Modern "liberalism" posted by Meaders

John Lloyd, editor of Financial Times magazine, presents in today’s Guardian five reasons why "liberals" should "support the measures proposed by Tony Blair last Friday to limit the freedom of those who speak up for terrorism." It is the most atrociously poor set of arguments; if this is what now passes for "liberalism", the principle doctrine of modern capitalism has degenerated beyond recovery. Says Lloyd:

First, the proposed measures are clearly aimed at those who preach violence. The objection that such legislation would be unable to discriminate between those in the Muslim community who strongly object to British policy in Iraq and Afghanistan and those who encourage mass murder is disingenuous. It is clearly not the government's intention (nor is it in its interest) to do so - and in so far as there would be, in practice, confusion, then that should form part of the normal arguments between the state and the courts.

This is simply untrue. Hizb’ut-Tahrir, though highly obnoxious, are explicitly non-violent. Yet they are being threatened with a ban. It would be hard to think of a more stupid policy: it grants H-T an instant martyrdom and a glamour they do not warrant, whilst simultaneously making openly challenging and defeating their politics all but impossible. The experience of the antiwar movement in East London is instructive; H-T made a serious attempt, after 9/11, to argue for a separate, Muslim-only antiwar movement: “Don’t stop the war, except through Islamic politics”. The Stop the War Coalition, there as elsewhere, argued for unity – Muslim and non-Muslim – against the war. It won that argument, and defeated the Islamists, because it was able to have that argument.

If H-T is banned, the largest radical Islamist group in the country will be driven underground, out of sight and beyond any normal political process, where exhortations against violence, and condemnations of the attacks on civilians, are worthless and will be discarded. Even in the utilitarian terms Lloyd attempts to use, this extraordinarily foolish. (I will also note, in passing, the refusal of Hazel Blears to clearly answer a simple question as to whether these laws would apply to George Galloway.)

Second, legislation to screen more carefully those who enter the UK and expel those who abuse their welcome by advocating violence against it, or against other democratic governments, sets boundaries on the permissible - in a way similar to that already existing in race relations legislation. Both the existing legislation on racism, and that adumbrated by the prime minister on the "preachers of hate", have an illiberal potential - that is, they do restrict freedom of expression. But they do so on considerations of public safety and good community relations. No democracy, or any system of human and civil rights, can be absolute and beyond amendment.

Take Omar Bakri. An offensive prat, given to making offensive statements, certainly. But to ban him from the UK is to leave him at liberty elsewhere, still broadcasting the same message but now – as with H-T – beyond any reasonable possibility of restraint or confrontation.

Third, the experience of this country, faced with a terrorist threat, has not been to use a restriction of civil and human rights as a ratchet whereby these rights, once lost, are never reinstated. The history of the challenge to the state of IRA terrorism over nearly four decades has told the opposite story. There are dark pages, but the measures taken to restrict rights of movement and expression, and to limit trials by jury, have not remained, while a series of reforms to end discriminatory practices have. Indeed, a much better argument can be made against over-optimism and an over-"liberal" reaction to the IRA's ambiguous call for an end to hostilities than can be made for the view that IRA terrorism, with a mountain of corpses at its back, revealed the British system as irredeemably brutal.

If John Lloyd looks closely, he will see that the "temporary" Prevention of Terrorism Act remained on the statutes from 1974 to 2000, when it was superseded by the permanent Terrorism Act. A repressive law that materially contributed to some of the worst miscarriages of justice in British history was replaced by a still more repressive law, under which very serious attacks on civil liberties and democratic freedoms have already been made. In neither case does the argument that repression "prevented" terrorism hold water; Lloyd carefully forgets to mention the beneficial contribution that, say, internment without trial made to the IRA’s recruitment. The "measures taken to restrict rights of movement and expression, and limit trials by jury, have not remained" because they did not work. Only political engagement has.

Fourth, many people - judging by the polls - are fearful of a terrorism springing from an extreme version of Islam; and they could become, in large numbers, hateful and fearful. Blair's description last Friday of a popular reaction of unity and dignity seems right, but it was a reaction at a point in time, not a fixed sentiment. There's no reason why it cannot change - and it will change, faced with further attempts at mass murder. Constant and violent imprecations against the British government and people will cause anger to grow. Anger and fear require outlets: and we have already seen, in the so-far relatively minor attacks on mosques and innocent Muslims, what outlets these would be.

It is a shock to read this in a liberal newspaper from the pen of an alleged liberal. At best, Lloyd is suggesting we pander to racism. At worst, it bears comparison to Enoch Powell: if the Tiber is "foaming with much blood", Muslims and an "extremist version of Islam" will have brought it upon themselves. If racists decide to, say, murder an Asian man in Nottingham, they were gulled into it by "constant and violent imprecations against the British government". The British government itself is, of course, beyond reproach: its entire post-9/11 policy, for example, four years of baiting and illiberalism combined with awe-inspiring foreign policy disasters, have absolutely nothing to do with a pervasive Islamophobia. Truly revolting.

There's a further consideration. Leaders and opinion formers among Muslims who oppose extremism require a firm base on which to stand. If they are to support democratic politics - including protest and opposition - they need to see that bolstered by the state. To see instead the state extend a welcome and benefits to those whose main aim is to call down violence on the population is to give the moderates little help: it is to signal an indifference between their opinion and that of the extremists.

Muslims are, obviously, somewhat like children and require the firm, paternal hand of the state if they are not to fill their silly little heads with bad thoughts. Condemnation of the attacks in London has been all but universal from British Muslims: a few idiots and self-publicists, given exhorbitant attention by the media, have dissented - but they have quite clearly been overwhelmingly rejected by Muslims in Britain, without any help from Blair.

Finally, support for a liberal polity, whether led by a party of the left or right, together with support for civil and human rights, ultimately comes from the electorate. From where else, in a democracy, could it proceed? Politicians must give a lead, and must support and defend liberalism in law and action, and in the month since the July 7 murders Blair has done so. But no government can remain liberal if support for its liberalism wanes; and support for a government that seeks assent to a society undergoing relatively rapid change as a consequence of immigration can be counted on only through a strong reassurance that limits observed naturally by the majority will be imposed by law on the extremist minority.

We had to destroy the village in order to save it. Ever logical, Lloyd is arguing that an "extremist minority" necessitate restrictions placed on all our rights, thus turning a tiny group of headbangers into arbiters of our democracy.

These pages have been host to several pieces arguing, in essence, that we British had it coming (it being terrorist attacks by those acting in the name of extreme Islamism). Such arguments blur, at the very least, the essential nature of democratic societies. That is, that opposition is necessary to their health and it is that which must carry the burden of anger and protest. As long as that is the case, we don't have to accept terrorism as our guilty due; we have to entertain argument as our responsibility, our privilege and our patrimony.

"We British" did not have it coming. No-one, in the comments pages of the Guardian, has argued that commuters in London should be somehow made responsible for the crimes of their government. No-one has said the innocent should be made to suffer because of the guilty. It is a dirty, rotten trick of an argument, a variant on “explanation=justification”, but it is the closest that Lloyd, or any other apologist for authoritarianism, can come to admitting the dirty, rotten truth: the Iraq war is slowly poisoning everything in British society, whether it is the inability to ride a tube train in safety, or the callousness of a government that prefers destroying civil liberties to admitting its own mistakes.

Defend civil liberties - Stop the War Coalition demonstration, central London, 24 September.