David Irving has been sentenced to three years in jail in an Austrian court for denying that the Holocaust occured. What I would like to know is whether it would be legal to print the 'Muhammad' cartoons in Austria? It seems rather odd to me that one could be jailed for simply alleging (in this case, in a lecture to an obscure right-wing group) that fact X is not true and then supplying reasons for believing that this is the case, while one could engage in defiling a religious figure on an international scale and yet experience no legal repercussions. While David Irving was no doubt factually wrong (and he has admitted such), he at least was trying to make a historical argument. The publishers of the cartoons are not making an argument; they are simply engaging in mockery. If the former is not allowed, why is the latter? The intent behind both may well be the same, and a defamatory cartoon is certainly more like 'hate-speech' than a historical argument. This incident seems to illustrate the double-standard I complained of in an earlier entry. Laws which restrict freedom of speech in order to avoid offending particular segments of the population should either be broadened to protect everyone (which, even if possible, could prove to be extremely onerous) or should be repealed.

P.S. I've recently learned that Sikhs are protected against hate speech under UK law, but are considered to be a 'race.' If the definition of race can be so altered as to include non-Punjabi (even white!) Sikhs and to exclude Muslim Punjabis from the same racial classification, why on Earth can't it be altered so as to protect Muslims?