Der frühere Redenschreiber der Labour Party und Kolumnist Rod Liddle schreibt im aktuellen Spectator über den richtigen Umgang mit Holocaust-Leugnern wie David Irving:
"The Oxford Union, unusually, chose well in alighting upon Irving and the BNP leader Nick Griffin to represent the persecuted side in a debate about freedom of speech. If we are serious about freedom of speech, then it should be afforded to the likes of Irving and Griffin just as much as anyone else, regardless of what horrible things they might have to say. I mentioned last week that if we are in a battle of ideas with Islam at the moment, then we have to be clear in our own minds what precisely our idea is — and that, boiled down, it comes to little more than a belief in individual liberty, freedom of speech and freedom of conscience. The howled abuse and the attempts to disrupt and cancel the debate make it very clear that our commitment to these concepts is sometimes fragile and tenuous. When I debate this issue with Muslim friends and enemies they are always clear that there should be very definite limits to freedom of speech: i.e., anything which disses Islam isn’t really on. And they are able to throw the argument back to me very easily: you have things, too, which are sacrosanct in your society, which it is forbidden to question — the Holocaust, for example. And they are right about this. The imprisonment of David Irving in Austria for ‘Holocaust denial’ makes us seem inconsistent and hypocritical. No part of our past should be so set in stone that one is prohibited from questioning it. All of history is a process of revision, in any case, one way or the other. In this case, you let the repulsive Irving make his case because the principle is far more important than our justifiable dislike of him."