The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

David Irving threatens libel suit

[Email Header trimmed]

Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 10:17:30 EST

Dear Mr McVay

I understand that you stated on CNN last night words to the following effect:

Then there's British author David Irving, a man who has lied under oath in Great Britain, and lied under oath in Canada, and, wonder of wonders, contradicted himself with his Zundel testimony...

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. Professor LIpstadt (and I have seen her correspondence with you) evidently failed to appreciate this fact, which is now causing her much inconvenience.

David Irving

Mr. McVay quoted from Mr. Irving's message, above, and offered the following comments:

From the Canadian Adjudicator's Report:

"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 success."

I think that is clear enough. In the event it was not, I find it repeated by the Australian Federal Court during the first judgment:

"Between 2 November and 13 November 1992 an immigration hearing took place at Niagara Falls before Immigration Adjudicator Mr. Kenneth Thompson. Mr. Irving gave sworn evidence and adduced evidence from others at that hearing concerning his departure from Canada on the evening of Friday 30 October 1992. Mr. Thompson, in his findings, said that he did not believe Mr. Irving and gave written reasons for that finding. Mr. Thompson's conclusions included the following:

"In [??] 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 [??] 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 re-citing [sic] a rehearsed script. I found you to [sic] a difficult witness who was often confrontational with the Case presenting officer when he asked you straightforward questions.

When viewed as a whole this evidence can lead to only one conclusion; the event was a total fabrication and never took place."


"In my view those submissions overlooked the critical issue. That issue is whether Adjudicator Thompson's adverse findings in respect of Mr. Irving were irrelevant considerations under Regulation 2(1) on the question of good character. 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."

I trust you have advised the Justices of the "very serious and cowardly allegations" and filed suit against them, right, Mr. Irving? I also find the following text, which is quite interesting, since it addresses the issue of your sworn affidavit in England:

"On 11 February 1994 in the High Court of Justice (Queen's Bench Division) in London, Brooke J. found that Mr. Irving was in contempt of court by failing to comply with an order of Morison J. For that contempt Brooke J. ordered Mr. Irving to be commited [sic] to prison for a period of three months. On 21 February 1994 Mitchell H. heard an application on Mr. Irving's behalf to purge his contempt and to obtain a discharge of the order made on 11 February 1994 committing him to prison. Mitchell J's written reasons in respect of that application included the following paragraph:

"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 moment."

I trust you have brought suit against Mitchell, yes?

In the appeal judgments, we find Davies saying: "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". No matter taken into account by the Minister was irrelevant to his task."

"Lack of veracity," Mr. Irving. Have you filed against Davies yet?

Then there is this comment from Nicolson, in his appeal judgment:

"The other matters before the respondent and considered by Carr J did not derive their character from criminality arising from the exercise of free speech. The findings of Immigration Adjudicator Thompson were that the appellant lied on oath. A deportation order from Canada was made against him. 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."

By all means, Mr. Irving, file a libel suit. I look forward to deposing these Federal Court Justices and Adjudicator Thompson, and, of course, Mitchell. If nothing else, it should produce marvellous transcripts for the web.

By the way, Mr. Irving, although it really isn't relevant, comments you make about my funding on your home page are outright lies. I, without the slightest degree of difficulty, can prove, beyond even a shadow of doubt, that I have never received a cent from the ADL, and that the ADL has never (and will never) fund my work. I find it amusing that you make yourself such an easy target.

Have a nice day, Mr. Irving, and save your threats for someone else.

Ken McVay

[ Index ] [an error occurred while processing this directive]