Times They Are A Changin'

On a largely restful day between trips to Cornwall and Rome I was able at last to reflect on events in North Africa and the Middle East and closer to home. There are countries which are regarded as philosophically hostile to what is broadly described as 'the West' and which are generally guided by Islam whether or not distorted in interpretation by factions with their own less devout agendas. Curiously, they are often characterised by oppressive regimes which seem, paradoxically, to do little to represent their populations. Whilst the incidental tourists and insurrectionists of such countries are in clear minorities, the larger populations seem, as in any country of the world, to be decent people wanting only reasonable comfort, stability and peace for themselves and their families. Now those countries are set to tear themselves apart. Whilst this might mean, in the short term, a safer journey on the underground, the long term implications are potentially dire. These are the butterflies stirring in deep distant forests; with so many wings in so many forests the ensuing catastrophe may leave no person on the planet unscathed. The world needs stability in all of its constituent parts and in those parts controlling the oil more than any. Ironically but pragmatically this is why the West has for so long tacitly supported regimes which could charitably be described as dictatorships, countries where the division between the military and politics is somewhat blurred. Now it is the responsibility of the West to guide tentative democracies without cynical manipulation.

At home, one of our reactions to  the tiny minority of people who apparently wish us harm has been control orders. These have recently been in the news on the grounds that they are to be replaced but what is to replace them keeps in place some unsound legal principles. The number of people affected is small but the principles are huge. Accusations are levelled at these individuals to justify substantial restrictions on their movements and activities. We are assured that 'compelling evidence' exists to justify such restrictions but the authorities are not prepared to put forward this evidence in (open) court. That is what is wrong. It is simply, unequivocally, unacceptable in a western democracy, even when faced by an enemy implacably opposed to every facet of that democracy, to base our response on 'evidence' which has not been exposed to the full rigours of our legal system. Such arguments as 'we can not reveal our evidence because that would compromise the sources of our evidence and gathering methods', are fatuous and flawed. We can not compromise our principles even to defeat those who deride and seek to destroy them.

If there are those, even ostensible UK citizens, who so much admire the austere regimes of such as the Taleban then they should be invited to live amongst them. It is evident to me from some years of observation that some of the most reactionary and volatile individuals are those least likely to thrive in authoritarian states or structures with their narrow but often fluid ideologies.