Freedom

Thomas Ash (Oxford, OK): I've been surprised at some of the people defending Jacqui Smith's refusal to allow the Dutch politician Geert Wilders to enter the UK to show his anti-Islamic film 'Fitna' (viewable here). Take for example Chris Huhne, writing for the Liberty Central section of the Guardian's website. Huhne begins by avowing his commitment to free speech, but goes on to argue that "there has to be a dividing line between freedom of speech and an incitement to hatred and violence". I want to show that there can be no such line – at least, no sharp and simple one which denies that the principles which support free speech can apply to cases of incitement.

Needless to say, the question of what exactly free speech consists in and why it is worth protecting is complex, and it is surprisingly hard to give a principled answer which supports the contemporary liberal consensus about what should and should not be protected. That is because the idea that speech should be free has become a piety of our society, explicitly challenged only by marginal figures like those who protested the Danish cartoons of Mohammed with signs reading "Free speech go to hell", and we have consequently not been forced to think about why it is so important. Huhne's failure to see that freedom of speech has to cover Wilders' film is an example of what this leads to.

In today's Guardian, George Monbiot takes up the case of former diplomat Craig Murray, who is facing the threat of a libel action by private military contractor Tim Spicer.

Monbiot argues that Spicer's lawyers are threatening an injunction "against a book they haven't read and that won't be published until September," although Murray himself suggests elsewhere that they may have been tipped off by the Foreign Office.

Ralf Grahn (Helsinki, Grahnlaw): The European Council was up to some grandstanding again at its spring gathering. The presidency conclusions brought us the following vision (Presidency conclusions, document 7652/08 - opens pdf):

Roger Smith (London, JUSTICE): 2008 marks a decade since the Human Rights Act was passed, in those first carefree days of the Blair administration. Its anniversary will be marked by a politically charged row over the number of days that alleged terrorists can be detained before charge; a heavyweight battle over whether the Act should morph into a Bill of Rights; and the so far unanswered question of what difference the newly created Equalities and Human Rights Commission will make.

Anthony Barnett (London, OK):  Apologies, I've not been able to get on line since late Friday. When I noticed that The Manifesto Club has launched a facebook campaign against the prosecution of people on the basis of what they think, say, read, listen to and watch or download from the internet, rather than what they do. They say,

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): Fresh from the official merger of Charter 88 and New Politics Network into Unlock Democracy, its director Peter Facey sets out his approach in CiF. He is warm and generous towards the achievement of Charter 88 and takes the argument forward in response to Gordon Brown's Green paper. Is the citizens' summit now being planned believable? Peter makes the case for supporting  its proposals for direct involvement in an independent spirit. He asks a set of questions including

Jon Bright (London, OK): We had a lot of good comments and debate in response to Stuart Weir's post on Peter Kosminsky's drama Britz, and I thought it would be interesting to draw out a few of the main themes as the debate seems to have now died down - posed as questions rather than answers:

Stuart Weir (Cambridge, Democratic Audit): Things are worse than I thought. When I wrote yesterday's blog on the demands for self-censorship I had misgivings about making Prince Charles the figurehead over his unwillingness to stand up for Monica Ali's novel Brick Lane and the film. He is so well known as a meddling fool, a kind of prince and court jester all in one skin, that I feared people may well think I was exaggerating the danger of this growing trend. I had not read the Guardian's editorial of 27 October on the book and its author. The editorial is a farrago of tendentious sentiments and queries that don't quite face up to what the writer cannot quite say outright. What business does a "mixed-race Oxford graduate" have writing about ordinary Bangladeshis in east London? She should have taken special care in writing about a "new" subject, especially when it is a "community". The Bangladeshis are too various a group to speak as one. They are "real people" living in "real" communities. What tosh. There has been a robust response to the editorial in the newspaper's readers page, mostly in defence of fiction as imaginative work and of the freedom of expression in which novels like Brick Lane should flourish. However, having read the novel, I would also like to affirm that it is clearly authentic both artistically and as social reportage and far from ridiculing or disparaging a "real" community, its insights into the lives of Ms Ali's characters inspire sympathy and understanding. I can discount rumours that it was Charles who wrote the editorial - the leader writer had clearly read the novel. Or had (this is my guess) he?

Stuart Weir (Cambridge, Democratic Audit): Funny what we can say and what we can't say. Perhaps the most prevalent complaint about censorship and self-censorship in British society is that about "political correctness". Actually I do myself often squirm in frustration over some of the absurd prohibitions and circumlocutions that PC-ness leads to (being a fan of plain-speaking myself) and of course give the tabloid anti-PC campaign so much ammunition.

Jon Bright (London, OK): In his last appearance before the Commons liaison committee today, Tony Blair criticised the idea of a fully elected House of Lords - saying we "benefit from having people who have not necessarily spent their life in politics who come in with broader experience". The comments were immediately lambasted by groups campaigning for an elected House of Lords - "Tony Blair's statement today makes one wonder if he actually reads his own government's White Papers", said Peter Facey, Director of Unlock Democracy.

Anthony Barnett (London OK): Who said that? In 1992, when he first spoke about constitutional issues at length in his Sovereignty lecture (see below) Gordon Brown called "not just for immediate implementation of a Freedom of Information Act to ensure the flow of information from government to citizen and the right to know... but also that there should be precise duties guaranteeing the right of individuals to information where it is in the public interest to do so, in the dark and secret corners of the private sector." Well, leaving the private sector aside, MPs have now voted to close themselves off from accountability (which Spyblog promptly posted here and condemned). The MPs who passed this are absolutely hopeless, living in a lost world. Perhaps they are clinging to the idea that if they they can mark their dealing "secret" this means they will be more important! I'm afraid it's one more swirl towards the plug-hole.

Jon Bright (London, OK): David Maclean MP's Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill will be debated in the commons tomorrow. The amendment, which would exempt both parliament and MP's communications with public authorities from public scrutiny, is defended, by Jack Straw among others, on the grounds that it preserves the privacy of constituents who have corresponded with their MPs, but has been attacked vociferously by a number of campaigning groups. The Freedom of Information blog, along with many others, argue that the existing FOI act already allows for the exemption of private communications between MPs and constituents, while Mark Fisher MP argues in the Independent that the bill has been pushed through by "procedural sleight of hand", with little real scrutiny. Both argue the real motive is to conceal parliamentary members' spending.

Anthony Barnett (London OK): Two events in London last night pointed to awakening alarm at what is happening to our rights and liberties in Britain. Both suggest there is a growing strength and depth of the arguments. There is also a feeling in the air that resistance will be strong and effective, not least because the alliance is now stretching from the streets to the Tories.