Kevin MacDonald, Ph.D.

CSULB, Department of Psychology

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

1996 I. No. 113
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London
Monday, 31st January 2000

Before:
MR JUSTICE GRAY

B E T W E E N:
DAVID JOHN CAWDELL IRVING
Claimant
-and-

(1) PENGUIN BOOKS LIMITED
(2) DEBORAH E. LIPSTADT
Defendants
The Claimant appeared in person
MR RICHARD RAMPTON Q.C. (instructed by Messrs Davenport Lyons
and Mishcon de Reya) appeared on behalf of the First and
Second Defendants
MISS HEATHER ROGERS (instructed by Davenport Lyons) appeared on
behalf of the First Defendant Penguin Books Limited

MR ANTHONY JULIUS (of Mishcon de Reya) appeared on behalf of
the Second Defendant Deborah Lipstadt

(Transcribed from the stenographic notes of Harry Counsell
& Company, Clifford's Inn, Fetter Lane, London EC4
Telephone: 020-7242-9346)

(This transcript is not to be reproduced without the written permission of Harry Counsell & Company)

PROCEEDINGS - DAY TWELVE


[The material prior to and following my testimony is omitted. I have also corrected misspellings of my name .]

Day 12 Monday, 31st January 2000.

P-4
MR JUSTICE GRAY: We can be quite open about it. Once this disk is to hand, then you can see it and, if there are any particular points you want to make on it, then you can.

P-5

Right. Professor MacDonald? I am bound to say, having read his report, I am not clear to what issues a lot of it goes, but perhaps you can ----
MR IRVING: Will I be allowed to examine him briefly to start with?
MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think you should because that may ----
MR IRVING: Help to bring out some of the issues on which we rely.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: --- reveal to me what is not at present clear, namely how his evidence is really relevant to the issues I have to decide.
MR IRVING: I appreciate that, your Lordship, and your Lordship will have noticed possibly that there is a bundle there which has freshly grown on your desk called bundle E, which I am not asking your Lordship, of course, to look at today. I am only going to rely on one document in it or two documents, in fact, including the covering letter as far as today is concerned. It is a document from the Defendants' own discovery, so I am not actually springing it on them. This is a bundle of documents which, I suggest, shows that I have been the victim of an international endeavour to destroy my legitimacy as an historian.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Well, yes, but remember- ----
MR IRVING: Of which the Second Defendant has made herself a part.

P-6

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Remember the Defendant is Professor Lipstadt and, therefore, it is her activities or activities for which she can be held accountable which may have some relevance.
MR IRVING: Yes, but if she has made herself part of a broader endeavour, then that goes to my claim that this is an aggravated libel, I would submit, and ----
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Let us see how the evidence turns out.
MR IRVING: --- let us see how we get along, my Lord, shall we?
Professor MacDonald.

PROFESSOR KEVIN MACDONALD, sworn.
Examined by MR IRVING.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Professor MacDonald, if you want to sit down, please feel free to do so.
MR IRVING: Professor MacDonald, I must ask you to speak up and also slowly because of the burden placed on the transcribers and also the difficulties with the language, of course. You are Professor Kevin MacDonald?
A: Yes.
Q: You are Professor of Psychology at California State University?
A: Yes.
Q: And you have a Doctorate in Biobehavioural Sciences from University of Connecticut?
A: Yes.
Q: You are the author of six books?

P-7

A: That is correct.
Q: Would you describe in very brief terms to the court the three major books which you have published, beginning with "A people that shall dwell alone", just in two or three lines setting out ----
A: Right. My background is a evolutionary biology, and beginning in the early 1990s I started writing what turned out to be three books on Judaism from an evolutionary perspective. The first book was "A People that shall dwell alone", Judaism as an evolutionary, a group evolutionary strategy, just basically describing Judaism from the standpoint of my evolutionary biology, including the ideology of Judaism, the segregation of the Jewish gene pool from surrounding peoples, resource competition between groups, and so on, co-operation within the group and so on.
Q: Can you describe that roughly then as the relationship between the Jewish community as a whole and the rest of the world?
A: Yes, but it was focused mainly on describing Judaism and its relationship, yes, with...
Q: Was that book well received in academic circles? Has it been generally accepted almost as a standard work?
A: Yes, it has had good reviews within evolutionary, you know, periodicals, yes.
Q: You are also a member of the executive board of the Human

P-8

Behaviour and Evolution Society?
A: That is correct.
Q: And your second book was "Separation and its Discontents". Would you again in two or three lines just describe what the content of that book is and its thrust?
A: "Separation and its Discontents" focused anti-Semitism from the evolutionary respect and from the perspective of social psychology, in other words, trying to develop an understanding of anti-Semitism within the purview, you might say, of modern and social science, and so it is focused on anti-Semitism but also on the tactics that Jewish organisations use to combat anti-Semitism.
Q: What kinds of tactics are you referring to when you say that?
A: Well, in the chapter where I described the tactics the Jewish organizations have used, I, in fact, mentioned the St Martin's Press rescinding a publication of the Goebbels' Diary which is why Mr Irving contacted me.
Q: Yes. So in that particular book you actually refer to the manner in which a New York publisher suppressed a book under pressure from the Jewish community?
A: Yes, from the Anti-defamation League, yes.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving, I think that can only be relevant, surely, if it can be established that the Defendants were in some way involved in St Martin's Press cancelling that contract.

P-9

MR IRVING: In that case I would draw you attention then when the time comes to a third document here, my Lord, which is the Washington Post on the morning before St Martin's Press took its decision and they quoted the Second Defendant as an authority for their decision.
Your Lordship may consider it to be tenuous or you may consider it to be relevant.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: No, I do not consider it to be tenuous.
I just wonder how this witness can help on this.
MR IRVING: Well, setting it in its broader context, as saying this is not just a misfortune that has befallen me, but is part of a group strategy, my Lord, and difficult though it is to establish, I will do what I can for the next five or 10 minutes and then turn him to whatever cross-examination Mr Rampton desires to make.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: But I understand the way you put it. Thank you.
MR IRVING: So you perceived the Jewish community as working in a certain way in order to suppress a certain book?
A: Yes.
Q: Yes.
A: Well, there were several tactics the Jewish organizations have used. That was another one.
Q: Yes. You have had a chance to read most of this bundle, which is identified by me as bundle E ----
A: Yes, I have.

P-10

Q: --- over the weekend, is that correct?
A: Yes, I have.
Q: Could you, again in just a very few lines, describe how the documents you have read in that bundle support or refute your own -- I have to ask what these papers are that you are looking at.
A: This is simply a statement that I wrote out.
Q: I think we will have to ask you to testify really from within yourself rather than from the written paper.
A: Yes. I was not aware of that.
Q: Yes. Having read the bundle of documents, would you describe roughly what the bundle of documents comprises?
A: Well, the bundle of documents comprises a record of suppression of David Irving, cancelling of speeches, avoiding of contracts, as a result of pressure of various Jewish organizations in different countries.
Q: Just from one country or from several countries?
A: From several countries -- Canada, South Africa, Australia, I believe.
Q: You would put the suppression of that book within that framework?
A: Yes. If I had known about that actually, I would have explained in that section, including more examples of that, showing some examples of that.
Q: Have you seen items in this bundle which lead you to believe that the Second Defendant has made herself a part

P-11

of that endeavour?
A: Yes, I have. There was an article in the Washington Post quoting her -- I do not have the exact quote here. I can read it.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: If you are going to rely on it in some way, perhaps you could tell me what it says?
A: Yes.
MR IRVING: It is --
A: OK. In the Washington Post of April 3, 1996, she is quoted as saying: "In the past ... it says that in every generation there shall be those who rise up to destroy us. David Irving is not physically destroying us, but is trying to destroy the memory of those who have already perished at the hands of tyrants. They say that they do not publish reputations, they publish books, but would they publish a book by Jeffery Damer on man, boy relationships? Of course, the reputation of the author counts and no legitimate historian takes David Irving's work seriously". It is that last part that certainly drew my attention because I have seen historians praise his work, but also just the fact that she was literally part of the pressure on St Martin's Press.
Q: Can I ask you to go to page 250 of the bundle?
A: I do not have a copy here.
Q: I will give you a copy. This is bundle E, if you go to page 250 of bundle E?

P-12

A: Yes.
Q: Is that a letter from the Simon Wiesenthal Centre to the Second Defendant, Mrs Deborah Lipstadt?
A: Yes, it is on the head of Simon Wiesenthal, signed by Saul Litman.
Q: Does it make reference to a student paper I sent to you?
A: Yes.
Q: Does Mr Litman who wrote the letter conclude the letter saying, "Please recognize that it is not for publication or direct quotation. It is, after all, an unedited student's work and contains many phrases and comments that neither you or I would use in a situation which clearly involves considerable delicacy"?
A: Yes, that is a direct quote.
Q: Would you now turn to page 251?
A: Yes.
Q: Is this, apparently, an anonymous report of approximately ----
A: 25 pages.
Q: -- 12 pages or thereabouts called, "History Rewritten, the World of David Irving"?
A: Yes.
Q: Have you seen anything in that report which indicates that there has been a deliberate attempt made by an organization to destroy my legitimacy as an historian?
A: Well, yes, on page 253 ----

P-13

MR JUSTICE GRAY: What do you say this document is that you are looking at, Professor MacDonald?
MR IRVING: It was a document that was provided to the Second Defendant by the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: That is the one referred to in the letter you have just taken us to?
MR IRVING: We have to presume so, my Lord. It took a certain amount of fight to obtain a copy of this for the solicitors. I had to obtain court order finally to obtain a copy of it.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: I see.
MR IRVING: They provides what looks like the covering letter in a separate episode and gave it the same discovery number, No. 500. But all I propose to do is to rely on the content of this document which went to the Second Defendant, and you have drawn our attention to page 253, and which paragraph do you consider is suggestive of an attempt to destroy my legitimacy as an historian?
A: In the first full paragraph, is still in the introduction, it refers to quotes later on from you, but then it says in the middle of that paragraph: "These quotes serve as a clear example of why he should not be allowed to disseminate his message of hate as freely in other public forums".
Q: Which paragraph is that again?
A: The first full paragraph on page 253.

P-14

Q: Beginning with the words "The focus of"?
A: Yes.
Q: "These quotes serve as a clear example of why he should not be allowed to disseminate his message of hate as freely in other public forums"?
A: That is quite correct, and further ----
Q: At the bottom of that page, can I draw your attention to the sentence beginning, "The importance of" ----
A: Yes.
Q: --- "such work is to deny Irving the legitimacy he so desires in his attempts to spread his anti-Semitic and racist messages", and are there any other passages in that which indicate an organized attempt to destroy my legitimacy?
A: Yes, just a minute here. It probably bears mentioning on page 256 that, although the author of this report does view David Irving as a flawed historian, it is acknowledged that his revisionist themes are interspersed with genuine historical insight. Again, that is, sort of, what exercises me, but at the bottom of page 258, the last paragraph on page 258.
Q: Would you read it out, please?
A: The entire paragraph?
Q: Yes.
A: "David Irving's techniques challenge the most educated minds to adopt his version of reality. By revealing

P-15

Irving's methods, the illusion is portrayed as facts and his writings have been unveiled. Hence, while claiming to be a legitimate historian, Irving can now be identified with his underlying purpose, to morally rehabilitate Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich. Given this accurate version of reality, it is all the more clear why his activities must be curtailed and why his alleged legitimacy must be eradicated".
Q: There is one particular passage, is there not, that you have read where they actually talk about the need to destroy my legitimacy as an historian?
A: Well, I believe that was the main one. The final -- no, OK, yes, on page 273.
Q: Yes.
A: The author goes into various possibilities of how to deal with David Irving, one of which was just to go for free speech, but the other suggests, it says, "In the case of" -- this is on page 253 --
Q: "In the case of David Irving", right?
A: It is after the indent quote -- what?
Q: The third paragraph, right?
A: OK, yes. "In the case of David Irving, in his brand of Holocaust denial, the ultimate response is to cease providing him with a forum to convey his skewed version of history and to negate his attempts to obliterate the memory of millions of victims."

P-16

And I might point out also the last paragraph on page 276, where he quotes John Keegan: "No historian of the Second World War can afford to ignore David Irving".
So, again, despite the fact that he is regarded among historians as important, someone one must read, there are attempts to make, to curtail his freedom of speech, and so on.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Professor MacDonald, how does that establish that Professor Lipstadt is part of this conspiracy to discredit Mr Irving?
A: To my knowledge and my only, the only linkage between Professor Lipstadt and this is the Washington Post interview.
Q: What has this to do with the Washington Post?
MR IRVING: My Lord, this document was from Professor Lipstadt's own discovery.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: I follow that. It is a document that she was sent, apparently unsolicited, by the Simon Wiesenthal organization. What does that prove against her?
A: Well, OK, this document -- there is not, but my impression was that David Irving has a general complaint about persecution by Jewish organizations and that is what I thought we were addressing here.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: I see. Thank you.
MR IRVING: My Lord, your Lordship said "unsolicited". In fact, there are other documents in this bundle where we

P-17

see the second Defendant specifically writing to all these bodies asking, effectively, what dirt they have on me, both in Canada and in the United States and in London. There is a whole list of them whom she thanks in her introduction, whereupon your Lordship will see from this bundle on a later date -- I shall draw your Lordship's attention to it -- that I made an application for specific discovery of these items. Unfortunately, we are not going to have a chance to cross-examine the Second Defendant on the completeness of her discovery, and I have done what best I can to establish what information she had. May I proceed?
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, please.
MR IRVING: Professor MacDonald, have you seen correspondence in this bundle between the Second Defendant and the Yad Vashem and, in particular, with Professor Yehuda Bauer, B-A-U-E-R?
A: Yes, I have.
Q: What was the content of that correspondence in brief? We can look at the correspondence --
A: Do you have the page number for it? In brief, the content was to remind Professor Lipstadt of the importance of including David Irving in the book.
Q: Had she not then included me in the original draft of her book from the correspondence that you have seen?
A: I believe it was that you were mentioned in that, but the

P-18

clear intent was to emphasise you to a greater extent than it was before.
Q: So Professor Bauer, who was the commissioning, the head of the Institute which paid the commission to Professor Lipstadt to write this research project originally, received the original draft and he said, "Not good enough, we need more on David Irving", is that what he said?
A: That is a fair summary.
Q: I will see if we can find the exact letter.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Page 161.
MR IRVING: Thank you very much, my Lord. I am indebted to you.
A: 161.
Q: Will you please turn to page 161?
A: Yes.
Q: He says, and it is fair to say this, in a letter to the Second Defendant: "The book is extremely well written and fascinating", this is 1992, "but I suppose what you want is a critique. What I miss in the main is the world wide perspective". Then he goes on a bit lower down to say that, in his view, the author has concentrated too much on North America and I believe on France. "Irvin is mentioned but not that he is the mainstay of Holocaust denial today in Western Europe". So what do you think Professor Bauer is asking her to do?
A: He is clearly asking her to expand the coverage on you.

P-19

Q: Right. If you will now turn to page 163, a month later we have a letter from the Second Defendant to an Englishman, Anthony Lerman, who wears various hats. Here he is at a newspaper or magazine called "Patterns of Prejudice", and is it fair to say this is a letter asking her for more information on David Irving because she has now been given the job of shoe-horning this British author into the book?
A: Yes, that seems to be the import of that letter.
Q: Does she say,"I am just finishing up the book and, as you can well imagine, David Irving figures into it quite prominently". Do you have in your files a few Irving articles from recent months?" So would you say that she is now asking for whatever various bodies around the world because there were other letters, are there not, of this nature?
A: Yes, and she clearly views him as one of the most dangerous figures.
Q: My Lord, the reason I am asking these questions is as a means of putting these letters before the court.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, I see your difficulty and I see what you are doing. This seems to me to be more relevant than the general sort of evidence that the Professor was giving earlier. So let us see what the reply was, shall we?
MR IRVING: I hear what you say. I am very nearly finished, in fact, with the examination.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: No, this is not irrelevant.

P-20

MR IRVING: On the following page, page 1674, does Anthony Lerman, now on the headed notepaper of the Institute of Jewish Affairs, say that he is going to fax a lot of material to her?
A: Yes.
Q: From your reading of this file, have you observed that various Jewish organizations maintain files on people like that?
A: It is quite clear, yes, from this file plus from other things I have read, yes.
Q: Do you know any names of other famous authors that they have kept files on, both Jewish and non-Jewish?
A: Noam Chomsky comes to mind -- I cannot think of specific names right now.
Q: Very well. Do you think that these organizations give a chance to the victims of their dossier keeping to have a look in those files to see if the materials they keep in them are correct or not?
A: Not without a great deal of legal proceedings. I should say there are other people, like people associated with the Institute of Historical Review and other so-called revisionists, and they are, well, they do keep documents, dossiers, in there.
Q: Yes. Did you see an affidavit in this file from the Director of a British organization, a similar British organization, in which he confirms that he provided

P-21

material on me to the Canadian Government indirectly?
A: Yes. I do not recall the page again, but, yes.
Q: And for the purpose purely of abrogating my freedom of speech in Canada? Would you agree that is correct?
A: That is correct, and there are several instances in which your talks and so on were -- there was pressure placed on organizations, hotels or wherever the venues were, to cancel these talks and so on.
Q: So we are now going from the particular of what you have seen in this file very briefly back to the general, do you consider what you have seen in this file by way of evidence in my particular case, over the last 10 years, to be part of a group strategy that has been evolved by the Jewish communities around the world to protect themselves or to preserve their interests?
A: Yes, I think that anti-Semitism is, you know, a perennial problem, and Jewish organizations have developed very sophisticated ways of dealing with it. This is one way of dealing with it. Anti-Semitism or any anti-Semitism is fought very, very intensely. They take it very seriously and they do quite a job, obviously, of suppressing it, yes.
Q: Whom do you mean by anti-Semites, people who go round scoring swastikas on synagogues or people who have a genuine grievance?
A: Well, yes, the term they will use is very broad. The word

P-22

' I am not saying, I am not implying that you are an anti-Semite, I am saying that people they view as being detrimental to their interests. Some of them might -- the term "anti-Semitism" is hard to define anyway.
Q: Have you seen references in this file to the Second Defendant and others describing me as being "a danger"?
A: Absolutely. It says right in the previous document we have just mentioned.
Q: Particularly dangerous?
A: The Second Defendant mentioned you as a very dangerous person.
Q: In what way am I dangerous, do you suspect? Am I the kind of person that they think I may place a bomb in their letter box or what kind of danger are they referring to?
A: No, obviously, they view you as a danger because of your intellectual -- because of your writings.
Q: But a danger to what?
A: I believe they think it is a danger to their, what they view as an important, that their version of events be accepted as the truth, and that the dissent from certain of these tenets should be viewed as beyond the pale of rational discussion.
Q: Finally, in order to pre-empt a question Mr Rampton may wish to ask, do you consider me to be an anti-Semite from your knowledge of me?
A: I do not consider you to be an anti-Semite. I have had

P-23

quite a few discussions with you now and you have almost never even mentioned Jews and, when you have, never in a general negative way.
Q: Yes. So from your discussions in private with me, or from your perceptions of me in company with circles who might be considered to be receptive to such remarks, you have never heard me expressing any anti-Semitic utterances of any kind or beliefs?
A: No.
Q: I do not think I have any further questions of this witness at this stage.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving, was the material promised by Mr Lerman in the letter at page 164 ever provided?
MR IRVING: It is identifiable in the discovery, but only fragmentary. There are pages missing. I made application for the missing pages without much success. I was informed that I could go behind her affidavit when the time came to cross-examine her, and as your Lordship now knows, I am going to be denied that opportunity. So it is a rather unhappy position.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: But is it in this bundle somewhere, or not?
MR IRVING: It is certainly in the discovery, my Lord, and it was of the nature of press clippings and that kind of thing which I may have included in part, but it would not have served any purpose in this bundle.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: All right. Thank you very much. That was

P-24

economically done. Thank you, Professor MacDonald.
MR RAMPTON: I have no questions.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Thank you very much, Professor MacDonald.
There is no cross-examination so that concludes your evidence.
MR IRVING: Is the witness released, my Lord?
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, you are released. You are free to go.

(The witness withdrew)