Текст книги "ГУЛаг Палестины"
Автор книги: Лев Гунин
сообщить о нарушении
Текущая страница: 84 (всего у книги 88 страниц)
Excluding incarcerated foreign criminals under removal order from day
parole.
Why we are doing it:
It is inconsistent to integrate individuals into Canadian society who are to be
deported on completion of their sentence.
Streamlined Security Certificate Process
What we are doing:
Applying to permanent residents the security certificate process that
currently applies only to non-permanent residents. The process requires the
signatures of two ministers to the effect that the person is inadmissible on
grounds of security, and a review of the certificate by a Federal Court judge.
Why we are doing it:
To make it easier to remove permanent residents who pose a serious threat
to national security.
New Inadmissibility Classes
What they are:
Two new classes of people who will be inadmissible to Canada: (1) people
subject to travel sanctions imposed by Canada as a member of an
international organization such as the United Nations; (2) people who
committed fraud or misrepresentation on an immigration application will be
inadmissible for 2 years.
Why we are doing it:
To strengthen our ability to enforce international sanctions.
To prevent immigration to Canada through fraudulent means.
Backgrounder # 3
Milestones On the Road to New Legislation
Since 1996, the Government of Canada has been reviewing immigration and
refugee policy and legislation with a view to fundamental policy reform and the
introduction of new legislation.
The comprehensive review process that has been under way since has involved a
significant number of consultations with many different groups and interests as well
as with individual Canadians. Ministers have been discussing immigration reform
with Canadians for more than four years.
This process has included:
The appointment of a Legislative Review Advisory Group (LRAG) in 1996
commenced a major consultation process both by LRAG and by the
government on their report, Not Just Numbers, in 1998.
A Red Book commitment in 1997 and 2000 to streamline and update the
immigration/refugee system, which promised to implement changes to
make Canada's immigration system simpler, more effective, and more
easily understood.
The release of the White Paper, Building on a Strong Foundation for the
21st Century: New Directions for Immigration and Refugee Policy and
Legislation in January 1999;
Consultations on the White Paper with Canadians, provinces and territories,
non-government organizations, the legal community, special interest
groups, and the business sector throughout 1999;
Immigration commitments in the 1999 Throne Speech, Budget 2000 and
2001 Throne Speech; including the 2001 Throne Speech commitment to
re-introduce legislation to streamline and improve the immigration system.
Consultations leading up to the Standing Committee Report of March 22,
2000 entitled Refugee Protection and Border Security: Striking a Balance;
and
The introduction of the new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Bill
C-31 Bill C– ) in 2000 and 2001.
General agreement on fundamentals
There is general agreement that Canada needs a new Act that is simpler, more
effective, and more easily understood. Canadians want to stop abuse of our
immigration and refugee system and protect Canada's borders.
They want a system that is fair, effective, and respectful of Canada's humanitarian
traditions and international commitments in a world of increasing migration
pressures.
They also agree that Canada needs immigrants to contribute to Canada's
economic growth and prosperity. The business community needs access to the
highly skilled global workforce. Canadians recognize that immigration is largely
responsible for Canada's rich and diverse culture, and is a key advantage in the
global economy.
Canadians want a system that reflects our traditions of family reunification and
family values, honours our history of compassion for refugees needing a safe
haven, and contains selection criteria for immigrants that will ensure that
newcomers contribute Canada's economic and social fabric.
Immigration has proved to be a successful economic, social and cultural strategy
for Canada in the past and will continue to be so in the future.
2001-03
Backgrounder # 4
Detention Provisions Clarified
Detention is one of the most serious measures a liberal society can impose on
individuals. It must be limited to cases where it is clearly warranted and does not
contravene Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
However, Canadians want to ensure that their safety and security is protected and
that that their borders remain safe.
Current grounds for detention remain unchanged
Under the current legislation, there are three main commonly used grounds for
detention:
1.Failure to establish identity;
2.Danger to the public; and
3.Unlikely to appear for future immigration proceedings or removal.
Detention process will be more effective and transparent
The criteria for detention decisions will be established in the new Regulations.
There will be a requirement to review detention decisions after 48 hours, with further
reviews scheduled after 7 days and each subsequent 30-day period.
Foreign criminals facing deportation orders will not be eligible for day parole, as
they are unlikely to respect conditions set out in temporary release programs.
Priority hearings for those in detention
To balance increased detention measures, the Immigration and Refugee Board
(IRB) will give priority to hearings for those being held in detention.
This streamlining should prevent refugee claimants from remaining in detention for
long periods of time. Every step in the process from the irregular arrival of a foreign
national in Canada to his or her removal following a negative decision will be fair
and faster.
Protection of unaccompanied minors
While the legislative package honours Canada's international commitments to
protect the best interests of the child, the security and safety of unprotected
minors arriving as part of a criminally organized smuggling or trafficking operation is
a major concern.
These children are vulnerable to exploitation and coercion by the traffickers; in
these cases, detention is truly a last resort and this is stipulated in the Act. The
Government of Canada will make every effort to make arrangements with provincial
social services to protect these children effectively, while seeking to ensure that
they are not deprived of education and other basic needs.
2001-03
Backgrounder # 5
A Fair, Faster, More Effective Refugee
Determination Process
Front-end security screening of all refugee claimants
In the current system, security and background checks are initiated only once an
individual has had a refugee claim accepted and has applied for permanent resident
status. In the new system, security screening will be initiated for all claimants at
the time the claim is submitted. Greater coordination between domestic and
international agencies will improve the timeliness of security information.
Faster referrals to the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB)
The legislation will speed up this process by clarifying grounds of eligibility and
automatically referring all eligible claims to the IRB within 3 working days.
Consolidated assessment of protection grounds at the IRB
Currently, assessment of the grounds for protection is handled in several stages,
one at the IRB and the others at Citizenship and Immigration (CIC). The new
system will consolidate these grounds in one risk assessment during a single
hearing process at the IRB. The grounds for assessment of risk are: Geneva
Convention on Refugees, risk of torture (Convention Against Torture), and risk to
life and/or cruel and unusual punishment. These grounds are not new; they are
merely being brought together from several current steps into one.
Use of single-member panels as the norm at the IRB
Currently, two-member panels hear refugee cases at the IRB, and in the majority of
cases the decisions are unanimous. The process will be made more efficient by
the use of single-member panels as the norm.
Greater use of Ministerial interventions
The Minister (by delegated authority to her officials) will have the right to intervene
at IRB hearings to present security information or other data pertinent to the case.
Greater coordination between domestic and international agencies will improve the
timeliness and accuracy of information.
Paper review on merit to be introduced
To ensure consistency in decision-making and fairness to all refugee claimants, a
paper review on merit may be conducted by a division of the IRB. This step is
intended to ensure fairness and reduce the number of protracted applications for
leave for judicial review by the Federal Court.
Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA)
In keeping with Canada's international commitment not to repatriate people who
would face risk upon return, the Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) will be
provided on the same consolidated protection grounds, and coordinated with CIC
removal priorities. Pursuant to the Geneva Convention, serious criminals, security
risks, and members of organized crime groups will be excluded from consideration
of refugee protection grounds. Their PRRA will be limited to risk of torture and cruel
and unusual punishment.
Linking the PRRA and the removal process will allow for expeditious -yet fair -
treatment of all removal cases. This will ensure that no one will be sent to a
situation of risk to life or cruel and unusual punishment in their country of
nationality.
Six month bar on repeat claims
If a person returns to Canada after removal, they will not be allowed to reapply for
refugee status for six months following removal. Prior to the six months, previously
refused claimants would continue to have the option of seeking protection at any
Canadian mission abroad. Persons who return to Canada after six months may
apply for a pre-removal risk assessment but they are not able to re-access the
refugee protection system of the IRB.
Criminals will be barred from the Refugee Protection System
The new Legislation clarifies inadmissibility criteria to ensure that serious
criminals, terrorists, human rights violators and security risks will be barred from
access to the refugee determination system and promptly removed from Canada.
Campaign Against Fraudulent Medical Research
P.O. Box 234
Lawson, New South Wales 2783
Australia
Phone: +61 (0)2-4758-6822
URL: www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr
Although the above materials are highly recommended by CAFMR, we do not necessarily share all the views expressed by the authors.
Note about copyright: Any of the above information may be downloaded, copied, printed or otherwise distributed without seeking permission from CAFMR. However, printed acknowledgement is required when this is done.
Bradley R. Smith
Revisionism by: CODOH, POB 439016, San Diego, CA 92143
The Revisionist Campus Project
David Irving's Reply to
Jeffrey Shallit's "Lies of Our
Times"
London,
[ ]
Dear Professor Shallit,
I am not a subscriber to the Internet, but over the last few
months I have heard repeatedly about scurrilous materials
which you have been posting on that medium; at least you
have had the courage to put your name to them as author,
although this lays you open to the kind of lawsuit which I have
started conducting–and winning–here in the British courts.
I have so far seen versions of your Shallit's Report, and of your
"Lies of Our Times." You appear to be interested in the Truth,
and that being so I am making these comments to assist you
in the search for that elusive quantitй.
It appears that your primary source is a handout or handouts
of the Wiener Library (Dr David Cesarini) and of the Board of
Deputies of British Jews, who have furnished the League of
Human Rights of the B'nai Brith Canada with two lengthy
secret reports which are the subject of dispute between me
and the Board under both the Data Protection Act 1984 (the
Board at first denied having any data on me), and the
Defamation Act 1952 (the Board's solicitor is negotiating with
me for permission to withdraw the reports in toto, in return for
an undertaking by me not to pursue the matter in the courts).
First, your "article" Lies of Our Times (forgive the quotation
marks, but as you call me an "historian" it seems justified).
David Irving
David John Cawdell Irving is a British "historian", born in
1938.
* Correct.
According to David Cesarani of the Wiener Library in London,
England, he attended Imperial College at the University of
London, but never graduated. He holds no academic degree
and no academic position at any university or college.
* Correct. The same can be said for Winston S.
Churchill, Thomas Babington Macaulay (The
History of England), and the Gibbon who wrote
The Decline Fall of the Roman Empire, etc.
Would you denigrate them as "historians" too?
He calls himself a "moderate fascist",
* Incorrect. Please produce the source of this
spurious and libellous allegation.
and claims, among other things that the gas chambers at
Auschwitz (in which an estimated 2-3 million people died)
were "built by the Poles after the war as a tourist attraction."
* Not quite correct. I stated (on April 21, 1990 and
other occasions): "The gas chamber which is
shown to the tourists in Auschwitz is a dummy
(Atrappe) built after the war by the Polish
communists as a tourist attraction." In 1990, Dr
Franciszek Piper, the then director of the Auschwitz
State Museum Archives, confirmed that this is
true. As recently as 1995 the present directors
confirmed in an interview with Eric Conan, of the
well-known liberal French weekly L'Express, that
the gas chamber shown to the tourists was
constructed on the orders of the Polish communist
government in 1948. "Tout y est faux," reported
Conan, and the deputy chief of the site stated:
"Pour l'instant, on la laisse en l'йtat et on ne
prйcise rien au visiteur. C'est trop compliquй. On
verra plus tard" (L'Express, January 26, 1995).
(For this remark, he was fined DM 10,000 by a Munich court in
May 1992.
* Correct. On January 13, 1993 the fine was
increased to DM30,000 in view of my refusal to
retract the statement. (Why should I? It was true). In
addition, on July 1, 1993 I was permanently
banned from setting foot in the German Federal
Archives, which had benefited over the years from
my donations of half a ton of archival material
including the diaries of Canaris, Himmler,
Rommel, etc., which I had located, and which they
have now had to relinquish to me; and on
November 13, 1993 I was permanently banned
from Germany. How's that for freedom of speech!
The judge was quoted as saying that the gas chambers of
Auschwitz were "an historically certain fact.")
* Correct. The word used is offenkundig, and is
used in German law to deny defence lawyers the
introduction of any defence exhibits or witnesses,
e.g. the aforementioned Dr Franciszek Piper whom
we were prepared to call. There has been an
outcry in the German legal profession against
these methods, and Germany is to face a rebuke
from the United Nations for her repression of
freedom of opinion by such means. Of course, if
you believe they are correct to adopt such tactics,
such is your right.
Irving denies being a "Holocaust denier" or "Hitler apologist",
and seems willing to resort to legal action if necessary.
* Correct. Last year one of Britain's biggest Sunday
newspapers was forced to pay me substantial
damages after they printed such a libel. I issued a
Libel Writ in the High Court. (For legal reasons,
namely the settlement agreed, I am not permitted
to identify the newspaper or the amount, except off
the record). I am currently pursuing Libel action in
the British courts against The Observer, Deborah
Lipstadt, (whose odious little tract has been
foolishly published here, i.e. within the jurisdiction,
by Penguin UK Ltd) and Svenska Dagbladet. You
have been warned!
In a recent fax printed in the K-W Record, he is reported as
saying, "I have warned 22 British newspapers that I shall not
hesitate to commence libel action if they use smear phrases
such like 'Hitler apologist' or 'Holocaust denier' to embellish
their writings." But Bernard Levin, writing in The Times of
London in May of this year, quoted Irving as saying, "I hope
the court will fight a battle for the German people and put an
end to the blood lie of the Holocaust which has been told
against this country for 50 years."
Irving first entered the headlines in 1970.
* Incorrect. Ever since 1963 my books have been
the subject of wide comment and much praise in
the British media.
In July of that year, he was forced to apologize in the High
Court of London for "making a wholly untrue and highly
damaging statement about a woman writer."–not an
auspicious start for someone who claims to be in pursuit of the
truth.
* Correct. A Sunday Express journalist, Jill –,
stated that Rolf Hochhuth, the German playwright
and one of my closest friends had granted her an
exclusive interview. Hochhuth assured me he had
not even spoken to her. I mentioned this in a letter
to the newspaper's editor. She sued. As I was
fighting the hideously costly PQ.17 Libel Action at
the time, I had no alternative but to settle out of
court– "shortening the front," is what military
commanders call such action. Make of that what
you will. Nothing has been heard of that
"journalist" since.
Later that year, Irving was back in the headlines, concerning
publication of his book, "The Destruction of Convoy PQ17".
Ostensibly an expose of an ill-fated 1942 Arctic convoy
headed for the Soviet Union during World War II, it eventually
resulted in Irving being fined 40,000 British pounds for libel.
* Incorrect. In actions for Libel–a tort–the defendant
is not fined, but can be required to pay damages.
The book was published by Simon Schuster and
other leading pubishers around the world. Not bad
for an "historian", eh?
Irving's book faulted Captain John Broome, commander of the
convoy at the time, saying he was guilty of "downright
disobedience" and "downright desertion of the convoy."
* Incorrect. No such allegations or quotations are
contained within the book.
Broome brought suit against Irving for false statements, and
won a judgment in August of 1970. Irving's lawyers appealed,
and lost in March, 1971.
* Correct. We then appealed to the House of Lords,
twice, and lost 4-to-3,which is a pretty close call.
Needless to say the insurers of Cassell Co Ltd,
the British publishers, would not have authorised
such defence actions had their counsel not studied
all the documents available and concluded that we
had a powerful defence, based on the Admiralty
records; this they in fact did, and wrote Opinions to
that effect. Libel actions in Britain are tried by jury.
Make of that what you will.
The case is revealing because of what it says about Irving's
abilities as a historian and his motives as an author.
According to The Times of London, Irving showed a copy of
the manuscript to Broome before publication.
* Correct. I showed the late Captain Broome the
mansucript in 1966, and he agreed to read it and
make comment (as did a score of other officers
involved); breaking his undertaking, he alone
decided not to co-operate, but to wait for
publication and then sue for profit. So be it.
Broome objected to the accuracy of some thirty passages in
the book, and threatened to sue for libel if Irving did not make
changes.
* Incorrect. He objected in reality to six words
("Captain Broome was a broken man"), and after
these words were expunged, years later, his
lawyers permitted the book's republication by
William Kimber Ltd.
At that point, William Kimbers Ltd., Irving's publisher, notified
him that they would not publish the book as it was then
written.
* Incorrect. I was in dispute with William Kimber
after they paid me only J67 instead of the agreed
fee of J200 for translating the book, The Memoirs
or Field-Marshal Wilhelm Keitel. This being so, I
removed the PQ17 manuscript physically from
their offices; Kimber's secretary came running
down the street after me, pleading for me to return
it. I keep a very detailed diary of events. In court,
Kimber, already probably suffering from the
Parkinsonism from which he later died, gave a
totally different version, namely yours; he later
apologised to me, which did not assist me much of
course. Unfortunately, our counsel elected to call
no witnesses in the case but to rest securely on the
Admiralty documents.
Later, Irving published the book with another publisher.
The court found that Irving "was warned from most
responsible quarters that his book contained libels on Captain
Broome ... To make [the book] a success he was ready to risk
libel actions ... Documentary evidence .... showed that [Irving]
had deliberately set out to attack Captain Broome and in spite
of the most explicit warnings persisted in his attack because it
would help sell the book." The court labeled Irving's conduct
as "outrageous and shocking."
Irving's misrepresentations did not end with the publication of
his book. According to Cesarani, in 1979 a German publisher
had to pay compensation to the father of Anne Frank after
printing the German edition of Irving's book, Hitler's War. Irving
had claimed that Anne Frank's diary was a forgery.
* Correct as written. Without consulting me, the
Ullstein Verlag publishing firm, part of the
pro-Israeli Axel Springer Group) made some
unspecified payment to Otto Frank at his demand. I
had already halted production and publication of
the book for other reasons (tampering by Ullstein
with my text). The German Bundeskriminalamt
found that parts of the diary had been written in
(post-war) ballpoint ink-paste, which made its
authenticity problematic. My opinion on it now is
ambivalent: it is unimportant, not a historical
document of any value.
Irving claims that according to his "research", the Holocaust is
greatly exaggerated.
* Correct. I think the figures have been magnified
by an Order of Magnitude. Events in Auschwitz
alone suggest that I am right:: here the figure has
been effortlessly brought down from 4 million to 1
million, and now to even less.
(He was recently quoted in the K-W Record as saying that the
number of Jews who died in concentration camps was "of the
order of 100,000 or more.")
* Incorrect. Do you really believe all the
newspapers say? I may have said "killed", not
"died".
But during the 1988 trial of pro-Nazi publisher Ernst Zundel,
he was forced to admit under cross-examination that he hadn't
even read all of Eichmann's 1960 trial testimony. (In this
testimony, Eichmann admitted that Nazi leaders discussed
the so-called "Final Solution to the Jewish
problem"–extermination, in 1942.)
* Incorrect. I have Eichmann's manuscript
memoirs, given to me in Buenos Aires in
November 1991. He states that to him Final
Solution always meant the Madagascar Solution.
Anyway, do you really want to base your case on
the utterances of a Nazi war criminal?
In November 1991, a reporter from The Independent showed
that Irving omitted crucial lines from a translation of Goebbels'
diaries–lines that would have contradicted his theory that
Hitler knew nothing about the extermination of the Jews.
* Incorrect. Which "crucial lines" am I supposed to
have omitted?
Irving's record is clear: he is not an historian, and he has
made false statements and been forced to apologize for them.
As Andrew Cohen, reporter for the Financial Post, has said,
"David Irving should be denied credibility."
* Well, that really wants to make me hang up my
shingle: namely, that a shyster from a money-rag
doesn't believe me. What a waste of kilobytes,
when there are megabytes of reputable historians
saying precisely the opposite about me.
Yours sincerely,
David Irving
Focal Point Publications
Professor Jeffrey Shallit
Associate Professor
Computer Science Department
University of Waterloo,
Waterloo, Ontario
Canada
The following is the full text of the article by Mr. Shallit that Mr.
Irving quotes in the preceding letter.
LIES OF OUR TIMES
by Jeffrey Shallit
How the Words of the Holocaust Deniers and Their Allies
Show Them For What They Are
1. Background
Canada has a long tradition of tolerance and multiculturalism.
That's why many residents of the K-W area were shocked and
saddened to learn that a stereo store on King Street in
Kitchener was displaying posters advertising a talk by David
Irving, a self-described historian who says that the estimates
of six million Jews killed by the Nazis during World War II are
greatly exaggerated. Inside the store, according to the K-W
Record, one can find for sale a book by Fred Leuchter that
claims that the gas chambers at Auschwitz were never used
for mass killing. After local protests, the store owner retaliated
by putting up posters about the banking system based on the
writings of anti-Semite Eustace Mullins. Subsequently, these
posters were taken down by the store owner, but one explicitly
anti-Semitic flyer still remains. The Kitchener-Waterloo
Record recently carried a letter to the editor by Paul Fromm,
director of "Canadian Association for Free Expression, Inc.".
This letter defended neo-Nazi publisher Ernst Zundel, saying,
"Zundel was dragged through the courts for nine years ...
MERELY for his UNPOPULAR views." [emphasis mine]
Who are Michael Rothe, David Irving, Fred Leuchter, Eustace
Mullins, and Paul Fromm, and what do they stand for?
2. Michael Rothe
Michael Rothe is the owner of European Sound Imports, at
109 King Street W. in Kitchener. According to the K-W Record,
he is a native of southern Germany, who came to Canada
eight years ago. His stereo store might appear harmless on
the outside, but on the inside, one can obtain anti-Semitic
propaganda from a variety of sources. According to the
Record, in addition to the book by Fred Leuchter mentioned
above, one can also purchase a booklet on the court battles of
pro-Nazi publisher Ernst Zundel. Rothe also believes that the
Holocaust has been greatly exaggerated, and that there is a
world-wide Jewish conspiracy behind it. "They want money.
When they have money they have power," he has been
quoted as saying. Although Rothe has claimed, "I have not
seen a neo-Nazi before," according to the Record, he attended
a recent "victory party" for Ernst Zundel, and Zundel was
recently sighted at his store. When I asked Rothe if he knew
what Irving would speak on, he claimed, "Irving comes to
speak on Germany ... only Germany." When I pointed out that
this was false, that Irving actually spends a significant portion
of his speeches discussing how the Holocaust is a hoax, he
repeated, "No, that is wrong – Irving only speaks about
Germany." However, the posters Rothe himself has put up
belie this claim–they list the Holocaust as a topic of Irving's
speech.
3. David Irving
David John Cawdell Irving is a British "historian", born in
1938.
According to David Cesarani of the Wiener Library in London,
England, he attended Imperial College at the University of
London, but never graduated. He holds no academic degree
and no academic position at any university or college.
He calls himself a "moderate fascist", and claims, among
other things that the gas chambers at Auschwitz (in which an
estimated 2-3 million people died) were "built by the Poles
after the war as a tourist attraction." (For this remark, he was
fined DM 10,000 by a Munich court in May 1992.
The judge was quoted as saying that the gas chambers of
Auschwitz were "an historically certain fact.")
Irving denies being a "Holocaust denier" or "Hitler apologist",
and seems willing to resort to legal action if necessary.
In a recent fax printed in the K-W Record, he is reported as
saying, "I have warned 22 British newspapers that I shall not
hesitate to commence libel action if they use smear phrases
such like 'Hitler apologist' or 'Holocaust denier' to embellish
their writings." But Bernard Levin, writing in The Times of
London in May of this year, quoted Irving as saying, "I hope
the court will fight a battle for the German people and put an
end to the blood lie of the Holocaust which has been told
against this country for 50 years." Irving first entered the
headlines in 1970.
In July of that year, he was forced to apologize in the High
Court of London for "making a wholly untrue and highly
damaging statement about a woman writer."–not an
auspicious start for someone who claims to be in pursuit of the
truth.
Later that year, Irving was back in the headlines, concerning
publication of his book, "The Destruction of Convoy PQ17".
Ostensibly an expose of an ill-fated 1942 Arctic convoy
headed for the Soviet Union during World War II, it eventually
resulted in Irving being fined 40,000 British pounds for libel.
Irving's book faulted Captain John Broome, commander of the
convoy at the time, saying he was guilty of "downright
disobedience" and "downright desertion of the convoy."
Broome brought suit against Irving for false statements, and
won a judgment in August of 1970.
Irving's lawyers appealed, and lost in March, 1971.
The case is revealing because of what it says about Irving's
abilities as a historian and his motives as an author.
According to the Times of London, Irving showed a copy of the
manuscript to Broome before publication. Broome objected to
the accuracy of some thirty passages in the book, and
threatened to sue for libel if Irving did not make changes.
At that point, William Kimbers Ltd., Irving's publisher, notified
him that they would not publish the book as it was then
written. Later, Irving published the book with another
publisher.
The court found that Irving "was warned from most
responsible quarters that his book contained libels on Captain
Broome ... To make [the book] a success he was ready to risk
libel actions ... Documentary evidence .... showed that [Irving]
had deliberately set out to attack Captain Broome and in spite
of the most explicit warnings persisted in his attack because it
would help sell the book." The court labeled Irving's conduct
as "outrageous and shocking."
