I disapprove of what you say...

Oh dear, oh dear ! The Today programme could not find a minister to defend the government's stupid decision to ban Geert Wilders from entering Britain, so they found Chris Huhne to do it for them. Chris began by saying "Freedom of speech is absolutely crucial" and then showed that he doesn't know the meaning of absolute by trying to draw a dividing line we should not cross, a principle for exceptions to freedom of speech. First he argued we should not allow "incitement to hatred or incitement to violence". John Humphries pointed out that these are two different things. Chris tried again. We shouldn't allow speech which is "creating the conditions for violence". We should have "freedom up to the point where there is potential for harm". Talk about stop digging when you're in a hole. Chris had not thought through the principles he was trying to enunciate. Freedom of speech is not absolute but it is bloody important.

The home secretary has the power to stop people entering the UK if she believes there is a threat to national security, public order or the safety of UK citizens, but she cannot exclude people simply because of their views. Wilders says the government's reason for not allowing him to enter is because his opinions "threaten community security and therefore public security" . The Home Office website gives no information on the point. No minister appeared on the Today programme.

Chris is wrong and Jacqui Smith is wrong, wrong in principle and wrong in practice. They are wrong in principle because what they object to is Wilders' opinions (and they are objectionable) but his views do no not themselves incite violence, they upset and offend many people, some of whom may become violent in reaction. His film if anything condemns violence. The film combines extracts from the Koran which encourage violence with clips of actual violence by Islamists (NB. This is the general term not for Muslims but for what the press calls Islamic extremists). I'm sure a similar film could be made with extracts from the Bible and clips of Christian violence or from the Torah with Jewish violence. The offence lies in not distinguishing between Muslims and Islamists. Wilders may be ghastly and his views dreadful but we should not prevent the expression of views which create "the conditions for violence" or "where there is the potential for harm". A literal interpretation of these tests would prevent the expression of any opinion which could possibly upset or offend anyone prepared to resort to violence when upset or offended. Nor should we allow the Home Secretary or even a judge to decide on a non-literal interpretation. The link between such words and actual violence is not sufficiently proximate. Offending the violent is NOT inciting violence. If you think it is, you are handing over power to the bigot.

They are wrong in practice. Jacqui Smith's decision (which she would not defend in public but Chris did) has given more publicity and support to the wretched Wilders that letting him in to the UK would ever have done. Polls on the Daily Mail and Guardian websites both show an overwhelming majority of voters opposing the ban. Newly elected Presidents of the Liberal Party and the Liberal Democrats traditionally receive a copy of the Milton's Areopagitica which contains the phrase,
"...who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter ?". I commend it to Chris. The right response to Wilders and anyone like him is to hear them, to argue with them and show that they are wrong.

There is another worrying implication here. Wilders is a European citizen and parliamentarian. He was invited by a European citizen (Lord Pearson of UKIP may not like this description) and parliamentarian. Wilders' attendance at the meeting in the House of Lords was prevented by Jacqui Smith, a member of the Executive. The prevention of discussion among parliamentarians by the Executive is characteristic of fascist government. Of course I do not say that our government is fascist but they do need to consider more carefully the implication of their decisions.

Finally, on the subject of offending people, have a listen to Marcus Brigstocke on religion on YouTube. Perhaps Jacqui Smith will prosecute him.

"You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately ... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"

Could anyone fail to be disgruntled, disappointed, disillusioned, dismayed by the dismal, disingenuous disaster that is Michael Martin ? I watched with incredulity this inadequate man's sad statement yesterday. No apology. No acknowledgment of his own duty or his failure to perform it. In true New Labour style he tried to pass the buck to others, the Sergeant-at-Arms or the police. Note his use of the passive - "I was not told that the police did not have a warrant" and "I was not asked the question of whether consent should be given or whether a warrant should have been insisted on...". The passive voice is always favoured by people trying to escape their own responsibility. Is there a bank-robber, a fan of any television detective programme, indeed any citizen who does not know that the police need a warrant to search ? Why did it not occur to the Speaker (£76,904 p.a. on top of an MP's salary) or the Sergeant-at-Arms (salary unknown) to ask to see a warrant ? Can it be, as Dominic Grieve and Chris Huhne suggested on Newsnight that Parliament has now become the creature of the executive and can no longer defend itself ? Yet most MPs are still mealy-mouthed about the Speaker. Time now to stand up. MPs must remember the words of Oliver Cromwell and tell Michael Martin it's time to go.

Chris Huhne - young Turk !

...and just for balance, here's a young radical student called Huhne trying to bash in the door of the establishment with a bench. What an appropriate image for the position of leader of the Liberal Democrats in an archaic parliament whose procedure assumes only two parties.

Sorry there's no dog, Chris, but if you send me a picture of yourself with a dog, I will publish it.