Henry Porter
The Observer

A couple of weeks ago, the Canadian television presenter Richard Gizbert asked a panel at the Frontline Club in London what effect WikiLeaks' disclosure of American cables might have had during the run-up to the Iraq war. Would the kind of revelations we saw last year have made it impossible for Tony Blair and George Bush to invade Iraq on the basis of claims about weapons of mass destruction?

Obviously, publication would have made deceit and obfuscation vastly more difficult, because the more the public is made aware of what governments know and don't know, the more difficult it is for politicians to follow messianic crusades of their own. That is one of the crucial arguments in favour of publishing such material. Contrast the clear shafts of light that spread from publication of the cables with the interminable ramblings of John Chilcot's committee of pensionable British worthies and you find yourself regretting that the manoeuvrings of Blair and Bush were not exposed to similar scrutiny in 2002 and 2003. Is it any wonder that the internet generation largely supports the dumping of raw information by whistleblowers on the web when they see figures from the 20th-century British establishment like Chilcot forlornly apply to make public two letters from Blair to Bush, only to be refused on the grounds that prime ministers and presidents have a right to keep their correspondence private?

More »

Henry Porter

The Independent's article sanctioning torture is built on logical flaws, grotesque views and a contempt for democracy

The columnist Bruce Anderson runs up the flag for torture in today's Independent with a column that does no credit to the paper.

Anderson makes much of the ticking bomb dilemma – the idea that it is morally preferable to torture someone who can tell you where and when a dirty bomb might go off rather than allowing thousands of innocent people to be killed. He recalls that before 9/11, he debated the issue in front of some lawyers and argued that the government would not only have a right to use torture: it would have a duty to use it.

The liberal lawyer Sydney Kentridge got up and challenged Anderson with this: "Let's take your hypothesis a bit further. We have captured a terrorist, but he is a hardened character. We cannot be certain that he will crack in time. We have also captured his wife and children."

Anderson happily admits that he could not think his way round this. "I have come to the conclusion that there is only one answer to Sydney's question. Torture the wife and children. It is a disgusting idea. It is almost a tragedy that we even have to discuss it, let alone think of acting upon it." -So Anderson appears to recommends torturing innocent women and children to make a man talk.

More »

Henry Porter

Government attempts to override a free speech clause in a homophobic hatred bill illustrate its determination to attack rights.

"The politically motivated trampling of free speech is something that should concern us all," says a letter in the Times from the Conservative peer Lord Waddington and the Labour MP and former backbencher of the year David Taylor.

After a free speech clause was inserted into a new offence of homophobic hatred in May 2008 and the bill was enacted, the government has returned to try to get its way by introducing a clause in another bill that repeals the earlier guarantee. You can't have a better example of the remorseless energy that attacks rights. It will surprise few to learn that the new clause appears in the coroners and justice bill which has been drafted by Jack Straw's Justice Department. The letter says:

The free speech clause is supported across the political spectrum. Liberty, the Church of England, Matthew Parris and Rowan Atkinson have also joined the ranks who back it.

The old clause says:

For the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred.

More »

Henry Porter

When the European Court of Human Rights announces a ban on crucifixes in Italian schools, you can either celebrate the liberal march of secularism or deplore the illiberal attack on religious expression and national tradition.

Perhaps there is a third option which is to say that this has nothing to do with rights and everything to do with the EU's manic drive to standardise behaviour and attitudes, in the same way as it regulates the transportation of livestock and the safety specifications of new mowers.

The crucifix is none of the EU's business and, as we celebrate the fall of the Berlin Wall this weekend and the miraculous bravery and persistence of the Christian congregation of the Nikolaikirche in Leipzig, who sparked the East German revolutions with candles and peace prayers every Monday evening, it is perhaps right to remember that the last Europeans to ban the display of religious symbolism in schools belonged to the communist regimes of the east.

More »