This, you understand, was simply to save the National Union of Journalists a bob or two. It does not imply that we are anything other than red-blooded meat-eating full-on skirt-chasing 100% heterosexual coureurs des dames. Or I am, anyway. Can’t speak for Paul.

The saddest thing surrounding the kerfuffle over William Hague and his special advisor Christopher Myers is that most reasonable people get over any hang-ups about homosexuality by the time they get actively involved in the mating game, whichever team they bat for.

‘Poof’ was absolutely the worst insult that could be thrown at a boy in Wellingborough Grammar School in the mid-1970s, and honour would demand that you at least threatened to thump anybody who addressed you in such terms.

But after I got a bit older and had been to a couple of Tom Robinson Band gigs, and a mate came out of the closet, it all became a non-issue. Anyway, I reasoned, if some blokes were getting off with other blokes, the less competition the rest of us faced when hitting on Northampton’s array of sultry teenage punkette temptresses.

I still remember being slightly shocked when I moved to London and saw two men snogging at a party. Oooo-er. But I had come to the capital expressly to be a bohemian, and it would have been uncool in the extreme in leftwing circles to let on that you even noticed.

For the political right, it was a different story. Among the many reasons many young people learned to hate Thatcherism was its wilful inculcation of discrimination against gays. From my point of view, that was only a minor concern in comparison to deliberately engineered recession, mass unemployment, the Falklands war, the miners’ strike and the poll tax.

But section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 – which provided that that a local authority ‘shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality’ or ‘promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship’ – seemed to sum up Thatcher’s home counties golf club bigotry on the matter, even if the law had little impact in practice.

One of the few tests that the New Labour administrations passed with flying colours was its agenda for gay equality. S.28 was repealed, the age of consent equalised and civil partnership introduced.

And guess what? The institution of marriage has not collapsed. Het couples still cohab. Why, last time I checked, women were busily dropping sprogs all over the shop. Meanwhile, gays get on with those notorious unspeakable practices that cannot be reported in a family newspaper (see pages four, five, six, seven and eight). Who knows? Maybe they have more fun than I do.

Today, the Conservatives are supposed to have their heads round social change, and be just as intensely relaxed about homosexuals as New Labour was about the super-rich.

Before the election, Cameron told Pink News:  ‘I’d like to make one thing clear — we are totally committed to the fight for gay rights and there will be no going back on equality legislation if the Conservative party is elected.’

The ‘fight’ for gay rights, Dave? Steady on, old chap, that’s a bit Spartish, is it not? Next thing we know, you’ll be boasting to some feminist rag about your plans to smash patriarchy.

Churls raise such quibbles as his party’s support for bed and breakfast proprietors who are opposed to, er, permitting two men to share a bedroom. But let’s not nit-pick, right?

And now the Hague/Myers row. The foreign secretary could have chosen not to dignify internet tittle-tattle with a detailed rebuttal telling the world more than it needs to know about his efforts to have children with Ffion.

Many commentators point out the obvious danger of issuing a denial denial of ever having a relationship with a man, rather than opting for the standard non-denial denial tactic. Should even a single past liaison emerge, the man is toast. Watch the Sunday papers.

Hague is roughly the same age as me – which is why he looks such a prat in wraparound shades, I guess – and will have been through much the same experiences of the situation facing gays as I have.

For my liking, the statement sounds rather too much like the seventies grammar school kid that Hague is too, threatening to hit a  classmate who called him a bender. We are supposed to have moved on since that time, aren’t we?

Bookmark It

That just about covers the full spectrum of odious opinion, crap music and bland taste in home furnishings. Yet it is not immediately clear that all of the above have any intention of coming here anyway. At least some seem to have been chosen at random by civil servants charged with drawing up a list of ne’er-do-wells that covers all bases.

That way the Home Office gets to demonstrate an impressive determination that no Briton whatsoever be unnecessarily offended, irrespective of race or creed. If none of the above do it for you, simply write in and I am sure they will add a representative bête noire of your choice.

But leading Indian Islamist Naik does want to pay the Britain a visit, specifically to promulgate some of the nastily illiberal stances you can read about here. While his comments are cautiously worded and laden with get-out clauses, it is apparent on any reasonable interpretation that he does not much care for Jews, and that his opposition to Osama bin Laden is less than implacable. Even so, I think on balance that Theresa May should allow him in.

In the internet age, isn’t it simply ridiculous to suppose it possible to shield citizens from exposure to invidious sentiment? For those attracted to the rantings of white supremacists or deranged jihadists, ample online content is only a click away.

There are fringe groupings of Britons who share precisely the beliefs propagated by those successive governments have excluded, and actively proselytise in such causes. The logic of the argument that such outlooks can have no public expression, lest they wound the sensitivities of those against whom they are directed, is that such organisations should be outlawed.

Finally, the very notion of freedom of speech has to include precisely the right to express abhorrent viewpoints, or otherwise it becomes more or less incoherent.

At the purely practical level, there must inevitably be some limitations on this principle, if only to prevent people shouting ‘fire!’ in crowded theatres. But to allow the state to set the boundaries of what is and what is not acceptable in political and religious debate will cause more problems than it solves.

Bookmark It

Unsurprisingly, the decision has upset some on the left, who argue that the profession should be added to the list of jobs covered by what amounts to a slowly-expanding backdoor Berufsverbot. I would counter that support for a softly-softly version of the German system, which excludes members of outfits deemed extremist by the state from public sector employment, is essentially misconceived.

Let’s look at some of the considerations here. Is such legislation somehow OK if it applies to sensitive positions only, keeping the fash out of the classrooms and the cop shops while still allowing them to Sieg Heil to their heart’s content while emptying our wheelie bins?

Or perhaps all this is no skin off our nose if such restrictions apply to the far right alone, while exempting Trot social workers and local government officers?

The most obvious objection is a basic point of civil liberties. If a political party is legal, then a liberal democracy has no business restricting the employment prospects open to its adherents.

Supporters of a ban ask how a child facing racism in the playground could possibly turn to a BNP teacher for help. But this is simply a microcosm of what is set to become a society-wide issue.

If you were an Asian family facing constant racist abuse from a gang of sink estate thugs, would you turn to a BNP councillor for help? Would you lobby your friendly fascist London Assembly member or MEP for assistance with your plans to build an Afro-Caribbean community centre or a new mosque?

These difficulties will be exacerbated when the BNP secures Westminster representation, as it soon undoubtedly will. Now that the far right has an electoral base numbering hundreds of thousands of voters, these are genuine problems than cannot be ignored by the tokenistic targeting of individual supporters.

Any ban would amount to bespoke legislation designed to tackle a problem of minor proportions. The list of BNP members published on the internet last year contained the names of just 15 teachers.

If the object is to stamp out racism in the classroom – and that is entirely laudable – then it has to be recognised that racist sentiment is not the sole province of the BNP. Is it admissible for an Islamist believer in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to teach Jewish children, for instance? Why not legislate against that eventuality, too?

What about UKIP teachers? What about the Conservative Party’s grassroots golf club bigot tendency? And yes, I have even come across unpleasantly racist people in the Labour Party.

Moreover, any ban based on organisational affiliation would be almost impossible effectively to police. Who decides which parties and factions are blacklisted? Fringe political groupings come and go, and cliques of Hitler worshippers form and disband with the same regularity as their analogues on the far left.

How will the rules deal with a fascist teacher who isn’t in the BNP and signs up with some newly-formed whackjob six member neo-Nazi outfit that nobody has ever heard of instead? What about cases where people sidestep the regulations by not taking out a party card, but otherwise think and act just as a BNP member would?

But the biggest danger of all is that the BNP revels in portraying itself as the outsiders that the Establishment is desperate to silence because it ‘tells the truth’. Feeding that narrative is a sure way to enhance the racist right’s popular support.

In short, discipline racist teachers for racist words or deeds; disciplining them for their politics alone would be a serious mistake.

Bookmark It

And when the story breaks that Euskadi ta Askatasuna tried three times to assassinate Jose Maria Aznar, failing on each occasion, our hypothetical friend maintains in conversation that they were right to do so, and that he hopes that they have better luck next time.

Alternatively, anyone old enough to remember the days of lock ins at Irish pubs may have found themselves standing to attention at some point in the small hours, as the show band played a passable version of Amhrán na bhFiann and the buckets started passing round and filling up with cash. If someone told me that whiprounds of this type are to this day routine for the benefit of the Realers or the Contos, I would not be able to profess myself shocked.

We can even take the more recent example of the numerous demonstrations staged by Tamils in Parliament Square last year, in which banners bearing the emblem of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam were in the hands of every other protester.

Overt expressions of sympathy for ETA, the IRA and the LTTE – all of which, whatever one thinks of the causes for which they stand, have indubitably killed many people – are common enough within some communities, and in practice tolerated by the law within certain bounds. Yet all three are on the Home Office list of proscribed organisations under the Terrorism Act 2000.

So, as of tomorrow, will be Islam4UK. The difference is that Amjem Choudary’s outfit firstly does not have any noticeable degree of popular support among Muslims, and secondly has never planted a bomb. To outlaw them is manifestly unjust.

Organisations can fall foul of the Terrorism Act if they ‘commit or participate in acts of terrorism, prepare for, promote or encourage terrorism or are otherwise concerned in terrorism’. It has not been shown conclusively that Islam4UK has done any of these things, within the legal meaning of these terms.

If there is evidence of direct terrorist involvement, then those suspected of it should rightly stand trial. Throw the book at them, I say. But the government appears not to feel that that it has such a case.

The reasoning behind Alan Johnson’s ban is rather that Islam4UK is held to ‘unlawfully glorify the commission or preparation of acts of terrorism’. That is an interesting choice of word. The restriction is not upon advocacy, justification, or even mere apologia, but upon glorification.

Meaning what, exactly? Well, in the words of the legislation, ‘“glorification” includes any form of praise or celebration, and cognate expressions are to be construed accordingly.’

But isn’t there a difference between writing a pornographic novel that glorifies rape, conspiracy to commit rape, and rape itself? If you make a movie that portrays the life of an East End gangster as impossibly glamorous, and may arguably encourage some kid in Bethnal Green to take up a life of crime, that is hardly the same thing as being a diamond blagger. If it was, Guy Ritchie would long ago have been banged up for unlawful glorification.

It boils down to this; to be in a group that takes a positive view of any project deemed terrorist by the government of the day becomes a criminal offence punishable be ten years in prison. That’s a decade behind bars on the say so of the state, for what amounts to nothing more thoughtcrime.

Were New Labour so minded, those strictures could theoretically be applied against much of the existing far left. Come to that, there was a time when the African National Congress enjoyed mainstream support in the Labour Party, even though Thatcher famously branded the ANC as, well, terrorists.

Any notion of ‘unlawful glorification’ as a serious offence is monstrous in its ramifications. In a democracy, it has no place on the statute books.

Bookmark It

Equally sadly, it had no problem with allowing him to return to his native Chile, even after the Spanish authorities lodged a provisional arrest warrant, charging him with systematic torture, murder, illegal detention, and forced disappearances.

Such a display of cowardice – motivated in part by then home secretary Jack Straw’s inability to stand up to the pressure exerted by the monetarist mass murderer’s extensive British fan club – was hardly this government’s finest hour.

More recent guests in this country have included King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, head of the wonderful petro-kleptocracy that presides over the public beheadings in Chop Square. Indeed, he is such a vital customer for BAE Systems that he even merited Her Majesty’s company for a coach ride to Buckingham Palace.

Pakistani strongman Pervez Musharraf and Chinese prime minister Wen Jiabao have also seen the red carpet rolled out in their honour. No problems there, then. It is a matter of policy that heads of state or heads of government, past or present, be allowed free access to the UK, no matter what the gravity of the depravity they sanction, perpetuate or even personally perform.

That being the case, why baulk at two-bob hot gospel preachers, minor league shock jocks, Russian boot boys and the occasional radical Islamist? Such are the manner of men that appear on Jacqui Smith’s ‘least wanted’ list of those banned from the UK, because they have said things that foster extremism or hatred.

I do not know full details of the CV of each individual. But let us take the charges as proven. It seems clear enough that without exception they promote viewpoints anybody on the consistent left is certain to find execrable. Does that mean they should be debarred from Britain? I’m not convinced by the argument advanced by Mr Straw’s successor:

… Ms Smith said granting free speech did not provide a licence to preach hatred and that those banned had “clearly overstepped the mark” with the attitudes they had expressed.

“Coming to this country is a privilege. We won’t allow people into this country who are going to propagate the sort of views… that fundamentally go against our values.”

At the purely practical level, there must inevitably be some limitations on freedom of speech, if only to prevent people shouting ‘fire!’ in crowded theatres. But to allow the state to set the boundaries of what is and what is not acceptable in political and religious debate is inevitably problematic.

When Smith talks about ‘our’ values, to whom exactly is she referring? In all cases, there are fringe groupings of Britons who share precisely the beliefs propagated by those she wishes to exclude. Logically, should she not propose that they somehow be gagged, too? And do not the values liberal Britons espouse, at least nominally, include precisely the right to express abhorrent viewpoints?

In the internet age, isn’t it simply ridiculous to suppose that it is possible to shield citizens from exposure to invidious sentiment, anyhow? For those attracted to the rantings of white supremacists or deranged jihadists, the content is only a click away.

Ultimately, free speech for moderate British residents is better served if UKIP supporters hear Geert Wilders, Dyab Abou Jahjah appears on Stop the War Coalition platforms, and the home secretary is not permitted to control of which foreigners are allowed to address the public.

After all, if mass murdering caudillos are welcome to see a Harley Street specialist, what can possibly be the issue with giving sundry whackjobs access to Speakers’ Corner?

Bookmark It

If there is evidence of involvement in conspiracy to murder and commit terrorism – and those are the charges Mohamed faces – it is right that the matter be brought before a court. If he is found guilty, it is right that he be punished.

None of this is in dispute. Yet the very same first principles underline that Mohamed, like any person standing in the dock accused of any crime, is entitled to justice. Even if the argument from the ABCs of jurisprudence were not so wholly persuasive, brute pragmatism points in the same direction too.

The sophisticated public relations wing of the Islamist terror milieu will inevitably seek to present the proceedings to the Muslim world as a politically-motivated a frame-up. That Mohamed will stand before a no-jury kangaroo court and could face the death sentence hardly complicates that task; it would be mistaken to render the publicists’ job even easier.

All the more vital, then, that his contention that the case against him is largely based on confessions extracted by torture be given proper consideration.

Mohamed says that he was seized by American and British intelligence officials in Pakistan in 2002, and thereafter taken to Morocco. During 18 months detention in that country, he claims that he was regularly beaten and scalded, and his penis slashed with a scalpel.

Following a spell in a CIA facility in Kabul – during which he says he suffered sleep deprivation, starvation and further beatings – he has since 2004 been held in Guantanamo Bay. Despite a formal request for his return in 2007, he remains the last Briton still in custody at the western hemisphere’s most famous interment camp.

Seven paragraphs in a report from the US government to the British government are widely presumed to provide strong documentary support for this story. Naturally, Mohamed’s legal team has applied to the High Court for publication.

The two-judge panel left no doubt that it thought the missing wording should be in the public domain. Nothing in the text exposes any intelligence agents to any risk, they stressed.

But the Foreign Office refuses to release the information, for fear that the US would then cease to share intelligence with the UK, and the judges say that they cannot overrule the Foreign Office.

Foreign Secretary David Miliband defended the position in the Commons today, arguing that:

… the disclosure of the intelligence documents at issue by order of UK courts against the wishes of the US authorities would indeed cause real and significant damage to the national security and international relations of this country.

This stance is myopic in the extreme. Not to allow publication would be massive counterproductive and a serious error from every standpoint. Such temporary embarrassment as the disclosure would cause will be more than offset by the long-term consequences of the cover up. Miliband should order the immediate release of all relevant material.

Bookmark It

On general libertarian principle, then, the government’s plans to keep a record of every single phone call made, every last text message and email sent, and each website visited by everyone in Britain should be implacably opposed.

After all, I pay Virgin £17.99 a month from my post-tax income, and I am accordingly entitled to full access to whatever filth, depravity, lunatic conspiracy theory, finely honed polemic or government propaganda is out there in cyberspace, without this being recorded for posterity.

It’s none of the state’s business if I wish to watch footage of mature BBWs doing unfeasible things with vegetables, catch up on the latest announcements from the Belarus department of central planning, or even steal a furtive glance at www.labour.org.uk.

We already live in a country with more CCTV cameras than anywhere else in the world, and a four million strong DNA database that contains details of thousands of UK residents who have committed no crime. I am being entirely serious when I say that I cannot thing of a single state in history that has possessed technology with such obviously repressive potential.

Moreover, the government is determined to force through such tried-and-tested traditional dictatorship faves as ID cards and de facto internment, in the form of 42-day detention without charge.

Sure, it is entirely legit for the cops and the spooks to keep tabs on jihadi talkboards and kiddie fiddler picture exchanges, and maybe one or two other categories of website that don’t immediately spring to mind. But that’s about it.

Given the mindnumbing banality of 99% of the billions of texts sent every day – ‘not sure if turned off iron’, ‘luv u lots!@!!’ and ‘need anyfing from shops? onions?’ – it is highly doubtful that keeping them on file for up to a year takes the GWoT any further forward.

Anyway, only the most stupid al Qa’eda operative would use his own PC or phone for a crucial communication. That’s what nicked mobiles and internet cafes are for.

Or put it another way; if those bastards ever do get their hands on a genuine weapon of mass destruction, it isn’t likely to be because they were able to snap one up cheaply on eBay, is it?

Bookmark It

I’ve tried listening to those on the left who repeatedly try to tell me that I should see the utterances of Yusuf al Qaradawi ‘in context’. I really, really have.

But the man widely regarded as one of the world’s leading moderate Muslim clerics openly argues that it is permissible for husbands to beat their wives and that gays should be killed, and let’s just say that I remain enough of a wimpish liberal to have one or two difficulties with this.

That al Qaradawi lays down strictly circumscribed conditions for smacking up the missus if she is giving you gyp – remember, guys, you can’t use whips, sticks or boards, and the punishment isn’t suitable if you think the chick will only get off on it – strikes me as of but marginal relevance.

Apparently, he isn’t clear on whether homosexuals should be stoned to death or thrown off the top of tall buildings; but however he slices the Qur’an on this one, it isn’t going to endear him to anybody who thinks that gay rights represent more than a shibboleth.

By the way, in the same interview, he opines that heterosexual ‘fornicators’ should suffer equivalent punishment. Many of us will have to declare an interest here.

But does any of the above amount to sufficient grounds on which to deny him a visa to enter Britain for medical treatment, which the government has done today? Even being the miserable Islamophobe I clearly am, I think not.

Remember, Britain was happy enough to allow the late Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet – a man who ordered the death of 3,000 people – to come to Harley Street for that exact same reason. Sadly, Jack Straw even let him out again.

More recent guests in this country have included King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, head of the wonderful petro-kleptocracy that presides over the public beheadings in Chop Square. Indeed, he is such a vital customer for BAE Systems that he even merited Her Majesty’s company for a coach ride to Buckingham Palace. Pakistani dictator Pervez Musharraf also qualified for the state visit treatment.

If David Cameron is going to get so exercised about ‘preachers of hate’ being allowed into this country, he should remember that French fascist leader Jean-Marie Le Pen has sometimes crossed the Channel to address rightwing pressure groups that include Conservative Party members.

Al Qaradawi isn’t seeking to come to London to buy billions of pounds worth of jet fighters, or even popping over for a quick spot of rabble-rousing; he wants to see a doctor. If that’s OK for retired caudillos, why shouldn’t it be OK in this instance?

The question of how far society should tolerate the intolerant is one of the oldest saws in political theory. But this time at least, al Qaradawi should be extended his human rights, even if he militates against the extension of human rights to others.

Bookmark It

It comes after the European Court of Human Rights earlier this year overruled British legislation, dating from 1992, that prevented train drivers’ union Aslef from kicking out a British National Party activist.

In principle, voluntary organisations in civil society have every right to decide who they wish to have on their books and who they don’t. Fascists clearly have no place in the labour movement.

But it strikes me that there are obvious dangers with the proposed new law from a civil liberties perspective. It all depends on the wording of the relevant clauses, I suppose.

Could we see a situation where general secretaries are allowed bureaucratically to exclude internal opponents who belong to Marxist groups, for instance? And if so, shouldn’t we flatly oppose the Bill?

Bookmark It

House arrest, arbitrary and punitive deportation, a shoot to kill policy on the streets of London? New Labour has flirted with them all. Even where it has been knocked back – Blair’s first defeat in the Commons came over his attempt to introduce detention without charge for up to 90 days – the government just keeps coming back for more:

Home Secretary John Reid has outlined a raft of proposals to toughen counter terror laws – including reviewing the 28-day limit on pre-charge detention.

Plans also include a sex offender-style terrorist register, and a review into courts using intercept evidence.

Although Reid will not confirm it, the likelihood is that the Brown administration will seek a second bite at the 90 day detention cherry. That would be tantamount to the introduction of internment without trial by any other name, in a manner clearly targeted at ethnic minorities.

Civil libertarians among us now have to rely on the likes of David Davis – yes, that’s right, hard right Tory leadership contender David Davis – to point out that such measures are indeed ‘draconian’.

Just because a law is labelled ‘anti-terror legislation’ that does not mean it will actually succeed in preventing any terrorism. Victims so far have including an old man heckling at Labour Party conference, people guilty of the heinous offence of wearing T-shirts carrying anti-Blair slogans, and some young Indian guy denied the chance to board his flight after a taxi driver grassed him up for listening to the Clash on his iPod.

Will they now run the risk of ending up on New Labour’s ‘sex offender-style terrorist register’ too? And what good will a ‘sex offender-style terrorist register’ do anyway, other than act as a direct incitement to lynch law by tabloid instigation?

And are we really saying that the current security situation is today more perilous than it was in either of two world wars or the cold war? If not, these pernicious proposals should be immediately interned for an indefinite period.

Bookmark It