It seems that the case of the 'lyrical terrorist' encapsulates many of the defining obsessions of our age. An apparently angry, extremist Muslim, 'terrorist' material distributed over the internet, and an argument over whether some kinds of speech should be illegal. It's my view that, in this case the answer is a resounding 'no', and that in years to come we will look back on this case with bafflement.

Let's get one thing straight: I find Samina Malik's poetry pretty distasteful, even offensive, and I like to think that I'm a fairly broad-minded and easy-going kind of person. But the world contains no shortage of things that I find distasteful, and I don't expect anybody to be locked up for producing these things. And, of course, it was not for her poetry that she was convicted. It was for having downloaded various 'materials which may be of use to terrorists' via the internet.

I'm afraid that I can't help but find something comical in the nature of the case against Ms. Malik. Her poetry is clearly intended to shock, but not much more so than the majority of 'shocking' material produced by 'disaffected youth' over the ages. When I look at the case, I see a person striking a provocative pose, daring the world to be offended, perhaps driven by some sense of being an outsider or simply finding enjoyment in being so 'subversive' and 'dangerous'. This is not a million miles away from the way some teenagers flirt with the symbolism of extremism, or occasionally glorify violence as a means of asserting their identity. If it deserves anything, it deserves mild contempt and perhaps pity; if you so choose, you may even find it amusing. What I cannot do is find this to be a threat to myself, my society or my way of life. And, since it is none of these things, I cannot see a case for punishing an otherwise perfectly innocent person who has not, as far as we aware, caused a single instance of harm to any other person.

I'm sorry, but the 'lyrical terrorist' is not a terrorist, any more than Johnny Rotten was really an anarchist (or an antichrist for that matter). If most gangsta rappers had shot as many people as their lyrics profess, most of them would be giving Pol Pot a run for his money. Most 'emo' bands have a much less real interest in suicide and self-harm than their lyrics suggest. Talking about violent 'jihad' may be offensive, but it's not necessarily dangerous, and we risk making it dangerous if we treat it with a seriousness that it does not deserve. Likewise, possessing an internet 'terrorist manual' is a ludicrous reason for imprisoning someone. As a relatively long-term internet user (pushing a decade now, I imagine), I've seen these kinds of scares before. I'm fairly sure that I could find any number of 'manuals' detailing how to cause all manner of harm to others (many of which are simply photocopied and scanned army manuals), but possessing any of them would not be a good reason to send me to prison, would it?

Regrettably, I think the case was summed up by the judge's statement to Ms. Malik that "in many respects you are a complete enigma to me" - that much is unfortunately obvious. If he had perhaps been able to decrypt the enigma, he would have seen Malik's poetry for what it is: a provocative stance, and nothing more. Another person will be going to prison when there is no need, with no good consequences to come from it.

At the Lib Dem Spring Conference, Ming Campbell set five tests for Gordon Brown, a set of criteria by which Brown could be examined on Lib Dem values of liberty, fairness and responsibility.

As Brown moves closer to taking over from Tony Blair, he is increasingly asserting his own views and his own policies. This weekend, he announced an intention to press ahead with new anti-terrorism legislation, and in doing so issued an implicit challenge of his own: will Ming's Liberal Democrats accept a compromise on the length of detention without charge? For it is the increase in this period, above and beyond the 28 days already agreed, that forms a major part of Brown's plans:

Mr Brown wants to give police more powers - including holding suspects without charge for more than 28 days - when he takes over as prime minister.

Civil liberties campaigners warn the plan amounts to "internment".

But in a speech earlier, Mr Brown insisted he would bring in safeguards, including a judicial review of detention every seven days.

Brown is obviously trying to pitch this as a 'middle way' between the Blair/Reid authoritarianism and the libertarian objections of the Liberal Democrats and, on occasion, the Conservatives. The BBC seem to have taken this line, and have entitled their story 'Brown pledge to protect liberties', a strange title given that the first major proposal of Brown's mentioned in the story is a further erosion of liberty. Brown's 'protection' of liberty seems to consist mostly of judicial review:

He added: "We will have to consider further legislation to do so. I think that is where the public will need to recognise that we have got a new security problem."

But he said he would make sure that "at no point will our British traditions of supporting and defending civil liberties be put at risk.

"There has got to be independent judicial oversight. There has got to be proper parliamentary accountability.

"We should give the police the power to question people so we can both prevent incidents and get to the bottom of some of these very, very strange dealings."

Judicial oversight and parliamentary accountability are obviously good things. But judicial oversight is something we should have already, and parliamentary accountability is something that any responsible government should accept on all matters. These things should not be offered as sweeteners to a deal that is fundamentally unpalatable to the majority of people, indeed to a majority of MPs, who in 2005 defeated the government's last attempt at allowing detention without charge for 90 days.

Brown does offer some positive steps - the admission of phone-tap evidence in court would allow much more straightforward prosecution of terrorist suspects, removing some of the need for the grey areas of control orders and detention without charge. But the test for Ming is this: will he accept a 'consensus' on the 'need' for harsher laws in return for claiming some success in influencing Brown? After all, allowing phone-tap evidence in court is a long-standing Liberal Democrat policy and any improvement in judicial and parliamentary oversight will be welcomed by the party. Nick Clegg's comment on the matter is somewhat ambiguous:

Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Nick Clegg said Mr Brown "appears a little more concerned about parliamentary accountability than his predecessor".

But he added: "It now remains to be seen whether this is just a procedural fig-leaf for more authoritarian measures or part of a genuine shift in guaranteeing and not undermining our fundamental civil liberties."

Lord Carlile goes further, seeming to suggest that a need for consensus might trump possible objections:

Lord Carlile told the BBC: "I do think it is time for the political parties to get together and to try to reach a consensus with the government, so we can move forward on terrorism legislation on the basis of fitness for purpose, rather than having a hot political debate about these desperately difficult and important matters."

It is to be hoped that a compromise is not about to be struck. For many Liberal Democrats, this is a test of principle. If Ming gives any support, even in the context of a supposedly more liberal-friendly approach from Gordon Brown, to the idea of extending the detention period beyond 28 days, he will have failed a key test in the eyes of his own supporters and party members. Britain needed the Liberal Democrats to stand firm against Tony Blair's plans in 2005, and Britain needs the Liberal Democrats to stand just as firm against Gordon Brown's attempt to revive those plans.

Britain today is at a crossroads. The ideological foment of the 20th century has given way to an uneasy consensus, with no obvious way forward. Government does more than ever before, but provides less accountability for its actions and little thought seems to be given to the long-term consequences.

We now face a stark choice: do we want to continue with ever-greater encroachment on the lives of private citizens, ever more information being gathered on our movements, actions, words and thoughts? Or do we want to be a free country, promoting the values of fairness, tolerance and trust?

Under Blair, Britain has been governed as though it were a huge open prison. House arrest, DNA databases, ID cards, double the length of detention without charge - we liberals know the litany of illiberal legislation that has become the defining feature of New Labour. Thuggish illiberalism seems to have become almost a reflex for some within New Labour, applied apparently without consideration of anything more than keeping the tabloids at bay. But a law is for life, not just for tomorrow's headline and Tony Blair's legacy is to be a dangerous collection of legislation that has progressively accelerated the decline in trust between the electorate and politicians; accelerated the decline of voluntary civil society; fundamentally altered the relationship between citizen and state.

Gordon Brown has been at great pains to wrap himself in the flag and to talk up the notion of 'Britishness'; in his farewell speech Tony Blair described Britain as the 'greatest' country in the world. Both of these miss the point: greatness is not something you own, it's something you achieve. Do we really want our national achievement to be the record for the most CCTV cameras for the fewest people? Can we rightly feel proud of a government that seeks to belittle its citizens at every turn? If Blair and Brown really believed in the greatness of the British people, they would start by trusting them more.

This choice is of fundamental importance, and the path we take really does matter. Liberty is fragile, and will not withstand another ten years of constant erosion. Liberal Democrats must stand up for the positive virtues of a free Britain, where people are respected as free citizens, not potential suspects to be monitored; where imprisonment is reserved for those who have committed a crime, not those who happen to fit a 'profile' and where all citizens are free to carry on their lawful business without harassment.

There is much more to our vision of Britain than this, but the fundamental values of liberty are the foundation upon which everything else is built. We must defend these values, and be prepared to fight those who, whatever their intentions, seek to diminish them.

In Wednesday's Guardian Simon Jenkins posited that "Ipswich proves how badly we need Tory libertarians". He does not recognise the current Conservative Party as being able to make the case for an increase in basic civil liberties:

What is the matter with the Conservative party? It once claimed a nodding acquaintance with the cause of liberty. Now it runs with the corporatist pack. If there is anything to be banned, regulated or computerised, it howls from the dispatch box for "something to be done". Be it prostitutes, drugs, prisons, NHS computers, data protection or civil rights, the Tories are desperate not to be seen as out of the action.

Just like Blair, Cameron seems content to have his agenda shaped at the behest of focus groups and the press. As Jenkins continues:

The Tories could tell us exactly what a modern Conservative means by a free society, and list the regulations and restrictions they intend to repeal in their bonfire of controls. They could seize the moment of the Ipswich headlines by declaring their determination to end counter-productive bans on consensual crime. Merely preaching an end to government interference in the private affairs of citizens is hypocritical if, when case after case comes along, Cameron funks mentioning it for fear of the press.

Indeed. Project Cameron is not about any sort of principle, as Cicero argued so persuasively earlier this week. It is solely about securing a return to power for the Conservatives, who have finally come to the realisation that the "Natural Party of Government" finds loss of power more painful than the triumph of the viewpoint of one their disparate sects (although, of course, if power was secured these internal tensions would surface immediately).

Yet what is the point of this power, if the Conservatives will not act?

If the Tories spend every day dancing attendance on the tabloids, they will get absolutely nowhere with wavering voters. If oppositions, especially those professing an aversion to an overwhelming state, cannot see how specifically to curb it, who will?

The answer is obvious - it has to be the Liberal Democrats. A clear and urgent expression of Liberty has to be our rallying cry in the run up to the general election. We owe it to the voters to offer them this choice; they will not get it from the Blue Labour parties.

It is distinctive, but it is also right.

The Prime Minister-in-waiting has given his verdict on the recent court case involving BNP leader Nick Griffin: he has called for changes to the law.

Griffin and co-defendant Mark Collett were charged in 2005 with inciting racial hatred following the broadcast of secretly-filmed footage of the pair by the BBC. After the first trial failed to reach a verdict, the fresh retrial has found the men not guilty.

Nick Griffin and his party are odious fear-mongers. Most British people agree that they are odious fear-mongers and, aside from a few pockets of discontent, their party receives very little support. Much of the support they do receive has been generated on the back of the publicity surrounding the trial.

So would a new law have made things any better? I doubt it. Incarcerating Nick Griffin for his views is exactly what the BNP would want; it would give a real boost to their claim that the current government is repressing the BNP's views, and would make valuable propaganda. Not only that, but there comes a point at which we have to accept that some people simply have odious views which we can do nothing about. Brown's exact quote is revealing:

"Any preaching of religious or racial hatred will offend mainstream opinion in this country.

"We have got to do whatever we can to root it out from whatever quarter it comes.

"And if that means we have got to look at the laws again, we will have to do so."

He's right to say that preaching of hate offends mainstream opinion. It certainly offends mine. But is that a justification for a law against it? I'm not convinced. I do, of course, have to recognise that I am not the target of Nick Griffin's hatred and, if I were, I might feel differently. But even that consideration leaves plenty of unanswered questions. Can we ever criminalise 'hatred'? I'm really not sure that we can, and that the use of the law to control hatred may be a mistake. Hatred is a state of mind, not a practice. It cannot be outlawed like smoking, or fox-hunting. A society demonstrates its willingness to confront hatred in other ways than by passing laws. In particular, we can defeat Nick Griffin's ideology by voting against it at the ballot box.

What's more, Brown is giving credence to the idea that any crackpot demagogue can become a real threat to the lives and liberties of British citizens purely on the basis of their ethnicity. Britain ought to be a country made of better stuff than to allow such a thing to happen. We should not need to silence Nick Griffin by force of law; let him say what he wants, and be publicly rejected for it. If we want to guarantee the liberty of British citizens, we could start by promoting those liberties and protecting them in law - that would be a better guarantee of protection against a future fascist government than trying to criminalise those who fantasise about such a government's rise.

Brown's views seem to build on the 'managerialist' view of government (take a browse through Chris Dillow's many excellent posts on the subject); that every problem must be rectified by government action, whether the passing of laws, the changing of tax structures or the spending of money. His policy suggestions are based on using the law to control individuals, rather than on strengthening society and institutions necessary to tackle the problem. If the problem is disenfranchised white communities voting BNP, the solution is to address the genuine causes of discontent in those communities. If the problem is fear amongst ethnic minorities, the solution is to strengthen and guarantee their rights as British citizens, so that no amount of 'send them back' rhetoric from the BNP can ever be taken seriously. I'd prefer to see a Britain where ethnic minority Britons are able to laugh in the face of the BNP and where no community feels so excluded from society as to fall prey to demagogues. That is the real goal, not the temporary silencing of uncomfortable or offensive views.

Via Samizdata comes the story that researches have found that cannabis can be effective in treating Alzheimers. This follows other studies which have shown that cannabis can be used in the treatment of glaucoma and to relieve side effects from treatment of cancer and AIDS.

Despite the downgrading of cannabis from Class B to Class C, it remains a prohibited substance in Britain and, indeed, in much of the world. But this policy has done nothing to stop a thriving criminal trade in the drug, with both smuggling and home-grown production continuing to evade the law. More worryingly, this policy does little to ameliorate the harmful effects of over-use and abuse, as users are obliged to keep their use private and secret. Meanwhile, those who simply enjoy an occasional use of the drug are at risk of being criminalised despite doing no obvious harm to anyone, even themselves. Few would argue that occasional use of cannabis represents a threat to society or to the individuals in question.

Where some individuals may be susceptible to a bad reaction to the drug, they are extremely unlikely to receive any support or assistance. By putting cannabis sale into the hands of drug dealers, the law cannot place any requirement on them to consider the welfare of their customers; controlled sale by licensed outlets would, on the other hand, ensure that people are fully informed of any risks and side-effects, and given the best possible opportunity to receive help.

The view that something must change is growing. The absurdity of maintaining prohibition of cannabis whilst completely failing to enforce it cannot last, and if the best efforts of the last 30 years at enforcement have failed then they are not likely to succeed in the next 30 years. In fact, no greater blow could be dealt to crime than to remove the easy source of profit made by selling illegal drugs at inflated prices. Legalise it, and we might just have a chance at a more sensible approach.

One of my highlights of Conference was the Lib Dem Youth and Students fringe on their 'Stop Homophobic Bullying campaign'. At a time when schools are expected to record, challenge and tackle racist incidents, it's high time incidents of homophobia were taken equally seriously.

And the LDYS campaign is starting to get some media coverage, for instance this in the Pink News. I have several of the pink badges, which are apparently becoming a collectors' item in some London clubs. However, the "Stop Homophobia Now" postcards LDYS has been handing out at university Freshers Fairs, showing the slogan emblazoned on the shirt of a sultry-looking model, are also not to be missed.

Study after study shows that young lesbian and gay people are more likely to suffer depression, commit suicide or suffer other mental health problems . Sign the petition today!

This news is bound to be overshadowed by the terrible news from Lebanon, and the long-awaited, but still shocking news on Lord Levy.

But the Liberal Democrat adjournment debate has resulted in a vote and a decision to adjourn the House of Commons - which is to say a defeat for the Government.

According to the BBC

MPs have signalled their anger at Tony Blair over the extradition to the US of three bankers to face a fraud trial.
They voted by a majority of 242 to adjourn the Commons early in symbolic protest at the government's extradition arrangements after a three hour debate.

Lib Dem Nick Clegg told MPs Mr Blair had "short-changed" the UK by signing a "lopsided" extradition agreement.

This followed pressure from Ming Campbell at Prime Minister's Question Time

Pressed about the issue at prime minister's questions, Mr Blair said: "In the attorney general's view, the test that is applied by the United States, the one of probable cause, is roughly analogous to the one we apply in this country."

He said the "case for extradition was originally mounted under the old law, not the new law".

"I do not believe it would be right if we ended up applying a higher standard and burden of proof to America than we do to many other countries," he told MPs.

He said he "totally understood the concerns" of the three men's families, but said the US prosecutors had promised to grant them bail while they awaited trial, provided they met conditions.

Mr Blair also rejected demands by Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell to renegotiate the Extradition Act 2003.

But, speaking as he opened a rare emergency debate on the issue a few minutes later, Lib Dem home affairs spokesman Nick Clegg said Mr Blair's claims were "simply and totally incorrect".

He insisted the treaty was "unfair and imbalanced" and urged the government to ditch it.

'Tip of iceberg'

The government had admitted that the treaty was not reciprocal but back-pedalled on this position when the NatWest three case hit the headlines, added the Lib Dem home affairs spokesman.

And he said: "They are just the tip of the iceberg, their case has highlighted a wider problem.

It isn´t often that a Liberal Democrat motion is passed in the House of Commons.

In news that is likely to raise the ire of the Daily Mail, a judge has ruled that Control Orders are illegal, citing incompatibility with Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (click here for Article 5).

I haven't read the judge's decision yet, and nor am I a legal scholar of any kind, but it seems self-evident that Control Orders violate one or both of these clauses:

3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1(c) of this article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.

4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.

Control Orders are orders issued by the Home Secretary for the indefinite detention without trial of those people that the Home Secretary regards as potential security threats.

Doubtless this case will provoke further tabloid outcry, and much of it will focus on the 'foreign' nature of the ECHR and its 'interference' with traditional British law, as though these rights were invented by meddlesome Europeans in order to change the course of British legal tradition.

This is utter nonsense. The ECHR is a document steeped in British traditions of liberty, rights to fair trial and many more things besides. Without wishing to sound excessively nationalistic, it could be said that the document has far more of a British character than a European one; it could also be said that it embodies legal traditions that go back longer in Britain than they do in the rest of Europe.

How long? How about nearly 800 years? Compare, if you will, the above quotation from the ECHR with this, from Magna Carta:

[29] No Freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed; nor will we pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful Judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.

In this, it is the government which stands against centuries of English and British legal tradition, and the ECHR which firmly defends the best of those traditions. Next time the Daily Mail, David Cameron or Tony Blair himself try to say otherwise, they will be lying through their teeth. There is nothing more foreign to British traditions of liberty than the idea that a politician should be able to detain or imprison 'enemies of the state' without presenting any evidence for doing so and without any right for the detainee to challenge their status. That is a concept which belongs in an authoritarian state, not in a liberal democracy.

Henry Porter had, as usual, an interesting column in today's Observer. One of the few UK journalists who gives civil liberty issues their full importance, he takes the Labour government to task for their further erosion of civil liberties - in this case, people's rights to safety and privacy in their own homes.

What few understand is that, under Blair's continued campaign against the people's rights, forced entry is going to become a lot more common in Britain, although not perhaps with the overwhelming force of Forest Gate. Running in parallel with legislation that invades our privacy - the ID cards' national identity register and the total surveillance by number-recognition cameras in cities and on motorways - is an attack on that great principle of English law, the 'inviolability of the dwelling house'.

Porter goes on to explain the history of English (and British) legal culture relating to the inviolability of a person's home. Whilst sensible exceptions must exist, our homes have, for centuries, been our castles. Now, more than ever before, that is ceasing to be.

He ends with a somewhat confusing appeal to the Conservative Party to conserve this liberal legacy:

No longer is a citizen's home his guaranteed personal space; no longer is it fundamental to his individual right of privacy. And this huge change in our national life has occurred without a murmur of complaint from the opposition. Now that Blair is wearing his attack on our liberty as a badge of honour - actually, what else could he do? - you might expect the Conservative party, with its traditional interest in property and the rights of the individual, to be jumping up and down about these new laws. But sadly, at the very moment we need those values shouted from every platform in the country, the Tories have consigned themselves to rehab to prove that they are not really Tory.

If one is looking for opposition to the government's civil liberty policies, then looking to the Tories is looking in the wrong place. The Tories have long managed to carry the votes of a significant portion of liberal Britain who, whilst not being particularly conservative, would vote conservative in order to protect our liberal heritage. That the Tories no longer make much of defending this heritage, and are exceedingly unlikely to reverse the trend set by Blair, they no longer have the credentials of a party of liberty.

It's all very well David Cameron wearing niceties and looking like a calendar boy, but we need a great statement of conviction, an affirmation of liberty and British democratic values. There's no sign of that coming because he fears - with some reason - that Blair will use such a speech to portray him as weak on crime and punishment.

I think he hits the nail on the head here. There are things more important than party politics, things more important than tabloid headlines and more important than getting elected at any cost. In Parliament, it was the Liberal Democrats who were fighting ID cards when the Tories were still supporting them, despite the scare stories Labour were using to justify their policy.

Some six months ago now, David Cameron promised a 'liberal Conservative Party' and invited Lib Dems to join him. I think that now is the time for all to realise that this has not come to pass; in fact, the invitation should go the other way, for liberal-minded Conservatives to find a home in a party that places the protection and promotion of liberty above the protection of opinion poll ratings or the promotion of 'tough' talk.