There's an extraordinary BBC News web site report about David Irving today.
It describes him as a "British academic".
David Irving has no academic qualifications of any kind, and has never held an academic post at any accredited academic institution.
It also refers to his "unpalatable historical views."
As was massively demonstrated at the libel trial he brought in London against Professor Deborah Lipstadt, author of a book which exposed him as a lying Holocaust denier, it is not a matter of "unpalatable historical views". Irving was shown not just to be a Holocaust denier, but to have repeatedly falsified and distorted historical evidence in pursuit of his project of Holocaust denial and his anti-semitic worldview.
Even though the BBC report acknowledges that the judge in his case found him to be anti-semitic and a Holocaust denier, it does not at any point acknowledge the extensive findings that he distorted and falsified evidence. It refers to him as illustrating "that he was capable of putting up an engaging fight."
A sidebar on the BBC News report with further links repeatedly uses the term "Holocaust denier" in inverted commas, as if to cast doubt on that this designation applies to him.
The report also gratuitously highlights this shout quote from Amr Mousa, the Secretary General of the Arab League
What about freedom of expression when anti-Semitism is involved? Then it is not freedom of expression. Then it is a crime. Yet when Islam is insulted, certain powers raise the issue of freedom of expression.
It takes that further with this astounding quote:
Either way, the risk remains that Mr Irving will appear a martyr to free speech and that his trial will fuel the anger of those who accuse Europe of double standards - apparently ready to cite freedom of expression when it comes to printing cartoons offensive to Muslims, while incarcerating those who insult Jews.
Since when has Holocaust denial become a question of insulting Jews?
I have already set out in section VIII above my conclusion that Irving displays all the characteristics of a Holocaust denier. He repeatedly makes assertions about the Holocaust which are offensive to Jews in their terms and unsupported by or contrary to the historical record. I have also given at section IX above the reasons for my findings that Irving is an anti-semite and a racist. As I have found in section X above, Irving associates regularly with extremist and neo-Nazi organisations and individuals. The conclusion which I draw from the evidence is that Irving is sympathetic towards and on occasion promotes the views held by those individuals and organisations.
13.162 It is not difficult to discern a pattern to the activities and attitudes to which I have alluded in the preceding paragraph. Over the past fifteen years or so, Irving appears to have become more active politically than was previously the case. He speaks regularly at political or quasi-political meetings in Germany, the United States, Canada and the New World. The content of his speeches and interviews often displays a distinctly pro-Nazi and anti-Jewish bias. He makes surprising and often unfounded assertions about the Nazi regime which tend to exonerate the Nazis for the appalling atrocities which they inflicted on the Jews. He is content to mix with neo-fascists and appears to share many of their racist and anti-semitic prejudices. The picture of Irving which emerges from the evidence of his extra-curricular activities reveals him to be a right-wing pro-Nazi polemicist. In my view the Defendants have established that Irving has a political agenda. It is one which, it is legitimate to infer, disposes him, where he deems it necessary, to manipulate the historical record in order to make it conform with his political beliefs.
Finding as to Irving’s motivation
13.163 Having reviewed what appear to me to be the relevant considerations, I return to the issue which I defined in paragraph 13.138 above. I find myself unable to accept Irving’s contention that his falsification of the historical record is the product of innocent error or misinterpretation or incompetence on his part. When account is taken of all the considerations set out in paragraphs 13.140 to 13.161 above, it appears to me that the correct and inevitable inference must be that for the most part the falsification of the historical record was deliberate and that Irving was motivated by a desire to present events in a manner consistent with his own ideological beliefs even if that involved distortion and manipulation of historical evidence.
It seems the BBC is more interested in promoting the Islamist agenda of equating with Holocaust denial unintended offence against Muslim requirements about not portraying the prophet Mohammed than it is in telling the full truth about David Irving.
HAT TIP: MM