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.

The BBC are reporting that police chiefs are 'urging' the government to make flag-burning a criminal offence. They claim that this will form a necessary part of a 'crack down on Islamic extremists and others preaching violence and religious hate'.

There are numerous problems with this suggestion. Firstly, is flag-burning such a problem? How many incidents of flag-burning have there been in the last five years? The BBC piece gives no figures and I can't recall the last time I saw pictures of flags burning on TV or in the newspapers. Whilst that's not a scientific study, it does rather suggest that the problem is being overblown.

Secondly, who does flag-burning actually harm? A flag is just another piece of property which an owner can do with as they please. Setting fire to things in a public place may be dangerous, but surely this is covered by existing laws? When this is considered, it becomes apparent that this is just another proposal designed to 'send a message' rather than actually achieve anything. It addresses a symptom, rather than the cause of the problem. Flag-burning is, in itself, an irrelevance; if a person has done nothing worse than burn a flag, then they really do not deserve punishment. If they have done worse than burn a flag, then we need to be asking why such people are at liberty to do so. Arresting people for flag-burning makes it look like the police are 'doing something' without any clear indication of how this is of benefit to anyone.

There is a further problem; flag-burning is a very public demonstration of hatred. Is suppressing such expressions really such a good idea? Visual images are very powerful, and as a person who believes in peaceful, reasonable discourse I would find it quite useful for flag-burning to be allowed; it would make it very easy for me to identify precisely who the hateful bigots are. Suppressing the expression of hatred simply forces the 'preachers of hate' to put their message forward in a different way, perhaps a way less easy to observe.

Thirdly, most people know that flag-burning is wrong. They know that people burning flags are people who are not interested in rational discourse. Why not trust people to deal with the sight of burning flags for themselves?

Finally, making flag-burning illegal provides a very simple means by which any protester can provoke the police into making a forced arrest in a dangerous situation. Once such a law is passed, the police will not be able to exercise restraint against a group of people burning a flag; they will have to wade in, in full riot gear, into a situation involving a group of people and burning objects. The risk of injury is high, and for what benefit? If we truly wished to treat flag-burning with the contempt it deserves, we would ignore it as the childish behaviour that it is.

Via Voting TaKtiX, from the esteemed organ of the local press, Pendle Today:

TWO Pendle men have appeared before Pennine magistrates accused of having "a master plan" after what is believed to be a record haul of chemicals used in making home-made bombs was found in Colne.
Robert Cottage (49), of Talbot Street, Colne, and David Bolus Jackson (62), of Trent Road, Nelson, made separate appearances before the court charged with being in possession of an explosive substance for an unlawful purpose. The offences are under the Explosive Substances Act 1883.
Both men were remanded in custody to appear at Burnley Crown Court on October 23rd. Cottage was arrested at his home on Thursday, while retired dentist Jackson was arrested in the Lancaster area on Friday, the same day as he left a dental practice in Grange-over-Sands.

Given the negative publicity the police have had in recent months for carrying out anti-terror raids and failing to find anything resembling explosives, one would expect them to be trumpeting this great success. And yet there is not a word from the major news outlets. Not a single damn thing.

Compare this with the numerous terrorism scares we've had in the last few years, where even a hint of a bomb plot has been transformed into a media frenzy for days on end, provoking the usual round of 'can we really trust Muslims in our midst?' paranoia from the far-right press and vast amounts of both print and airtime devoted to examining the 'what ifs' of the plot scenario.

It's not as if there is likely to be any innocent explanation for such a large quantity of potentially lethal material:

Cottage is an ex-BNP member who stood as a candidate in the Pendle Council elections in May.
Mrs Christiana Buchanan, who appeared for the prosecution in Jackson's case, alleged the pair had "some kind of masterplan".
She said a search of Jackson's home had uncovered rocket launchers, chemicals, BNP literature and a nuclear biological suit.
Police raided Cottage's Talbot Street home on Thursday of last week. The house was taped off while forensics officers searched the premises. Neighbours were told to stay in their homes for their own safety. Mr Cottage's car was also taken away for examination.

In fact, this case ticks almost all of the boxes for full-on media hype: bomb materials, rocket launchers and any journalist who can't make a 'dirty bomb' story out of a nuclear biosuit being found isn't worthy of the name. They even appear to have had political hate literature on the premises. So where has this story gone wrong? I am loathe to leap to conclusions, but the obvious one here is that they simply have the wrong sort of reading materials. Replace 'BNP literature' with 'copies of the Koran' and I think we'd be hearing a fair bit more about this story, don't you? Leon at Pickled Politics raises exactly this point.

If the media were simply observing silence on this matter because the fascist far-right are loathsome, despicable people who do not deserve the oxygen of publicity, then I would understand their decision. Perhaps they might not want to inflame tensions or stoke up fear amongst the general public and the ethnic minorities who would have reason to fear the possibility of bombs in the hands of fascists. But if that's really the view that they're taking, how about they take the same view the next time we hear about a violent plot involving Islamic-linked terrorists?