****ing Keith Vaz

Much freedom of speech fun tonight. Keith Vaz, who really is a pointless adornment in the political firmament (I can see why Bozza swore violently at him) was on Newsnight arguing that Geert Wilders should have been banned from entering the country. He did it very badly. In essence he seems to have advanced three arguments, all rubbish

1. The Home Secretary had the legal powers to do so. This is true, but no-one claimed otherwise. There was a vacuous subargument whereby he tried to say that as each case should be considered on its own merits so no precedents could be drawn from previous decisions - suggesting the government just makes its decisions up with no clear principles. This may be true, but I wouldn't draw attention to it
2. Then he claimed that the man incited hatred. He initially based this on the film, which he has not seen (I thought we'd trained them out of this). However, he did also highlight that the man was under prosecution in the Netherlands. This is more serious, though would have been more compelling if he had been convicted.
3. (possibly the worst). When a nice Muslim, whose name escapes me - it wasn't a high quality panel - said that he wanted to debate the film with the filmaker, Keith said that he could, provided he flew to Holland. Which I think misses the point.
   

Of course, the arguments are useless because the case is atrocious. If freedom of speech is to mean anything, then it does mean than unpleasant things get said, people get offended, sometimes seriously and hurtfully. But it is better than curtailing that freedom along arbitrary lines - lines that do allow mass murdering communists to visit (and get state receptions), but not Dutch MPs. A freedom limited to saying nice things about each other or to discuss matters in a structured and logical way doesn't really amount to much. Deal with it.

As an aside, incitement to religious hatred has never really stood up in my book. I generally oppose the elevating of particular kinds of crime (direct or incitement) above others. If a man has incited an assualt on me for my wealth rather than my race, I fail to see why there is a different punishment.

The film itself, by the way, is crap: it's like a party political broadcast on behalf of the 'we hate fundies' party, which - come to think of it, it is.