Well the expected pro-Nazi demonstrations never materialised, which must be good.

I must say my feelings about this piece of Austrian "justice" are not mixed at all. The sentence is outrageous. How can they possibly defend it at a time when newspapers and magazines across Europe are exercising their entitlement to publish cartoons of a so-called prophet? Perhaps it's an over-zealous attempt to atone for the enthusiasm with which Austrians in vast numbers rallied to the fascist cause over the years - as, for instance, a few years ago when Kurt Waldheim was exposed as a war criminal.

Having spent quite a lot of time promoting genocide awareness, supporting organisations committed to "remembering for the future," and studying one particular genocidal crime, I do have mixed feelings about Irving himself. His scholarship is widely recognised among serious historians, notwithstanding that many find his views and some of his conclusions repugnant. I suspect his views about Auschwitz-Birkenau; the degree to which Hitler steered or was aware of the Final Solution, etc, were honestly held (he has admitted he was wrong about the gas chanbers at A-B). But he allowed himself to be sidetracked and became obsessive.

I can understand, without supporting, his resentment of what Norman Finkelstein has termed the Holocaust Industry (on which matter Finkelstein won support from the foremost Holocaust historian Raoul Hilberg). But I am delighted that Irving's stance has been so comprehenseively rebutted, by Prof Deborah Lipstadt and others. It was a stance calculated to mislead the gullible and needed to be challenged.

Rebuttal is exactly the right way to deal with a problem such as Irving presents. Prison is most certainly the wrong way.

For anyone interested, here are a links to the relevant pages of two organisations that encourage education about genocide and commemoration of its victims. The second in particular is doing magnificent work in the field, largely unsung.

Peace Pledge Union

Aegis Trust