Pipped to the 2BL post, he made do with Radio National to claim that her 1994 novel was essentially an unoriginal reworking of an old extreme right wing conspiracy theory mistakenly applauded by simple homespun academics such as Dame Leonie Kramer (currently Chancellor of the University of Sydney). And of course, that Irving's opinions are her opinions.

In spookily Jones-like vein, Henderson refers to HER allegation of "some kind of Jewish conspiracy" to back Lipstadt. Actually that one is pure Irving. Helen Darville only quotes from trial document 500 in which Lipstadt, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre and the Board of Deputies of British Jews explicitly conspire to trash Irving's reputation as a historian.

You may recall that the Board of Deputies of British Jews is the same organisation that informed US Immigration of Irving's 'alternative career' as a drugs baron and only escaped bankruptcy in a libel court because of the statute of limitations. This particular 'prank' meant that when Irving attempted to comply with a voluntary departure notice from Canada, he was turned back at the US border and was subsequently deported in handcuffs - which the Australian Government then citied as evidence of his 'poor character' when refusing entry in 1992.

(And to be fair to David Irving's "Jewish conspiracy", how was Gerard to know that the State of Israel would release the otherwise useless Eichmann papers only days later as a public gesture of support for Lipstadt's case.)

In his own piece of polemic, Henderson manages to complain that the article is "very much one-sided," and yet "It's partly critical of David Irving and partly not critical of David Irving" which to our confused minds would suggest a degree of impartiality the man is determined to ignore. He also makes a point of whinging about alleged libeller Deborah Lipstadt not having a say on the article - despite the fact that her refusal to talk to ANY media has been publicised even as far as Sydney.

His eagerness to see her work quoted to a more mainstream audience is truly touching, and we at the FAIRFAX ARE YELLOW! website are happy to oblige by quoting this example of her razor sharp insight and thorough fact checking from the same book recently before Britain's High Court, "Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory".

Half way through this paragraph the absolutely respectable Australian Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is magically transformed into 'the League", a reference to Australia's League of Rights from whom the behaviour Lipstadt describes is more readily expected. 

"Claims by Lipstadt that I am "the leader" of the Australian League of Rights, that I have claimed the Holocaust is a "gigantic lie", and that Fred Leuchter, who had demonstrated that people could not have been gassed at Auschwitz, has visited Australia, are all incorrect, and amount to an "assault on truth". I am not the "leader" of the Australian League of Rights, and am not now and never have been even a member of the group. I understand the group is a Christian group, that it promotes an economic theory of social credit, and that it believes in an International Fabian Socialist conspiracy, orchestrated by the left wing Fabian Society. I am not a Christian, do not believe in social credit, and far from believing in a Fabian conspiracy, am a long standing member of he Fabian Society, and a former member of its executive.

Until that time we present the article by Helen Darville which Henderson was allowed to see before submitting his own piece.

There are times when David Irving's arguments in the libel action he's brought against Deborah Lipstadt start to sound like the line out of Mel Brooks' The Producers: 

"Hitler was a better dancer than Churchill. Hitler was a better singer than Churchill. Churchill couldn't even say 'Nazis'. He'd say Naahzies, bloody Naahzies".

However, the trial has sparked renewed public interest in the Holocaust. You can't buy a book on the subject in Britain.

"I'm sorry," the nice young man in Waterstones Piccadilly tells me. "All I've got is an empty shelf in the 'History' section." This in Europe's largest bookshop.

Since most books on the Holocaust worth reading are by expert witnesses to the trial, perhaps this is not surprising.

Interestingly, there's been no obvious rush to embrace neo-Nazism among the British people, despite the fact that Irving's views have been widely and respectfully reported in the British press. I think it's reasonable to assume that, were David Irving to be admitted to Australia, the result would be similar. It's unlikely we'll see neo-Nazis goose-stepping their way around King George Square.

The case for allowing David Irving entry to Australia is a simple one. "Freedom of Speech" has been done to death in debates about him, but is no less relevant. As I see it, either everyone has the right to express their views, or no-one does. I don't think it's possible to justify exceptions in a democracy.

Irving's threat to the Australian body politic is greatly overrated. The assumption on the part of bodies like the Executive Council of Australian Jewry - that if we allow Irving into the country, he'll "win converts" to his views - is naive. This patronisingly assumes that people believe everything they hear or read.

Make no mistake, David Irving's views- not only on the Holocaust, but on other matters, such as Commonwealth immigration to Great Britain - are noxious. Among other things, he contends that there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau and despises racial mixing. Nonetheless, he neither condones nor incites violence. He's banned from Australia simply because of his opinions.

For what it's worth, I think democracies need to be tested by the presence of people like David Irving. A democracy behaves like an immune system: unless it's challenged, it weakens overtime. Open public debate means the invading virus of a dissenting view can be met and rendered harmless. Suppressing debate for reasons of political expediency or to avoid offence weakens the credibility of the system we in the West are so fond of exporting to eastern Europe and the Third World.

When discussing Irving's opinions, people focus almost exclusively on what he says, not what he writes. The trial has revealed a vast difference between the two. His speeches are easy to mine for racist material and tactless "Holocaust humour". Incendiary statements, by contrast, are not a feature of his published work. Scholars like John Keegan and Hugh Trevor-Roper respect David Irving the historian. By contrast, David Irving the public speaker is almost "a riot in formation." 

Abstractions aside, Irving's banning also infringes the civil rights of his daughter Beatrice in Brisbane. You and I expect to see our parents - in the words of the legal formula - without "let or hindrance". Beatrice Irving cannot have her father visit.

Showing this small measure of sympathy for David Irving's position has earned me - yet again - the label "anti-Semite". This charge is not only bullshit, but by its very nature can't be disproved. My view of the Holocaust is wholly conventional. The Nazis killed approximately six million Jews and half a million Gypsies between 1939 and 1945. Many were shot by the Einsatzgruppen (mobile killing squads), many were starved in ghettos and concentration camps, many were gassed in what can only be described as purpose-built factories of death. Some of the killings were carried out with sickening enthusiasm, especially when the Nazis used ethnic minority collaborators.

That this is my belief is abundantly clear in everything I've written. Yet, come Monday, you can put money on Jeremy Jones, Danny Ben Moshe, Gerard Henderson, Robert Manne etc labelling me an "anti-Semite" and a "Holocaust denier." Secure in the knowledge that I'm neither, I accepted a commission from Australian Style to cover the Irving libel trial.

An historical event as complex as the Holocaust needs to be dispassionately studied. The trial means that many major documents - such as Eichmann's memoirs - are aired in a politically sterile environment (a court of law) and publicly debated. This has never happened before. The mythology of Schindler's List, with its deceptive and wholly untypical happy ending is decisively refuted. History emerges, in Justice Gray's words, "out from beneath the mountains of paper."