This The storyline according
to the IMDB database is as follows:
Acclaimed writer and historian Deborah E. Lipstadt must battle for historical truth to prove the Holocaust actually occurred when David Irving, a renowned denier, sues her for libel
Particular so-called "goofs" according to the IMDB database review team include the following with respect to the choice of words and scripting in general in regards to this
movie: There are numerous references by the lawyer and by leading counsel to British and/or UK law, which does not exist. English law and Scottish law are different and therefore the reference should only have been to English law. There are also several references to 'discovery' which is an American legal term. The English equivalent would be disclosure, and the English legal team would certainly have known this and used the correct terminology.
In making my comments in the Review offering of this movie, allow me to first point out that I have for many years made clear to the likes of Speech advocate Paul Fromm in Canada who shares a belief in the merits of British idealism in our joint campaign over
the years to tout this as I have running ads in the press, yet saying to all concerned with speech concepts including Paul and many thousands of parliamentarians, state and federal officials in US Senate/House assemblies the European parliaments etc that I
have only ever supported the concept of free speech in any other form than that of allowing instead only actually "responsible speech" as also indicated at my ideasforpolicing.info website where I make this statement too.
As such I take a position on holocaust denial as an "unchristian tactic" which should be disallowed as it in fact is in some sixteen countries at the time of this posting, as an unconscionable thing to be in given the fact that it clouds the truth when in fact honesty
should be made to prevail instead in the truest interests of fairness and justice to be first and foremost in our minds and hearts on all approaches to any such issues as important and devastating to so many in Europe as a legacy of this dastardly war
of WWII in all its consequences and victims who were in fact targeted at the time despite their relative merits over their persecutors across the board.
It is interesting to note that in order to "whitewash" the memory of Hitler, the holocaust denier Mr. David Irving seeks to act as apologist by in fact suggesting too that Hitler would have opposed the holocaust "had he known about it" and that in any event it did not occur as described in fact at the level of the attempt of actual genocide as we all know it to have been since, given the mass store of memories and witness accounts from that period as millions would have had first hand knowledge and eyewitness accounts of the. rounding up in massive numbers and shipment to what became death camps from which they never returned. It matters hardly consequentially if they were gassed after or before death (as argued in this movie as to the alternative explanation for the use of gas) as to the larger issue of the fact that genocidal level of extermination had in fact been carried out - the word "holocaust" being just as appropriate for the mass effects upon the people regardless as I say of any quibbling by detractors to the truth such as Irving as to whether in a crematoria example discussed in a movie, gassing would have been explained as "intended mainly to eliminate the contagious typhus around the bodies"
Ultimately, two important points are made additionally, although hardly as intended by the politically correct movements around everywhere we look:
I should point out by the way, that the word "racist" is hardly ever used against anyone by anyone else who cannot also be somehow tainted with taking a position favouring or negating the opposing race interests or considerations as it is in fact a desire to stop an appeal to ones own sanity or sense of identity that results
in them being told it is in fact a sin to do so, but not for those who oppose them, who consider their own sanity in such regards as being allowed to do so instead. Ultimately anyone being unfair to others using a preference for their own race affiliations in a clear case of going against merit therefore against someone else,
is being a bigot Racial justice should be our goal, in real 100% fairness outcomes, rather than being unfair on the basis that (even where merit cannot be shown on the issue at hand of a situation being contested) you simply presume and assert and force your will upon others using the idea that your own race should prevail.
it is therefore not racism that is the issue (how can it be if both opposing parties have their own preference on race - wouldn't that make them both "racist"? Its therefore bigotry that is the real problem, and that is the person trying to play the race card "without the decency of being actually fair enough
to all) Irving is called a racist in the movie for having a song sing-a-long with his child asserting his pride in his European heritage alone.
Then there's the fact of the Judge (The Rt Hon Judge Gray) who makes
the clear point to defence counsel that a man could in fact hold anti-semitic view and do so honestly and so this was in fact not a relevant claim to make additionally against Irving (in addition to being a holocaust denier that is). Defence counsel responds swiftly to say that there is in Irving's case a clear connection between his anti-Semitic stance and his holocaust denial as the former leads to the latter in supply motive. After all if you chose to reject historical facts that are clearly established in the minds of millions who were there in europe at the time, and billions who accept the truth of the holocaust since then, you'd either have to be insanely stupid or in fact a denier or rejecter of truth based on some other motive such as being anti_semitic prima facie or up to no good, mischief, or plain evil. The judge finds that the defence counsel has therefore now clarified the role of anti-Semitism as the
driving ideology behind the distortion of truth involved in holocaust denial in such a case as David Irving (and one would conclude Ernst Zundel equally) (They had to prove that Irving was deliberately lying in denying the holocaust for his claim of libel/defamation to fail)
Its an interesting enough movie to take in, but a bit frustrating
at the tactics and idiosyncrasies exhibited by counsel in responding
to the defendant in the case, a Jewish woman whose ideas as to how to defend should have been given more respect or explanation that was done, and even so it would I think have served her cause to have for example allowed survivor testimony even in a few cases - the vagueness of testimony in regards to remembering which door opened which way etc is not relevant - rather the preponderance of the evidence they give, to impart a presence of mind that is in any event sufficiently affected by the truth of what went on during that
horrible period, as that is all one needs to be impressed with in what facts are relevant, rather than what particular holes were used in the ceiling to chuck in the cyanide etc. In this regard I found the scripting either frustratingly inadequate - or if this is in fact a recount of the actual tactics and exchanges between the lawyers and the defendant Deborah Lipstad (played by Ms. Rachel Weisz) then I think better players should in fact be involved in the future so she is better treated in her concerns by counsel, albeit mainly pro-bono as the percentages or amounts paid in by supporters to the huge defence effort i not mentioned in the script.
Rachel Weisz's character ends by suggesting of course that not all opinions should be treated as "equal" and that free speech is not being assailed. Instead she suggests that it is in fact not mere free speech but deliberate denial of facts that have a malicious intent in seeing justice go the other way that is the particular menace involved in speech involving the dishonesty of speech tactics
aimed at holocaust denial specifically, in this case.
Michael Rizzo Chessman