The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/i/irving.david//lying-under-oath

rom: (Kenneth McVay OBC)
Newsgroups: uk.politics.misc,soc.culture.british,alt.politics.british,alt.revisionism
Subject: David Irving, Libel, and Lying under oath..
Organization: The Nizkor Project

On February 15, 1999, during a conversation about Holocaust
denial on CNN's chat service, I included text which stated that 
British author David Irving was a man who had lied under oath. 

Mr. Irving took exception to my comments, and sent me the following 

     "Since it is possible you are the victim of a
     misunderstanding, would you kindly identify to me precisely
     on what occasions you maintain I `lied under oath.' These
     are very serious and cowardly allegations indeed,
     particularly where the victim has no opportunity of
     defending himself.
     "It is important that you should realise the consequences of
     uttering such wild allegations within the jurisidiction of
     courts where the laws of libel are taken seriously."

Given Mr. Irving's charge, and the threat of a libel suit,
I find it appropriate to explore the basis for the claim that 
Mr. Irving has lied under oath.

In 1992, Mr. Irving entered Canada as a visitor at Niagara Falls
on October 26, 1992 and subsequently became the subject of an
immigration inquiry at Vancouver, British Columbia on October 30,
1992. As a result, he was issued a departure notice to leave
Canada on or before midnight, November 01, 1992.

During a hearing before Immigration Adjudicator Thompson, Mr.
Irving asserted that he left Canada on October 30, 1992, at
Blaine, Washington and reentered Canada later that same day.

In the introduction to the Immigration Adjudicator's report[2],
Adjudicator Kenneth Thompson wrote:

     "This purported departure is pivotal, since if it is
     factually accurate, it would mean that the action taken
     against you by immigration officials in Niagara Falls on
     November 01, 1992 was based on erroneous facts; namely, that
     you were a person attempting to leave Canada pursuant to a
     yet unexecuted departure notice.
     "If, as you claim, you did in fact depart and then reenter
     Canada at the Washington/B.C. border crossing then it might
     be said that you had already satisfied the terms of your
     departure notice and therefore could not be a person
     referred to in paragraph 14(1)(C) of the Act. However, the
     question as to whether you did or did not leave is an issue
     of fact for this tribunal to determine."

After hearing testimony from witnesses, including that of Mr.
Irving, Adjudicator Thompson presented his findings[3], which
included the following:

(On November 1, 1992, Mr. Irving told an immigration officer, who
had shown Mr. Irving his identification and his badge, that he
had remained in Canada continuously since his arrest in Victoria,
British Columbia.) Thompson added:

     "In assessing your evidence as a whole, you have been unable
     to persuade me that you did leave Canada on October 30,
     1992. I have a great deal of difficulty accepting your
     evidence. It did it not have the ring of truth to it, but
     observing you and listening to your testimony, I could not
     help but get the impression that you were at times reciting
     a rehearsed script....
     "When viewed as a whole this evidence can lead to only one
     conclusion; the event was a total fabrication and never took
     place. I can only speculate that you and your supporters
     concocted your story to garner further publicity and prolong
     your stay in Canada, both of which you have done with some
On May 3, 1994, the Australian Minister for Immigration denied
Mr. Irving the right to enter Australia, finding that he did not
meet the "good character requirements" of Australian law. Mr.
Irving appealed this decision, and, in August of 1995, the
Federal Court of Australia released its Judgment[4].

Within that Judgment, Justice Carr made reference to the Canadian
Adjudicator's report as part of his finding of factual
background. In addition, he mentioned a 1994 decision by a
British judge, who is quoted as saying:

     "I have not found this an easy decision because I have made
     it clear more than once during the course of today - and I
     adhere to the conclusions that I have been forming and
     expressing - that I am afraid I do not accept the
     explanations appearing in his affidavit, that is to say, his
     explanation to me that he had not the faintest idea that any
     of this was going on - that includes that he had not the
     faintest idea that the German judgment was even registered
     in this country; I am afraid I do not accept that for one
In Justice Carr's decision, he makes the following comments[5]
regarding the immigration hearing in Canada:

     "Mr. Bates submitted that even if those comments indicated
     that there was perhaps a defect in Mr. Irving's character on
     that one occasion because apparently he told a lie, that
     would not on a reasonable basis be a ground for excluding
     Mr. Irving from Australia. "

Mr. Bates, I might add, is Mr. Irving's own counsel!

Carr also said:

     "The adverse findings were, in essence, that Mr. Irving's
     account of his short visit to the United States was a total
     fabrication and never took place i.e. that Mr. Irving had
     lied on oath to the Immigration Adjudicator."
With respect to the British decsision, Justice Carr said [6]

     "A finding that a person has deliberately given false
     evidence to a court of law is clearly, in my opinion,
     capable of being relevant to a decision whether that person
     is of good character."

     "...Mr. Irving has been found to ... have lied on oath to a
     quasi-judical tribunal and more recently to the High Court
     of Justice in England..."[7]

     in my view the conviction and imprisonment for contempt of
     court and the subsequent false affidavit evidence to the
     same Court..."[8]

     "I refer to the findings that Mr. Irving had given false
     evidence to Immigration Adjudicator Thompson in Canada and
     to the High Court of Justice in London..."[9]
Mr. Irving appealed Carr's decision, resulting in these findings
by the Federal Court of Australia in July 1996: [10]

Justice Davies:[11]

     "In my opinion, all these matters, the offences against the
     laws, the conviction, the contempt of court, the orders for
     deportation and the findings of lack of veracity, were
     matters which the Minister was entitled to take into account
     in his assessment whether or not Mr Irving was a person of
     "good character".
Justice Nicholson:[12]

     "The findings of Immigration Adjudicator Thompson were that
     the appellant lied on oath. ...He was found in contempt of
     court in the High Court of Justice in London and imprisoned.
     Later he was found to be a person who deliberately gave
     false evidence."
Given the findings of Adudicator Thompson, the British judge, and
three different Australian judges, I leave you with Mr. Irving's
words to me:

     "It is important that you should realise the consequences of
     uttering such wild allegations within the jurisidiction of
     courts where the laws of libel are taken seriously."

Mr. Irving may consider the comments of Adjudicator Thompson and
four respected jurists libelous and "wild allegations," but I do not,
and I have repeated those comments "within the jurisidiction of courts where 
the laws of libel are taken seriously" between May 7 and May 14, 1999,
in the locations noted in URL

I am waiting, Mr. Irving, for you to sue me "within the jurisidiction of
courts where the laws of libel are taken seriously."

It has been nearly 6 years, Mr. Irving. Please, Make my day.

Kenneth McVay, OBC


6. Ibid.
8. Ibid.

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.