trying to do was tie together both the New Yorker cover cartoon and the Irving event...and mirror her feelings about the need for both
freedom of speech, and the public's right to demonstrate and react to that
which they think is ignominious and wrong.

[MagisterLudi]

Did anyone who that denies American slavery existed is a racist? ah... Yes! Why else make this patently wrong claim?

Did anyone who says that no death factories existed in concentration camps is an Anti -Semite?
Invariably thats the intention.

Think...Bryan, think....

[RRK70]

America at it's best. Seems like the system works sometimes. Sometimes it's the most unpopular or disgusting speech that is the speech that is most in need of defending. When you deny someone a voice, they most often tend to find alternative avenues of expression that are not nearly as open or peaceful. I also think you eliminate any possibility of dialogue. I truly think this is one of the underlying tenets of a healthy democracy. I admit I am unfamiliar with the specifics of this case, but how do we determine who is right, and who is wrong? At one point, national independence, abolition, womens suffrage, and civil rights, criticism of the war in Iraq were ALL minority views, "unpopular" views.

It is pure folly to think that you can outlaw thoughts, ideas, regardless of what they are or what they imply. No one ever said that the right of Assembly and Free Speech were easy to live with. Liberty exacts a heavy burden, but one worth carrying.

[Patriot11]

As a person who enjoys 20thC history, I attended the NYC Irving lecture (my first). There were no displays of racism, no nazi oaths, no uniforms - just a cordial, stimulating lecture by Mr. Irving. Mr. Irving is a brilliant person and his presentation was captivating, fact-filled and humorous. Certainly he is not the monster many portray him. His two hour talk consisted of discussion on his Austrian arrest and trial, and deplorable conditions in Austrian prisons; Also discussed the laws used against him. Lastly he spoke about his forthcoming biography on H.Himmler and detailed research that went into its writing. He then concluded with Q&A.....and that's it! Disgusting, was the attempt by some group(s) to stop the lecture (I think we should all be curious to peer behind the curtain of "anti-" orgs to see who really behind them. You might be surprised.) Why? Because last I looked our Constitution provides for freedom of assembly and speech. The scary thing is the disrespect shown to a prolific writer and master historian of WWII. His research is impeccable and based on direct archival docs. Of course he is not infallible - he is human after all. Reflecting on events of that evening, I truly believe the protestors were the real NAZIs: preventing free speech, humiliating/intimidating attendees. The first thing NAZIs want to do is rid us of historians and scholars. BIG HATS OFF to NYPD who saw reason and allowed the lecture to continue.

[egal]

What on earth makes you think that because a person is intelligent and has a lot of research behind his theory--in this case, research clearly discounted by the remaining facts he ignores and selectively avoids--he isn't evil or a monster?

Monsters would hardly be dangerous if they weren't capable of being convincing, adept enough to do just enough research to fool those who don't delve deeper or look into multiple sources, and appealing enough to the rational that they can excuse or become acclimated to their harm while appealing enough to the supremacist/bigoted streak in many others to gain traction and start up more us vesus them cults.

[Patriot11]

So are you saying that all books written by Mr. Irving are based on selected data. Have you read any of them to make such claims?

As more and more data uncovered and research conducted regarding WWII we realize that important parts of its history was written the victors. Many a lie were told, or details filtered/omitted to justify certain actions or for other political purposes. I think the world deserves to know the truth given the level of deaths. Perhaps our conflict in Iraq is a good recent example of all this. Thank heavens for the internet, a lot of fresh data, and ambitious researchers: all has led to a better understanding of what has happened (and not just what "victors" have told us).

Why not let him (or others with, perhaps, non-conventional viewpoints) freely speak? Let them publicly to defend their works. This is the normal course of any subject research. Charlatans will easily be exposed through this process.

[keca1]

As a historian and non-Jew, it disturbs me to see delusionals such as David Irving or Iran's Pres. Ahmadinejad, speaking at Columbia University, still find audiences.
Some facts, corroborated by images from Dachau, Auschwitz, and Terezin, are clear-cut regarding the systematic Nazi extermination of European Jewry. There were no digital manipulations then to conjure up the horrific snapshots exposed at Nuremberg, so let's get a grip!
Having lived through military dictatorships in Brazil, I experienced firsthand the stifling effects of speech suppression and applaud free speech, "tasty" not "tawdry" satire, and the salubrious discourse engendered by historic revisionism. However, at times the voices of ignorance are given much free rein and should be partially muzzled.
To give ears to Holocaust deniers, as did the 60 people listening to Irving--be it Jewish, Armenian, or Rwandan--is to equate to the ignoramuses who use parish/university halls to vent the crap permeating their sick minds.
Kudos to the Anti-Nazi protesters across the street from the church. Their peaceful but assertive demonstration proved that some things are too serious to be reduced to the relativism of speech freedom, PC or PI, revisionism or satire.
Indeed, the lines between these four are fuzzier and our heads are spinning. It's hard, though, to keep a sense of humor about the "New Yorker" cover; to me, that was no laughing matter. Irrespective of its highbrow posture, its editors have yet to learn between satire and sanguinity.

[MichaelSantomauro]

In 1990, though, Israel's official Yad Vashem Holocaust center "rewrote history" by admitting that the soap story was not true. "Historians have concluded that soap was not made from human fat. When so many people deny the Holocaust ever happened, why give them something to use against the truth?," said Yad Vashem official Shmuel Krakowski.

Extermination Policy?

Is someone a "Holocaust denier" if he says that there was no order by Hitler to exterminate Europe's Jews? There was a time when the answer would have been yes. Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg, for example, wrote in the 1961 edition of his study, The Destruction of the European Jews, that there were two Hitler orders for the destruction of Europe's Jews: the first given in the spring of 1941, and the second shortly thereafter. But Hilberg removed mention of any such order from the revised, three-volume edition of his book published in 1985. [6] As Holocaust historian Christopher Browning has noted: [7]

"In the new edition, all references in the text to a Hitler decision or Hitler order for the `Final Solution" have been systematically excised. Buried at the bottom of a single footnote stands the solitary reference: `Chronology and circumstances point to a Hitler decision before the summer ended." In the new edition, decisions were not made and orders were not given."

[UnknownSoldier]

Don't you dare try to call the New Yorker cover Satire. Satire is supposed to be uncomfortably funny, the New Yorker cover was just uncomfortable.

[Cybersquirt]

Nice wrap-up. Thanks for the read.