The London Blasts: Media Review

ONE MONTH ON

DAY 35: Thursday 11 August 2005

Contents:

MISCELLANEOUS

Power Against Power

Islam, Recitation And Reading

FISKING JOHN LLOYD

MISCELLANEOUS

POWER AGAINST POWER

The grand distraction continues. Mr Blair's scattergun legislative assault has provoked, predictably, a storm of protest from the judiciary. The front page of the Independent is given over to four senior legal figures contesting the Blair/Howard attack, the editorial states 'We should be thankful we have an active judiciary' and columnist Steve Richards (a proponent of new legislation in principle) warns against 'this rush to media-pleasing headlines'. The Telegraph letters page has a vigorous debate on the subject. In The Times, columnist Martin Samuel asks, 'Treason or just a PR stunt?'

Samuel includes this amusing possible future exchange:

“What did you do in the War on Terror, Daddy?”

“I was in the front line, son. I was where the action was.”

“The Marines?”

“Marketing.”

The Guardian has a slightly more serious piece, also attacking the new proposals, from Max Hastings, and a thoughtful and critical piece by Saad al-Fagih, a leading Saudi dissident. His piece opens with these arresting sentences: 'No one will be more pleased than Osama bin Laden with the new measures announced by Tony Blair. He will be even more pleased should the prime minister succeed in turning his plans into legislation.'

The Guardian editorial strives to be magisterial, condemning both the '[t]oo many politicians' who 'feel compelled to take cheap shots at the judges', and the '[t]oo many lawyers' who, 'sometimes insouciant towards the realities both of the terror threat and of living with a feral media, are equally contemptuous of politicians.'

The battle between politicians with their hands on the levers of power, and judges who also belong to the political elite, with considerable overt and covert power, is something of a phony war, but with real consequences for the possible victims of repressive new laws.

The timing and ferocity of this media storm are entirely the result of decisions made by the Prime Minister. They serve, brilliantly, to distract attention from the causal connection between the bombings and his own foreign policy, exemplified in the ongoing war in Iraq.

ISLAM, RECITATION AND READING

Karen Armstrong, a commentator on religion who has been praised in these pages before, has another humane and enlightening essay in the Guardian:

'We tend now to read our scriptures for accurate information, so that the Bible, for example, becomes a holy encyclopaedia, in which the faithful look up facts about God... But this was not how scripture was originally conceived. All the verses of the Qur'an, for example, are called "parables" (ayat); its images of paradise, hell and the last judgment are also ayat, pointers to transcendent realities that we can only glimpse through signs and symbols.

'We distort our scriptures if we read them in an exclusively literal sense. There has recently been much discussion about the way Muslim terrorists interpret the Qur'an. Does the Qur'an really instruct Muslims to slay unbelievers wherever they find them? Does it promise the suicide bomber instant paradise and 70 virgins? If so, Islam is clearly chronically prone to terrorism. These debates have often been confused by an inadequate understanding of the way scripture works.

'People do not robotically obey every single edict of their sacred texts. If they did, the world would be full of Christians who love their enemies and turn the other cheek when attacked. There are political reasons why a tiny minority of Muslims are turning to terrorism, which have nothing to do with Islam. But because of the way people read their scriptures these days, once a terrorist has decided to blow up a London bus, he can probably find scriptural texts that seem to endorse his action...

'The last thing anyone should attempt is to read the Qur'an straight through from cover to cover, because it was designed to be recited aloud. Indeed, the word qur'an means "recitation". Much of the meaning is derived from sound patterns that link one passage with another, so that Muslims who hear extracts chanted aloud thousands of times in the course of a lifetime acquire a tacit understanding that one teaching is always qualified and supplemented by other texts, and cannot be seen in isolation. The words that they hear again and again are not "holy war", but "kindness", "courtesy", "peace", "justice", and "compassion".

'Historians have noted that the shift from oral to written scripture often results in strident, misplaced certainty. Reading gives people the impression that they have an immediate grasp of their scripture; they are not compelled by a teacher to appreciate its complexity. Without the aesthetic and ethical disciplines of ritual, they can approach a text in a purely cerebral fashion, missing the emotive and therapeutic aspects of its stories and instructions.

'Solitary reading also enables people to read their scriptures too selectively, focusing on isolated texts that they read out of context, and ignoring others that do not chime with their own predilections. Religious militants who read their scriptures in this way often distort the tradition they are trying to defend. Christian fundamentalists concentrate on the aggressive Book of Revelation and pay no attention to the Sermon on the Mount, while Muslim extremists rely on the more belligerent passages of the Qur'an and overlook its oft-repeated instructions to leave vengeance to God and make peace with the enemy.

'We cannot turn the clock back. Most of us are accustomed to acquiring information instantly at the click of a mouse, and have neither the talent nor the patience for the disciplines that characterised pre-modern interpretation. But we can counter the dangerous tendency to selective reading of sacred texts. The Qur'an insists that its teaching must be understood "in full" (20:114), an important principle that religious teachers must impart to the disaffected young.

'Muslim extremists have given the jihad (which they interpret reductively as "holy war") a centrality that it never had before and have thus redefined the meaning of Islam for many non-Muslims. But in this they are often unwittingly aided by the media, who also concentrate obsessively on the more aggressive verses of the Qur'an, without fully appreciating how these are qualified by the text as a whole.'

FISKING JOHN LLOYD

BASHER LLOYD

John Lloyd, former editor of the left-liberal New Statesman, and now editor of the Financial Times magazine (also fairly liberal), had an interesting (though sometimes pompous) article in yesterday's Guardian which we didn't have time to comment on.

His piece is an apologia for the Blair proposals (for deportation of 'preachers of hatred', and so on).

Lloyd begins, alarmingly, with the suggestion that British liberals should support the Blair proposals because, 'Fundamentally, it is because they [the preachers of hatred] - like the recently departed Omar Bakri Mohammed - are the cheerleaders for one or other brand of Islamo-fascism which, were it to come with a swastika armband or a Ku Klux Klan hood, we would have no hesitation in condemning.'

If the Blair proposals amounted to a 'condemnation' of Omar Bakri Mohammed and his ilk, this point would be well-taken. But as Lloyd knows perfectly well, the proposal is that people like Omar Bakri Mohammed should be deported to countries that routinely use torture and the death penalty (whether extra-judicial or 'lawful') against political and religious dissidents.

Would British liberals support the transportation of KKK members or BNP politicians to places of torture and/or execution for what they say? Not for what they do, but for what they say.

As Lloyd also knows perfectly well, Omar Bakri Mohammed and the other fringe figures in the firing line have not been shown to be involved in the commission or planning of acts of violence - they are being targeted for helping to create a micro-climate of opinion in which acts of violence come to seem natural and justified.

According to Lloyd, British 'liberals' applaud and support putting people at risk of torture and/or death - in violation of international law - for speaking up for extreme racism, Nazism, or 'Islamo-fascism'. An interesting kind of 'liberalism'.

(Of course, the government says that it will obtain promises of self-restraint from the governments involved. Amnesty International says such guarantees are worthless.)

FIVE REASONS

Lloyd gives five main reasons for supporting the proposed legislation: the new laws target those encouraging mass murder; they are justified on grounds of public safety and good community relations; the new laws will not persist past the present necessity; harsh measures are necessary to prevent the white non-Muslim majority from turning violently on the Muslim community; the proposals could support 'moderate' Muslim leaders.

He adds the justification that the white non-Muslim majority needs 'a strong reassurance that limits observed naturally by the majority will be imposed by the law on the extremist minority'.

Does the level of argument rise above its pitiful beginnings? Let us see.

REASON 1: TARGETING THE PREACHERS OF VIOLENCE

'First, the proposed measures are clearly aimed at those who preach violence. The objection that such legislation would be unable to discriminate between those in the Muslim community who strongly object to British policy in Iraq and Afghanistan and those who encourage mass murder is disingenuous. It is clearly not the government's intention (nor is it in its interest) to do so - and in so far as there would be, in practice, confusion, then that should form part of the normal arguments between the state and the courts.'

Let us turn to the Home Office consultation document itself, where we find the following wording:

List of Unacceptable Behaviours
'The list of unacceptable behaviours covers any non-UK citizen whether in the UK or abroad who uses any means or medium...

'To express views which the Government considers:-

'• Foment terrorism or seek to provoke others to terrorist acts

'• Justify or glorify terrorism

'• Foment other serious criminal activity or seek to provoke others to serious criminal acts

'• Foster hatred which may lead to intra community violence in the UK

'• Advocate violence in furtherance of particular beliefs

'and those who express what the Government considers to be extreme views that are in conflict with the UK’s culture of tolerance'

At the level of plain fact, then, Lloyd fails to meet a minimum standard of honesty. The list of 'unacceptable behaviours includes 'foment[ing] other serious criminal activity or seek to provoke others to serious criminal acts'; 'Foster hatred which may lead to intra community violence in the UK'; and 'those who express what the Government considers to be extreme views that are in conflict with the UK’s culture of tolerance'.

These three categories of non-protected speech do not refer to 'calls for violence' or 'encouragement of mass murder'.

In passing, one might ask how Lloyd is so certain of 'the government's intention' regarding the censorship of Muslim anger against British foreign policy.

It is also striking that the ambiguities in the government's proposed legislation are of so little concern, to be left to courtroom argument. The Prime Minister has done his best to erase any possible difference between the 'justification' and the 'explanation' of terrorism.

Ken Livingstone, Mayor of London, has expressed his concern that, 'Unfortunately, the wording presently reported is so vague that 20 years ago it would have meant banning Nelson Mandela or anyone supporting him.'

REASON 2: PUBLIC SAFETY

Let us examine the next paragraph carefully. It is made up of four sentences:

1) 'Second, legislation to screen more carefully those who enter the UK and expel those who abuse their welcome by advocating violence against it, or against other democratic governments, sets boundaries on the permissible - in a way similar to that already existing in race relations legislation.

2) 'Both the existing legislation on racism, and that adumbrated by the prime minister on the "preachers of hate", have an illiberal potential - that is, they do restrict freedom of expression.

3) 'But they do so on considerations of public safety and good community relations.

4) 'No democracy, or any system of human and civil rights, can be absolute and beyond amendment.'

Sentence (1) refers to those who advocate violence against Britain or 'other democratic governments'. What about those who advocate violence against 'democratic governments' which are illegally occupying territory to which they are not entitled? Under international law, there is a right of self-defence, even against 'democratic governments'. The Lloyd Doctrine seems to annul this right.

Then there are of course definition problems with the concept of 'democratic government'. In the Middle East, Israel and Iran may be at the head of the pack in these terms. Both governments are criticised for flaws in their democracy (in Israel's case, for the systematic bias against non-Jews in the character of the state).

What about those who advocate violence against undemocratic governments (such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, for example)? How is there a sensible 'boundary on the permissible' analoguous to anti-racism legislation if the law penalises violent rhetoric in relation to Israel (which occupies the territory of Syria and Palestine) but not in relation to Saudi Arabia (which does not occupy any foreign territory)?

Sentence (2) refers once again to anti-racist legislation, saying that it has 'illiberal potential', therefore excusing the 'illiberal potential' of the Blair proposals. It is true that the laws on 'incitement to racial hatred' are illiberal. This does not mean they are justified. One wrong law does not make another wrong law acceptable.

If Lloyd wants to build a justification, he cannot simply rely on the fact that 'incitement to racial hatred' is a crime. He must demonstrate that it should be a crime. This he does not do.

Sentence (3) implies that the new proposals will advance 'public safety' and 'good community relations'. We will come to the latter shortly. What about 'public safety'? Once again, there is no argument advanced that these laws will actually increase public safety. There are those who fear that the laws, and the discriminatory manner in which they will inevitably be applied, will increase the hatred and despair that fuels the terrorism that faces us.

If Lloyd wants to build a justification, he must demonstrate how banning the public expression of certain (undefined) sentiments and perceptions will lead to a reduction in the strength of those sentiments and perceptions, or violent action on the basis of those emotions and understandings. This he does not do.

Sentence (4) is self-evident. However, it is not self-evident that the system of human and civil rights in Britain should now evolve in the direction of greater state control, and the erosion of freedom, rather than in the direction of less state control, and the growth of freedom.

Once again, there is no argument advanced which one might evaluate to support the position implied.

REASON 3: RESTRICTIONS NOT PERMANENT

The operative section of the next paragraph runs thus:

'Third, the experience of this country, faced with a terrorist threat, has not been to use a restriction of civil and human rights as a ratchet whereby these rights, once lost, are never reinstated. The history of the challenge to the state of IRA terrorism over nearly four decades has told the opposite story. There are dark pages, but the measures taken to restrict rights of movement and expression, and to limit trials by jury, have not remained, while a series of reforms to end discriminatory practices have.'

The assertion is that restrictions on human rights have been removed after being reinstated, and that therefore there is nothing to fear in the imposition of controls on free expression.

This by itself does not justify the particular restrictions being proposed.

For example, if the state was to institute summary execution of anyone throwing any objects at ministers of the crown (including the Prime Minister) - including tomatoes and custard pies, it would not be a justification to say that such measures have in the past been repealed after being introduced.

(Incidentally, it is quite possible that throwing such objects at the Prime Minister in the present circumstances could lead to serious injury if not loss of life, meaning that this is not an entirely theoretical example.)

Moving from the form to the substance, Lloyd has a rather rosy view of the history of state repression in response to the IRA campaign.

He says that measures to limit trial by jury 'have not remained'. But the no-jury 'Diplock Court' still exists. In response to the IRA self-disbandment, the British government announced on 2 August 2005 that Diplock Courts will be phased out - in two years. Furthermore, 'under new anti-terrorist legislation folowing the London bombings, could reinstate Diplock courts if jurors were ever again threatened by paramilitaries'. (Ulster TV)

The Prevention of Terrorism Act (Temporary Provisions) Act introduced in 1974, far from withering away, was renewed on an annual basis until it eventually became permanent in the Terrorism Act 2000. The definition of 'terrorism' was broadened to mean:

'the use or threat of action where-

(a) the action falls within subsection (2),

(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public,

and

(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.

(2) Action falls within this subsection if it-

(a) involves serious violence against a person,

(b) involves serious damage to property,

(c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,

(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or

(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.'

How does this blurring of "terrorism" into normal criminality fit in with Lloyd's reassuring picture of self-expiring anti-terrorist legislation?

REASON 4: PROTECTING MUSLIMS BY SILENCING THEM

A novel category of justification now:

'Fourth, many people - judging by the polls - are fearful of a terrorism springing from an extreme version of Islam; and they could become, in large numbers, hateful and fearful. Blair's description last Friday of a popular reaction of unity and dignity seems right, but it was a reaction at a point in time, not a fixed sentiment. There's no reason why it cannot change - and it will change, faced with further attempts at mass murder. Constant and violent imprecations against the British government and people will cause anger to grow. Anger and fear require outlets: and we have already seen, in the so-far relatively minor attacks on mosques and innocent Muslims, what outlets these would be.'

If hateful speech by fringe members of the Muslim community is not banned, this speech will provoke the white non-Muslim community into violence, perhaps anti-Muslim pogroms.

There are several elided steps here.

1) Lloyd assumes (correctly) that there is likely to be a series of further bombing attempts, yet he says that it is speech that will cause anger amongst non-Muslims. He does not explain why it should be that speech by people not involved in the bombings would cause more anger and hatred than the (attempted) bombings themselves. This is a strong claim. No argument is given to support it. Scepticism is therefore appropriate.

2) Lloyd has slipped from saying that the laws are targeted on those who 'encourage mass murder' to saying that the problem is 'constant and violent imprecations against the British government' (he adds 'and people' for some reason, without giving any examples of such 'constant imprecations').

There is a significant difference between 'encouraging mass murder of British citizens', and 'issuing violent denunciations wishing evil or injury on the British government'. Unfortunately, Lloyd does not explain how he moves from one category of speech to another.

3) Lloyd presumes that these laws will put an end to 'constant and violent imprecations against the British government', and therefore prevent the rise of anti-Muslim violence. But the laws do not put an end to the reporting of such speech, or prevent the utterance of such speech. The laws punish people once they have uttered such speech.

Lloyd's argument would start to have a logical basis if he could show that there would be a sharp reduction in the kind of speech targeted by the proposed laws if they were implemented.

NEARLY TERRORISM

4) More importantly, Lloyd simply accepts that violent retaliation against the entire Muslim community will occur. He says: 'Anger and fear require outlets', and indicates that violent assaults on Muslims and their property are the kind of outlets that would be sought if these laws are not passed. The word 'require' accepts, and comes close to justifying, anti-Muslim violence.

Lloyd's article mounts a justification for repressive new laws (in other words, has a political purpose) on the basis of an implied threat of violence designed to influence a substantial section of the public.

With a little stretching it could be said that, reading the Terrorism Act 2000, this article in itself is verging on terrorism, given that the threat involves serious violence against several persons, against property, might endanger the lives of several persons, and creates a serious risk to the safety of a section of the public.

Lloyd is not proposing to carry out the violence himself in any way. He merely envisages it taking place - apparently with equanimity.

This is not enormously different from al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri in his latest broadcast. True, where Lloyd foresees violence with equanimity, al-Zawahiri foresees it with enthusiasm.

The key point is that both men see violent action as inevitable, and ask others - not those who will otherwise carry out the violence - to take remedial action.

Lloyd might have said instead that the police and intelligence services should be employed to prevent an unjustified violent backlash against Muslim communities; that government and the political system should do all it could to eradicate misunderstandings leading to anti-Muslim racism; and that intellectuals such as himself were duty-bound to explain the true roots of al Qaeda-type terrorism, and to root out the false ideas that lead to Islamophobia and anti-Muslim vigilante action.

Lloyd might have said that he himself would stand physically with the Muslim community, shoulder to shoulder, and share the risks they face in these dangerous days. He might have said that he would visibly identify himself as a person in solidarity with the Muslim community.

He preferred to emphasise the proposal that the Muslim community should be prevented from provoking the white non-Muslim community with offensive speech.

REASON 5: SUPPORTING THE 'MODERATES'

Lloyd's final main reason concerns the 'moderates' in the Muslim community. We have discussed this term before.

'There's a further consideration. Leaders and opinion formers among Muslims who oppose extremism require a firm base on which to stand. If they are to support democratic politics - including protest and opposition - they need to see that bolstered by the state. To see instead the state extend a welcome and benefits to those whose main aim is to call down violence on the population is to give the moderates little help: it is to signal an indifference between their opinion and that of the extremists.'

Well, let's turn to those considered 'moderates'.

Omar Farooq, Islamic Society of Britain

'Overall the Muslim people of Britain welcome the action on the part of our government.

'[The ban on the party Hizb ut Tahrir] causes me concern because I think this organisation has been losing ground over the years.

'It's lost a lot of credibility and now by this announcement it might make their popularity rise more. It is a failing organisation which really shouldn't have been on our government's radar screen.

'I remember to 1997, where there was a massacre in Egypt and 19 tourists were killed. I asked why did the government allow these sort of people first to enter our country and secondly to use it as a base to damage the image of Islam and Muslims.

'And I'm glad that a decade or so on the government are finally taking action to deal with this menace.

'We are frustrated to the bone with some of these people in the name of our great religion, in the name of our way of life, going day after day and causing damage to our way of life here.

'Day after day these lunatics on our behalf go onto the broadsheets, on to the television screens and are really messing up our lives here. We don't want that to happen.'

[The question is whether the blame lies entirely with 'these lunatics' or with the media executives who choose to give them so much attention, suggesting that they are representative of a large section of the Muslim community.]

Sir Iqbal Sacranie, Secretary-General, Muslim Council of Britain

'The MCB holds no brief for Hizb ut Tahrir - they are a group with whom the mainstream Muslim community has strong and well known disagreements concerning participation in our political process.

'However, banning Hizb ut Tahrir is certainly not the solution and may well prove to be counterproductive. We understand that Hizb ut Tahrir in the United Kingdom are an avowedly non-violent group.

'If there are groups that are thought to be contravening our laws, then they ought to be prosecuted in courts of law, not driven underground. Our democratic values need to be upheld, not undermined.

'In addition, we are seeking clarification from the government to ensure that expressions of support for people who are living under brutal military occupation is not to be outlawed. That would be completely unacceptable.

'Our faith of Islam commands us to speak out against injustice wherever it occurs. To prohibit support for oppressed peoples would make us complicit in the injustice and would have dire consequences for the upholding of international legality.'

At a slightly less elevated level, the Boston Globe today reports these reactions from the grassroots:

' ''Why are these extremists in our community? We need that discussion. But the response has been extreme in itself," said Kalam, who was born in Bangaladesh and moved here with his family when he was 4 months old. ''There has been much hate speech directed at all Muslims, in the media, from politicians. The politics in this country are encouraging extremism, on all sides. I'm really annoyed at the stifling of debate. To understand is not to justify."

'Interviews with ordinary Muslims and leaders of mosques and Islamic centers have shown a consensus of grievances, against Britain's involvement in the war in Iraq, and against US foreign policy, which they see as biased against Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere.

'They are appalled by the detention of suspects at Guantanamo Bay, the treatment of prisoners in Iraq, and by what they see as hypocrisy and double standards emanating from the United States, where Muslims in the Middle East are lectured on the need to embrace democracy while US allies in the region, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, are repressive unelected regimes. In the Muslim neighborhoods of South London, such as Tooting, the young men call Saudi Arabia's prisons ''Guanto-Saudi."

'Muslims say that white Americans were not held responsible for the actions of Timothy McVeigh, convicted of the Oklahoma City bombing, and that white Britons were not accused of being complicit in the actions of Harold Shipman, an English doctor who was imprisoned five years ago for murdering more than 500 of his patients. So, why, they ask, are they not only being accused of being responsible for producing the bombers who struck last month, but also told to step back while the great and the good sort it out?

'Farouk Valimahomed, secretary of the Islamic Centre in Tooting, acknowledged that most moderate Muslims share the extremists' grievances. The difference, he said, is the response. Muslim teaching is clear, Valimahomed said, that violence against innocents is wrong. But he said the majority, moderate Muslims and their organizations are best suited to challenge and reduce support for extremism.

'Muslims say that the official response to the attacks has betrayed an ignorance of Muslim thinking and sensibilities. For example, moderate Muslims rolled their eyes in frustration when Blair announced plans to ban two organizations that have voiced support for Islamic militants: They said that the groups attracted only a fringe element, but that a government stamp of disapproval gave it cachet, especially among young people. In effect, they said, the government ban will serve only to make the groups more popular.

' ''You play into extremists' hands when you give them credibility," Kalam said. ''Instead of just ignoring them, when the government says you can't listen to this group, it's just natural that young people will say, 'Hmm, they must be on to something if the government is banning them.'

''It's so hypocritical to ban those groups when you have columnists in the newspapers spouting hate against Muslims."

It doesn't sound as if there is a strong feeling that a 'firm base' for 'moderation' is being given by the Prime Minister's legislative proposals.

REASON 6: REASSURING THE WHITE NON-MUSLIM POPULATION

Lloyd adds a further justification:

'Finally, support for a liberal polity, whether led by a party of the left or right, together with support for civil and human rights, ultimately comes from the electorate. From where else, in a democracy, could it proceed? Politicians must give a lead, and must support and defend liberalism in law and action, and in the month since the July 7 murders Blair has done so. But no government can remain liberal if support for its liberalism wanes; and support for a government that seeks assent to a society undergoing relatively rapid change as a consequence of immigration can be counted on only through a strong reassurance that limits observed naturally by the majority will be imposed by law on the extremist minority.'

What are these 'limits' that are observed so 'naturally' by the non-Muslim majority, and which are flouted by the 'extremist (Muslim) minority'?

Lloyd does not say.

One can infer from Lloyd's article that they concern 'encouragement of mass murder'; 'advocating violence against the British state, or against other democratic governments'; and 'preach[ing] violence'.

If we turn to the official definition in the Home Office consultation document, the list is longer and broader, including 'justify[ing] terrorism', 'foster[ing] hatred which may lead to intra community violence in the UK', 'advocat[ing] violence in furtherance of particular beliefs', and 'express[ing] what the Government considers to be extreme views that are in conflict with the UK’s culture of tolerance'.

Is it the case that the non-Muslim white majority has 'naturally' observed these limits?

Taking a global perspective, the world's greatest purveyor of violence for political objectives is US President George W. Bush. When we look at mainstream British culture, do we find the non-Muslim white majority refraining 'naturally' from justifying Bush's terrorism? Do we find a reluctance to advocate violence in furtherance of particular political beliefs?

When we look at the Daily Telegraph and the tabloid press, do we find the non-Muslim majority refraining 'naturally' from fostering hatred which may lead to intra community violence in the UK? Do we find a reluctance to express extreme views in conflict with Britain's supposed 'culture of tolerance'?

Turning to Lloyd's list of 'limits', when we look at British foreign policy towards, say, Putin's war in Chechnya, do we find a 'natural' discouragement or encouragement of the policy of mass murder? When we look at British cultural organs, do we find a complete lack of advocates of violence against (semi-)democratically-elected governments - in Iran today as fifty years ago, in Algeria in 1992, in Nicaragua under the Sandinistas, and so on?

As for the 'justification' of mass murder, we have just passed through the 60th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There has been a spectrum of views, but certainly within that spectrum has been a celebratory element, justifying the mass killing of civilians for military purposes.

Lloyd's argument is that liberals should support the Blair proposals because this is a liberal package of laws from a liberal government, and if the laws are not passed, and imposed on the minority (but not on the majority), the liberal British public will become illiberal.

If this is liberalism, let us fear illiberalism.

The answer, though, is more freedom, not less.

JNV welcomes feedback.