Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Pie
I was just listening to a very interesting piece on NPR's Talk of the Nation. They were contrasting the furor over the Mohammed cartoons with the recent conviction and sentencing of David Irving for the crime of denying the holocaust. (The trial was in Austria; he got 3 years.)
This is a very awkward situation.
|
It’s not very awkward once we apply details. For example, Irving claimed he had changed his mind in the 1990s after learning more about those concentration camps. Problem: he was suing the Emory University professor in Britain in 2000. Irving claimed that he said he no longer agreed with his book years previous to 2000 when he was suing that Emory University professor to (essentiall) defend his book.
Irving apparently is a perverse liar. His sentence apparently goes beyond the holocaust. He lied to the court when he said he had changed his opinion in 1990s - to try to get his sentence eliminated. That trial is more about the credibility and honesty of Irving - who has a problem with both human requirements.