I believe in free speech. Apart from matters of life and death (war and counter terrorism, for example) where secrecy is justified on the grounds that agents lives are at risk, I believe censorship is counterproductive.

Therefore I opppose attempts by my Government to create offences which ammount to thought crime - the new "religious hatred" bill. In fact I believe that even Britain's current race-hate laws go too far.

That is not to say I support the odious simians of Nick Griffin's BNP. I do not, but putting him on trial for saying what many believe makes a martyr of him. I think it would be better to have him spouting his rhetoric out in public, where his ideas can be ridiculed. Incitement to racial hatred is bad, but I don't believe it follows that it should be a crime.

Many BNP supporters are just ignorant fools, equally opressed as the people they affect to despise. Mr Griffin is given a powerful rhetorical tool when he says "they could lock me up for saying this". I say let him. Society has demonstrated the futility of race hate, ideas which are not suceptible to law, but are succeptable to reason.

Incitement to murder or violence is, and should be a crime. Mr. Griffin is careful to not say "go out and beat up asians" and anyone who does following one of his meetings will be punished. To do violence against someone on the grounds of race is punishable by greater sentences than for other motivations.

So so long as someone doesn't incite violence, he shold be able to state his case, even if he is stirring up hatred. Opinions don't kill people, people do and people can be persuaded not to. In a secretive organisation in fear of the law, the other side has even less chance of persuading the BNP thug of the error of his ways.

Many people feel that Islam is not protected, but from what can a set of beliefs be protected? Denmark is enduring a Hissy-fit from the muslim world over a newspaper which published pictures of the Prophet. The Danish political leadership have refused to appologise sufficiently, on the Grounds that a Dane can say more or less what he likes in print. Saudi Arabia has withdrawn its ambassador. If critical comment, and ridicule are outlawed in the UK, then such opinion is likely to be driven underground and into the arms on Mr. Griffin, and people are more likely to act on their prejudice.

On the other side of the coin, the muslim world must engage with its headbangers. Theo Van Gough may be guilty of making a very boring film, but he didn't deserve to die for it. Salman Rushdie didn't deserve to endure years in hiding (though the publicity didn't do his sales any harm). There are countless examples where fear of insulting Muslim opinion has caused people to moderate their expressions of distaste aginst the faith.

This makes for a deeply problematic situation where a majority of people in the west have negative (and probably largely unjustified and unrepresentative) views of Islam, but to express them risks Fatwa. Most muslims are reasonable, and can accept differences of opinion, but too many hot-heads seek to bully the west with its own tolerance, demanding too much protection for their faith against reasonable discourse. Here the threat of violence and the rhetoric of victimhood are also used. This stifling of debate prevents the real picture from outing and encourages anti muslim feeling.

Linked, but off on a tangent is the British 30-year rule for release of official documents. The public's opinion of politicians is that of self serving liars. Politicians are afforded to much leeway to get away with lies, untruth and manipulation because when it gets out, they'll be dead. If discourse was opened up, politicians would be forced to be more honest, and as a direct result the public's opinion of them would go up. This would also result in better government.

Put simply, I can see no place where reasonable, open discourse with all available information in public is better than any stifling of debate. Governments shouldn't seek to protect people from words, only violence. That's why freedom of speech is enshrined in the American Constitution and in Centuries of Common Law practice. Only the wrong have something to fear from open debate. In this, dictators (commie and facist) make common cause with religious loons, the liberal left, conservative right and authoritarian politicians the world over, in seeking to have some opinions ruled Illegal. Opinions should be voiced, tested, demostrated foolish, declared dangerous, or sometimes even agreed with, but never ever outlawed.

That's why I blog.