ZGram - 8/9/2004 - "IRVING: '"Rather than let me in, Canberra
changed the law'"
zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org
zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org
Mon Aug 9 08:41:50 EDT 2004
ZGRAM - WHERE TRUTH IS DESTINY: NOW MORE THAN EVER!
August 9, 2004
Good Morning from the Zundelsite:
Here is a glimpse at the life of the most prominent "Revisionist"
writer, David Irving. I put "Revisionist" in quotations because
David doesn't like to be called a "Revisionist", as he has stressed
on many an occasion. Nonetheless, the fate of all Revisionist
writers has been his ever since he strode into the 1988 Zundel Trial
and put himself on the side of the Leuchter Report.
Below is his most recent experience.
David Irving comments:
NOW here's a strange occurrence. On Tuesday morning, August 3, I
received an email from Michael Vance, an editor of The Press, the
leading newspaper of Christchurch, New Zealand, asking me to write an
article in these terms: "We are seeking a piece from you outlining
why you should be allowed to visit New Zealand - 1500 words would be
ideal and we would pay [...] ... The Press is published in
Christchurch and circulates to all the South Island. Yours sincerely,
Michael Vance, Associate editor"
The fee offered was not fat, but what the hell. I said yes and
submitted within four or five hours the article [below].
[Key West, Friday, August 6, 2004]
"Rather than let me in, Canberra changed the law"
By David Irving
THIS is not a controversy of my own making. I gave notice of my
coming to New Zealand on my website last year. I have friends in New
Zealand, and scores of Australians have also expressed to me an
interest in flying over the Tasman to meet me again. As of this
morning, ninety-one have pre-registered and asked for more details.
In April or May I wrote to the New Zealand archives about permission
to use the papers of Peter Fraser, the wartime premier. I purchased
back in May the Qantas tickets that will take me from Los Angeles to
Auckland next month. I had made no actual speaking plans, and fixed
no locations, until I received an invitation from the National Press
Club in Wellington to speak. I had no idea there would be this
knee-jerk reaction, this sudden flare-up in parts of the New Zealand
BUT then, I was once wrong about Australia too. I had visited that
country twice, seen my Churchill biography's first volume sweep to
the top of the Sydney Morning Herald best-sellers -- and then I was
banned. I fought four legal actions, won two and lost two.
The Full Federal Court court admonished Canberra that the ban on me
was illegal. Rather than let me in, Canberra changed the immigration
It gets worse. One of my five daughters has married an Australian;
she lives in Brisbane, is an Australian citizen and civil servant: I
have an automatic "next of kin" right to enter, right?
Wrong -- John Howard has announced that they will change that law
too, if necessary. He knows which side his party's bread is buttered.
So how is it with New Zealand? I have visited New Zealand peacefully
before, caused no riots, broken no laws. "Nobody died," as they now
say in England, comparing others with Tony Blair and his more
egregious misdemeanours. I have a clean criminal record; have had a
clean driving licence for fifty years; and I don't smoke, I've never
done drugs, and I don't commit any of the other solecisms upon which
modern society frowns.
But NZ, it turns out, is a tough country to get into (unless, it
seems, you use the stolen identity of a quadruple paraplegic and wear
dark glasses). I have read in the newspapers -- in other words it is
still rather wooly and unofficial -- that some mid-level immigration
official has defined that I "can" be barred from the country because
I have "been deported."
That is true: twelve years ago, in 1992, under very dark and
mysterious circumstances, I found myself being paraded before the
media across three thousand miles of Canada from Vancouver to
Ontario, tried there by an immigration court for three weeks on a
pretext, and bundled out of the country on the floor of an Air Canada
I managed to hold a pen in my manacled hands, as a small statement of
protest. After all, I am a writer, and how many writers are subjected
to this kind of thing?
I would like some journalist one day to ask that mid-level NZ
Immigration official -- the one who says I "can" be barred: "How many
people has your service actually barred recently on the grounds that
they have 'been deported' elsewhere?" Or is it just me?
Suppose some friendly country's fine journalist is deported from Iran
for writing about their uranium-enrichment plants: Barred from New
Zealand now? BBC journalists are constantly being deported, for
instance from a certain Middle East country, because of BBC reporting
about Palestine: if they want to holiday in New Zealand, are they
going to find themselves tossed onto the floor at the Heathrow
check-in counter, trussed and handcuffed and dumped on the sidewalk
Of course not. Thinking people may even regard what such journalists
write as being that much more reliable, as they are willing to go the
extra mile, even if it offends national or other vested interests,
when they want to find out and publish the truth.
Which brings us to the crunch point: I fancy I hear that mid-level
immigration official say, that's a different story: the BBC guy was
writing views of which we approve; this David Irving guy doesn't,
he's a denier.
Well, actually he isn't that either. I deny it.
It all began in 1990 when I said in a public meeting in Munich,
Germany (alright, it was in a huge beerhall), that the "gas chamber
they show to the tourists in Auschwitz concentration camp is a fake,
built after the war."
Under Germany's current laws, I was fined DM.30,000 (around $25,000)
for that one remark, and in 1993 permanently excluded from Germany:
which caused my enemies much glee, as most of my sources, archives,
and publishers are there.
That ban is illegal under United Nations human rights treaties, under
the Helsinki Accords, and under European law, but what the hell: I
can live without the Germans. I have of course abided by the ban --
even though the Polish Government admitted in 1995 that the building
in question, the one shown to the tourists, was erected by the Polish
communist authorities in 1948, three years after the war ended.
But it was used to justify the proceedings in Canada. So effectively
you are allowing Germany to decide who can visit New Zealand and
speak to audiences there -- a privilege most of us would consider
Germany to have forfeited consequent on the events of 1939-1945.
In her 1996 book Denying the Holocaust, American scholar Deborah
Lipstadt called me the most dangerous of "their" opponents. She
called me a "Holocaust denier." It is a poisonous label, like
"paedophile," and I fought back.
From January to April 2000 I fought a historic three-month libel
action in London, at great personal expense, to shake off that easy
smear. The defendants, funded (as they admitted) by Stephen Spielberg
and all the usual media oligarchs, poured around ten million NZ
dollars into the London High Court to defend themselves. Ten million.
If it was that obvious, they could have done the job in a day at a
fraction of the cost.
In the end I lost. Loser pays all, that's the rule in the UK. My
Mayfair home of 38 years was seized and sold, along with my library
and research archives and everything that I and my family owned. But
I don't regret having fought back.
I would do it again. I had to act as a litigant in person, as I could
not afford the million-dollar fees that the great libel counsel
charge. One of them, the late great George Carman QC, told his son
that he thought on the evidence that I should have won.
For three months I was outnumbered in that court room, forty to one:
forty barristers, lawyers, solicitors, historians, graduate students,
assistants, and the rest, on one side of the courtroom, and myself on
The other side have already produced six books on the Lipstadt Trial
(including four written by their expert witnesses who swore on oath,
when I cross examined them as to their neutrality, that they were not
planning to write such books) and two films, and I hear that HBO are
making a film too, with Anthony Hopkins, "Hannibal Lecter," playing
I HAVE never written either a book or article about what they call
the Holocaust. Anybody who has read my books knows what I have
written on the Jewish tragedy of WW2, and what my position is: Much
of the popular version of events is true, horribly so; about some of
it we are entitled to be sceptical; and some of it is just plain made
A historian can't, or at least he shouldn't, ignore that, if he's
going to do his job right: and few experts in my field have denied my
qualities as an historian. Even Sir Charles Gray, the judge in the
libel action, whose words against me are quoted with such profligacy
by my opponents, also stated emphatically in his 333-page judgment
that my knowledge of World War II is "unparalleled".
In my Hitler and Goebbels biographies I gave full details of the
anti-Jewish atrocities committed by the Nazis, in fact fuller than
most accounts (and, by the way, just try to buy my books in any NZ
high-street bookstore, and then read again where David Zwartz says,
as he does in a letter to an American professor this morning, that my
books, tapes, and videos "are available to anyone who wishes to
access them, so there is no question of suppressing his [my] ideas.")
That is why the "denier" taunt is so offensive to me. It is a
poisonous label, and Zwartz and his ilk fling it around at will to
silence their more dangerous critics, and the skeptics, who are then
robbed of any means of defence by the bans, deportations, and other
devices which the puzzled New Zealanders are now seeing being
deployed in their own country.
New Zealanders should say, If Mr Irving is free to visit the whole of
Africa, South America, Asia, the United States (where I now commute,
research, and live six months of every year) and Russia, why is he
being kept from us and we from him?
Even Nelson Mandela's South Africa has lifted the ban imposed on my
speaking there, stating that it had been imposed by "the discredited
outgoing apartheid regime."
If a small community despises me, they do not have to come and hear
me. They can build a wall and retreat behind it until I am gone. I am
not interested in them. In fact I am not going to be saying anything
about them or their history at all.
© David Irving 2004
Thud. Ooof. Silence. Not announced, not acknowledged, and not
published. I wonder how often that happens to one of the Traditional
Enemy who submits an Op-Ed piece to, say, The Los Angeles Times, even
an uncommissioned one (but this one was commissioned).
In a breach of editorial etiquette, Vance not only failed to
publish, he has ignored several requests from me since then even to
acknowledge the article. I am beginning to worry for him. He seems to
have fallen off the end of the Earth.
I do hope that nothing has happened to this brave associate editor
of the South Island's leading newspaper?
Write to Michael Vance: are you OK?
Aug 3, 2004 Jerusalem Post: Israel Government applauds Irving ban I
suspect that had it not been for the trial of the two alleged Mossad
agents in the passport fraud case, and the precipitous flight to
Israel of the Kiwi accused of being their accomplice, none of this
would have occurred. Like the gravestones outrage, making a fuss
about my visit provides a useful distraction for New Zealanders from
the grim business of what the Mossad may have been up to in their
The small NZ Jewish community is not a body that I had intended
visiting, speaking to, or indeed even speaking about.
I had been assured by the London travel agents I have dealt with for
nearly fifty years that "any British Passport holder with the right
of abode in the UK is entitled to travel into New Zealand visa free
for a stay of 6 months." Two weeks ago they confirmed this. Which was
as I thought.
More information about the Zgrams