To be sure, Nazi propaganda is an extremely sensitive issue in Hitler's birth country, which for the most part endorsed the madman's vision of the Third Reich. But the repression of the free marketplace of ideas is an endorsement of tyranny rather than its repudiation. And it is not just Austria, and Germany itself, that have banned the views of Holocaust deniers: Eight other European states have joined in. Muslim fundamentalists outraged by the cartoons that have appeared widely in the European media thus have the right to question the conflicting standards of what is considered worthy of censorship.

The muted response of the Western media to the Irving decision is difficult to fathom. Not much has been reported on this case and what has appeared often assumes that this severe limit to free speech is obviously justified. For example, a BBC report over the weekend concluded with this ominous paragraph: "In a letter to the BBC from his prison cell, Mr. Irving said some of his views on the gas chambers had changed -- but he also expressed opinions which would be challenged by mainstream historians."

Since when has it been accepted as a crime to challenge mainstream historians, even when, as in this case, the challenge is without foundation? Should a deeply wrongheaded view, even one motivated by vile malice as Irving's critics claim motivates him, lead to incarceration? The case made for criminalizing speech in the West is usually based on the concept that it is not OK to yell fire in a crowded theater -- or incite violence. The argument for jailing Irving is that denying the Holocaust is equivalent to stoking the fires of anti-Semitic violence. "Holocaust denial is anti-Semitism dressed up as intellectual debate. It should be regarded as such and treated as such," stated the head of the UK's Holocaust Educational Trust, by way of defending the Austrian verdict.

But by that standard, the artists who drew the cartoons depicting Muhammad should also be arrested, as well as their editors and publishers. Critics of the Danish newspaper that commissioned the Muhammad cartoons claim that its editorial slant is anti-Muslim and that they were attempting a deliberate provocation. So should the paper's editors be prosecuted? After all, people have died protesting these inflammatory comics. Will Austria and the other nations that ban anti-Semitic books now ban expressions judged by Muslims to be unacceptably hostile to their religion? Unfortunately, they may do just that out of political opportunism, given the rioting and trade boycotts that followed the publication of those cartoons. But they would once again be wrong.

Speech that is not felt by some powerful group to be loathsome is hardly in need of protection. The value of an absolutist opposition to the censorship of speech, as enshrined in the US Constitution's First Amendment, is that it holds out the prospect that the right to speak will be honored even when the content of those utterances is not. What is disturbing in both the Irving and Muhammad cartoon situations is the stuttering hesitancy of many who claim to be committed to free speech to speak out in opposition to those -- be they Muslim clerics or Austrian judges -- who seek to limit the free expression of individuals expressing views they detest.

In both instances, the world has been presented with a teaching moment, in which the argument for free thought -- that die gedanken sind frei ("thoughts are free") that the Nazis and every other absolutist dictatorship have excelled in crushing -- was not advanced by those who know better. As a result, a world sorely in need of a crash course in the efficacy of free debate received nothing of the sort. Instead, the lesson has been that the suppression of ideas is valid, as long as the suppressors are convinced that they are in the right.

Meanwhile, Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz met with U.S.envoy David Welch on Sunday morning, discussing U.S. and Israeli policies toward Hamas.

"Hamas is trying to mislead the international community, to sweet-talk it and to exhibit an appearance of responsibility," Mofaz was quoted by local newspaper Ha'aretz as saying to Welch Mofaz was referring to recent statements by Gaza-based senior Hamas leader Ismail Haneya, who has been formally tasked with the formation of the next Palestinian government.

Haneya was quoted by The Washington Post on Saturday as saying that the Hamas-led government would establish a "gradual peace with Israel" if the latter withdrew to its 1967 borders.Israel snatched the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and the Arab East Jerusalem during the 1967 Mideast War.

But Haneya has denied that Hamas would settle a peace agreement with Israel, saying his words were misunderstood. The Hamas premier-designate stressed that Hamas would consider a long-term political truce with Israel if the Jewish state withdrew to its 1967 borders, allowed Palestinian refugees to return and released Palestinians imprisoned by Israel.

Meanwhile, Mofaz also told Welch that Israel would not give tax revenues it collects on behalf of the Palestinians to a Hamas-led government, but the Jewish state would not impede transfer of humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people.

Mofaz also warned that Hamas was trying to obtain support and create an alliance with Iran. "These attempts will create an axis of evil from Iran to Syria through Hezbollah to Hamas", said Mofaz.

Welch is to meet Israeli Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert later on Sunday to discuss U.S. and Israel stances regarding overtures and aid to the Hamas-led Palestinian government. The Army Radio reported that the two sides would agree on a "Hamas bypass route", which allows Washington to channel aid funds directly to humanitarian organizations in the Palestinian territories, or to Palestinian President Abbas, rather than to the Hamas-led government.

Welch held talks with Abbas on Saturday, during which the U.S. envoy promised that the U.S. would not cut off humanitarian aid to the Palestinians even after a Hamas government took over.It was the first high-level meeting between the U.S. and the Palestinians since Hamas landslide election victory. Welch also assured Abbas that Washington supported him and his policies, praising his speech during the inauguration session of the Hamas-dominated Palestinian parliament earlier this month,according to Israel Radio.

"The United States has long been a supporter of the Palestinian people, through a substantial contribution of our foreign assistance funds... we continue to be devoted to the humanitarian needs of the Palestinian people and it shall remain so," Welch was quoted as saying.

"It is our belief that it is important for the people in the Palestinian territories ... to have a good life in safety and security with economic well-being," Welch added.

Hamas, or the Islamic Resistance Movement, garnered 76 seats in the 132-member Palestinian parliament, defeating Abbas long dominant Fatah movement.

The group, sworn to Israel's destruction and labelled by Israel and Washington as a terrorist group, is expected to form a new government in the coming weeks.

The U.S., together with the European Union, the United Nations and Russia, which form the Mideast peacemaking Quartet Committee, has threatened to cut off aid to the Palestinians if Hamas does not renounce violence, recognize Israel and accept previous Palestinian agreements with Israel.

Palestinian President Abbas has also called upon Hamas to open talks with Israel and respect previous deals with Israel, but rejected by the group.

Mansour acquainted during his meeting with the United Nations Under-Secretary-General and Special Adviser on Africa Ibrahim Gambari with the latest developments in the Palestinian territories and the dangers of the Israeli escalation in the area.

Mansour called on the UN Secretary General, Kofi Anan to intervene in order to stop the Israeli aggressions against the Palestinian people.

On his part, Gambari pointed out that Anan would discuss in the coming days with the world and Arab leaders the latest developments in the area.

The Palestine Permanent Observer at the UN, Reyad Mansour sent a letter to Anan, Security Council, and the General Assembly over the Israeli ongoing aggressions against people, particularly, the latest IOF military operations in Balata Refugee Camp in Nablus.

Mansour warned Israel of exploiting their internal elections to validate its aggressions against Palestinians, particularly, after Israeli chief of intelligence had threatened to assassinate Palestinian officials.

He mentioned that The President Mahmoud Abbas confirmed the PNA commitment to the peace process and all accords assigned between Israelis and the Palestinians, calling on Israel to stop aggressions and return to the negotiations table.

Dr. Mansour also met with his Austrian counterpart and other EU officials to discuss the economic situation in the Palestine after Israel has blocked tax revenues of USD 55 million it was supposed to transfer to the PNA.

The incident, which will do little to improve Bush's accident-prone reputation, began when he took to two wheels for a spot of early-evening exercise during last year's G8 summit at the Perthshire resort.

After a hard day's discussion with fellow world leaders, the president was looking for some relaxation. Instead, he ended up the subject of a police report in which the leader of the free world was described, in classic police language, as a "moving/falling object".

It was "about 1800 hours on Wednesday, 6 July, 2005" that a detachment of Strathclyde police constables, in "Level 2 public order dress [anti-riot gear]," formed a protective line at the gate at the hotel's rear entrance, in case demonstrators penetrated the biggest-ever security operation on Scottish soil.

The official police incident report states: "[The unit] was requested to cover the road junction on the Auchterarder to Braco Road as the President of the USA, George Bush, was cycling through." The report goes on: "[At] about 1800 hours the President approached the junction at speed on the bicycle. The road was damp at the time. As the President passed the junction at speed he raised his left arm from the handlebars to wave to the police officers present while shouting 'thanks, you guys, for coming'.

"As he did this he lost control of the cycle, falling to the ground, causing both himself and his bicycle to strike [the officer] on the lower legs. [The officer] fell to the ground, striking his head. The President continued along the ground for approximately five metres, causing himself a number of abrasions. The officers... then assisted both injured parties."

The injured officer, who was not named, was whisked to Perth Royal Infirmary. The report adds: "While en-route President Bush phoned [the officer], enquiring after his wellbeing and apologising for the accident."

At hospital, a doctor examined the constable and diagnosed damage to his ankle ligaments and issued him with crutches. The cause was officially recorded as: "Hit by moving/falling object."

No details of damage to the President are recorded from his close encounter with the policeman and the road, although later reports said he had been "bandaged" by a White House physician after suffering scrapes on his hands and arms.

At the time Bush laughed off the incident, saying he should start "acting his age".

Details of precisely how the crash unfolded have until now been kept under wraps for fear of embarrassing both Bush and the injured constable. But the new disclosures are certain to raise eyebrows on Washington's Capitol Hill.

Jim McDermott, a Democrat Congressman, last night quipped: "Not only does he break the law over here on eavesdropping and spying on our own citizens, but it seems he can't even keep to your law when it comes to riding a bike. It's another example of how he can't keep his mind on the things he should be thinking about."

Bush often takes to two wheels for exercise, after pain in his knees forced him to give up running. He regularly rides at secret service training facilities near Washington, and the G8 accident is just one in a long list of mishaps. In May 2004, he fell off his mountain bike, grazing his chin, upper lip, nose, both knees, and his right hand, while riding on his ranch in Texas. In June 2003, he fell off his hi-tech Segway scooter.

In Scotland, an accident such as the one at Gleneagles could have led to police action. Earlier this year, Strathclyde Police issued three fixed penalty notices to errant cyclists as part of a crack-down on rogue riders. Legal experts also suggested lesser mortals could have ended up with a fixed penalty fine, prosecution, or at least a good ticking-off from officers.

John Scott, a human rights lawyer, said: "There's certainly enough in this account for a charge of careless driving. Anyone else would have been warned for dangerous driving.

"I have had clients who have been charged with assaulting a police officer for less than this. The issue of how long the police officer was out of action for is also important. He was away from work for 14 weeks, and that would normally be very significant in a case like this."

No-one was available for comment from the White House.