Letters | 28 June 2008

Hard-won liberties
Sir: In an otherwise well argued leading article (‘The old order changeth’, 21 June), you repeat the claim that ‘poll after poll has suggested strong popular support for the 42-day extension’.

Well, up to a point Lord Copper! Certainly, the public has been more than happy to support the idea that ‘suspected terrorists’ (a loaded phrase in and of itself) should be ‘held for questioning’, rather than released to wreak havoc on the innocent populace. Why would they not? After all, surely only the guilty have anything to fear from this and similar measures?

I wonder, however, whether many would take the same view if asked whether they would be happy to see their innocent father, son, brother, close friend or work colleague detained without charge for up to six weeks, with the almost certain loss of livelihood, social standing and quite possibly family cohesion and good health that would ensue.

This is the real question that needs to be asked of the public in connection with this measure, although neither the press nor the government has shown any interest in couching the issue in these terms. I hope that, whatever else it may or may not achieve, David Davis’s resignation will serve to remind people of the importance of those liberties which have been hard won over many centuries and of the extent of their erosion over the past decade.

Andrew Mitchell
London W4

Wrong response
Sir: When James Cooper criticises Matthew d’Ancona (‘Letters’, 14 June), and says that the British government should have responded to 9/11 by ‘tearing down the gates at the end of Downing Street and challenging those that would destroy us to do their worst’, he should recall the moment at 6.22 a.m. on Sunday 23 October 1983, when a Shia terrorist drove an 18-ton Mercedes truck loaded with explosives equivalent to 18,000 tons of TNT into the lobby of the headquarters of the Multi-National Force in Beirut, killing 242 Americans and 38 Frenchmen.

Andrew Roberts
London SW1

Judgment of Parris
Sir: A word on behalf of Fernando Rodrigues. Matthew Parris informs us (’Another Voice’, 7 June) that thanks to his teacher Mrs McLeod he discovered aged eight that he was a bright boy and could go far and that he has known these things ever since. He gives Fernando Rodrigues as an example of others that were not bright, had no great intellect and struggled with English.

Fernando Rodrigues (who, like me, is Portuguese) was quite upset with this article. He has asked me to inform your readership that he too has done very well. He is happily married and in possession of the love of his children. He has been able to support them in an honest way. As he approaches retirement he looks forward to a great many things he wants to do. He is, as much as any man can be in this hard world, content with his lot. He has no recollection of Mrs McLeod being so stern or of Mr Parris being so bright.

Manuel Lemos Macedo
Tomar, Portugal

Murder in the dark
Sir: Peter Oborne rightly observes (‘We have a duty to protect Zimbabwe’, 21 June) that the MDC has relied on the peaceful tactics of Gandhi in his campaign to bring about regime change in Zimbabwe. But Gandhi was only affective against the British Raj because it observed the rule of law. Gandhi wouldn’t have lasted ten minutes against the likes of Pol Pot, Mao, Hitler, Stalin or Saddam. As Mugabe and his cronies have already murdered 20,000 people, it is fanciful to think that anything other than overwhelming force will drive him and his chums from power. 

The US is busy with its war in Iraq, the UK is consumed with post-colonial guilt and the UN is useless, but the idea that other African states will drive him from office is risible. And in the unlikely event that South Africa turns off the lights, Mugabe will carry on murdering in the dark. The only hope is a coup, but the perpetrators may be just as bad as Robert Gabriel Mugabe.

Brian Jackson
Adstock, Buckinghamshire

Hijab opponents
Sir: Rod Liddle, in his attack on the tribunal that awarded £4,000 to Bushra Noah (‘Liddle Britain, 21 July), deploys an old chestnut beloved of hijab opponents everywhere: that there is nothing in the Koran which demands that women cover their hair. The claim would be irrelevant even if it were true, since the Koran is not the only source of Islamic law. We are told in the Koran to obey God and His messenger, which means that when we know that the Prophet has told us to do something, we do it.

However, chapter 24, verse 31 instructs that the believing women be told to extend their head-coverings to cover the tops of their dresses, which is impossible to do unless the woman wears a head-covering in the first place. The fact that many Muslim women do not do this is irrelevant; just because some are not observant does not mean nobody should be, or should lose the right to be if they want to make a decent living.

Matthew J. Smith
New Malden, Surrey

Modest success
Sir: Robin Oakley has done it again. Following his selection Look Here winning the Oaks at 47 to 1, his advice proved  nearly as profitable at Ascot; Campanologist winning a race there at odds of 19 to 1. Mr Oakley is so modest he doesn’t even mention these successes in his column. Please permit an appreciative long-time reader to blow his trumpet for him.

Billy Purves
Sydney, New South Wales