One can’t help thinking, with legislation of this nature, that the point at which it becomes politically possible for it to be enacted, is precisely the point when it becomes unnecessary. – Rowan Atkinson (Letter to The Times, Nov 7th)

Today, I have been driven from my self-imposed rest from blogging by yesterday’s announcement within the Queen’s Speech that the government intends to pass further legislation to “protect” homosexuals, and possibly also the disabled and trans-sexuals, by outlawing incitement of hatred against them. This law (yet another from this law-crazy government) is to be part of a new Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill to be introduced by the Justice Minister, Jack Straw MP.

In response to this proposed Act Rowan Atkinson has penned a thoughtful letter to The Times. On first appearances, any legislation that seeks to protect minority groups might appear admirable. The problem with this type of law is, however, in what constitutes threatening language. How does one assess the degree of incitement to hatred a particular statement (or novel, stageplay, etc.) constitutes? I am reminded of a scene from the first series of Blackadder when Baldrick walks in to find Percy and Blackadder apparently engaged in a homosexual act. Was that scene (watch from 5 mins) constructed to get a laugh from the audience because of its homosexual content, and if so, did it constitute an attempt to incite the contempt and ridicule of homosexuals? I remember laughing heartily at the scene and, yet, I do not recall then having developed a prejudice against gay men. My fear is that poorly drafted legislation could in effect outlaw this type of scene from a future situation comedy. Would support for equality for gay people then be strengthened? Answer: No. Prejudice against homosexuals is not acceptable in British society, however, jokes that are deemed offensive to some should not necessarily be criminal acts. Poorly-drafted legislation such as that propsed by this government will not help eradicate gay prejudice. Sadly, it will more likely exacerbate the problem. Ignorant Acts can often lead to more ignorance.

On Tuesday afternoon I spoke in the Conference Hall about how Conservatives would care for drug addicts and thereby reduce crime. I said the following:

GOOD AFTERNOON LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

ONE OF THE MANY REASONS I JOINED THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY IN 1992 WAS BECAUSE I BELIEVED THAT GOOD GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE ABOUT HELPING INDIVIDUALS WHO SEEK TO HELP THEMSELVES. SHORTLY AFTER DAVID CAMERON BECAME OUR LEADER, HE ANNOUNCED HIS INTENTION TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF PLACES FOR DRUG ADDICTION TREATMENT. HE WAS RIGHT TO DO SO. ADDICTION AFFECTS MANY FAMILIES, BE IT ADDICTIONS TO DRINK, DRUGS OR GAMBLING.

I AM A DOCTOR WORKING WITH DRUG ADDICTS AND HENCE HAVE SEEN FIRST-HAND THE TRAGIC CONSEQUENCES OF DRUG ADDICTION. IT WAS WHILST CARING FOR THESE SOCIALLY-DISADVANTAGED PEOPLE THAT I CAME ACROSS THIS DOCUMENT. THIS IS A LIST OF “TEST ON ARREST” OFFENCES, FROM THEFT AND BURGLARY THROUGH TO FRAUD. IF SOMEONE COMMITS ONE OF THESE CRIMES HE/SHE IS AUTOMATICALLY GIVEN A DRUGS TEST. MORE IMPORTANTLY FOR THE OFFENDER, HOWEVER, IT LEADS TO ADDICTION TREATMENT WITHIN 48 HOURS. IF, HOWEVER, A DRUG ADDICT HONESTLY AND INDEPENDENTLY SEEKS TREATMENT FOR THEIR PROBLEM, THEY HAVE TO WAIT 2 WEEKS. SO, WHAT DO YOU THINK HAPPENS? CRIMES ARE COMMITTED TO QUALIFY FOR IMMEDIATE TREATMENT.

WHEN THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY GETS INTO POWER NEXT MONTH, IT SHOULD REMOVE THIS INCENTIVE TO COMMIT CRIME AND PROMISE TO PROVIDE MORE DRUG TREATMENT PLACES. BY DOING SO, IT WOULD REDUCE CRIME AND IMPROVE THE LOT OF SOME OF THE MOST VULNERABLE IN OUR SOCIETY. IN SHORT, IT WOULD BE A POLICY THAT IS TOUGH ON CRIME AND COMPASSIONATE ABOUT THOSE WHO ARE TRAPPED IN THE VICIOUS SPIRAL OF DRUG ADDICTION. IT WOULD BE AN EXAMPLE OF PROPER SOCIAL JUSTICE IN ACTION.

Combating crime is about more than catchy election slogans. The (in)famous New Labour sound-bite “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime” is widely believed to have been coined by our new Prime Minister. At the time, it was deemed politically effective at positioning the New Labour project on the right side of a domestic issue previously believed to be ‘natural Tory territory’. Since then, we have had a series of Home Secretaries who have, at times, appeared more ‘right wing’ than their opposing Conservative Shadows. However, like their performance and the election slogan that preceded them, the policies (and their implementation) have been found wanting.

Today, the Conservative Party has released a document titled “It’s time to fight back“. It reveals the sorry reality of the Labour Party’s failed attempts to deal with crime. Sadly, the document provides ample evidence of the ‘Broken Society’ that has developed under the present government. In the last 10 years, violent crime has doubled, with gun crime in particular increasing four-fold. Fatal attacks have become more common. The recent tragic cases of Rhys Jones and Garry Newlove are but two examples of needless deaths, casualties of a society that to my mind appears broken. Despite the awful reality we all see, the Labour Party appears to have its head buried in the sand. The worst ostrich of all is the latest Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, who when interviewed at the weekend, denied the concept of a broken society. What more needs to happen for this government to realise that there are deep-seated social problems within British society? A child allegedly gunning down another child in Liverpool is apparently not enough. What about an 18 year old girl called Sian Simpson being murdered in London by a gang of teenage girls? Acceptable behaviour in a decent society Ms Smith?

Unlike the Labour Party, who see government as an exercise in enacting legislation (30 criminal justice bills since 1997!!), the Conservative Party sees government as providing effective answers to crime, both in the shorter and longer term. Hence, a Conservative government would provide more police and make them more visible. Furthermore, Conservatives would scrap the Early Release Scheme introduced by the Labour Party so that criminals serve their full sentence. More importantly, though, a Conservative Party would set about healing our society. This is because Conservatives understand and accept that all citizens of this country have a social responsibility to build strong communities. For it is the creation of strong communities, in tandem with a strengthened police force and justice system, that will deal effectively with violent crime in this country. The Labour Party appears to have never understood that tough problems need tough decisions and tough measures, not easy sound-bites and empty gestures. In contrast, Conservatives have grasped the realities of violent crime prevention.

The Suffolk murders have highlighted the powers and consequent dangers of a ’24-hour news media’. Within hours of the arrest of the suspect one could obtain a remarkable amount of detail about him. Like many people, he had a My Space site (now removed). The details from there were posted swiftly on major national news websites. We now know his age, sexuality and appearance. We even know his favourite cartoon character and the fact that he enjoys listening to Canon in D Major by Johann Pachelbel. What we do not know is whether or not he is guilty of the murders of the five women in Ipswich.

Yesterday’s Sunday Mirror led with the following headline. In fact, even now you can still listen to the interview. Today, the BBC made the decision to broadcast an audio recording of an interview the suspect voluntarily gave to them on December 11th. He gave it to them confidentially as ‘background’ information for their reports on the horrific crimes. Last week, ITN chillingly interviewed Paula Clennell just 48 hours before she went missing and was murdered. Have these media organisations behaved responsibility? Are they prejudicing any future court case? Do they care?

All news outlets are under pressure to get the scoop, to get the different angle, the different picture, the different interview. The pressures to do this have become much greater since the advent of ’24 hour news’ programming. By one measure, the BBC and Sunday Mirror have been successful. However, I am not convinced that their decisions to run with these “scoops” were as influenced by legal ramifications and the good of society, as they were by ratings and sales. It must be in the best of interests of British society that British justice is seen to be done. I cannot see any ‘public interest’ in a trial collapsing because of insensitive and mis-guided journalism.

This suspect is presently innocent. The man is on record as having strenously denied any involvement in the Suffolk murders. Indeed, there are reports this evening that other prostitutes are unconvinced that the police have the right man. Whether this suspect is guilty or not misses the point. When a person (or persons) is charged with the murders of these unfortunate women he (they) should be allowed a fair trial. The ‘Fourth Estate’ has a responsibility to ensure that this happens. Part of the foundation of our society is the principle of innocent until proven guilty. We should cherish and defend that principle twenty-four hours a day.

Because there is nothing new about women selling their bodies for sex, is not justification enough for the tolerance of prostitutes on our streets today. The images of the five unfortunate Suffolk women displayed on our TV screens nightly reminds us of the ultimate dangers of life as a ‘working girl’. The great majority of these women had been taking the well-known risks of prostitution to fund further risk-taking behaviour with drugs, invariably using heroin or crack (or both).

This appalling case in Suffolk has stimulated a further debate about the most effective way to handle one of the oldest professions known to the human race. What should society’s attitude be to women (and men) selling their bodies for sex? And where do you draw the line as to what “selling your body” constitutes? Are lap dancers acceptable? What about lingerie models? Indeed, what about any photographic model? My own reaction to the appalling events in Ipswich is to wish that working girls did not exist. The list of things I wished did not exist, however, is not a short one. What about paedophiles, heroin, racism? And not wanting something to exist certainly does not help those trapped in the position that these five women found themselves.

I do not have a daughter so I have no way of knowing how the fathers of the five women in Ipswich feel about each daughter’s apparent daily existence. What I do know is that I hope that no daughter of mine is ever a working girl. I hope that no daughter of mine ever feels the need to raise money in that fashion to feed an opiate drug habit. But what if she was a working girl. How would I want my daughter treated by society in those circumstances? For how she was treated would, on the evidence of the last few weeks in Suffolk, influence her personal health and ultimate security.

A few thousand years ago the picture above adorned the interior of a Roman brothel. How further forward has our policy on prostitution moved in the last two millennia? By calling for the re-introduction of brothels are some commentators going back in time or are they being realistic about human behaviour? Are those who call for more “traditional” policies denying the truth about people’s sexual behaviour? It would on the face of it appear to be an argument of pragmatism versus idealism. Arguments about social policy often are like this.

I am not sure where I stand on this issue. Instinctively, I tend towards pragmatism when it comes to social policy, however, if I do not want any future daughter of mine to be a working girl, then why should I tolerate someone else’s child being one? As it stands today, though, I would rather live in a society that protects its citizens, whatever their chosen form of employment, than condemn them to darkened streets so that they may be more easily preyed upon by murderers and rapists. Just because we cannot see something occurring does not mean that it does not happen. Allowing the present situation to continue makes us all complicit in the murders of working girls today, in the past and in the future.