In the wake of the Alisher Usmanov affair, bloggers have been talking a lot about British libel laws. I won’t write much about this, because I know as much about the law as an ass.

David Farrer wrote a letter to the First Minister noting that Scotland has a separate legal system. He suggests:

Scotland can gain a competitive advantage by introducing robust laws that protect freedom of speech for both individuals and companies.

Possibly not to do with libel, but I remember one strange instance from around ten years ago when, bizarrely, the only way to get access to a particular UK politics story was to watch Reporting Scotland. For several days, nobody knew the identity of the cabinet minister whose son had been caught in possession of cannabis.

Then one day (I can’t remember why, and my web search skills have failed me here too) Scottish newspapers began to write about it freely. That day Reporting Scotland carried the story that the person was Jack Straw’s son. This is despite the fact that the story was nothing to do with Scotland. Meanwhile the UK-wide news still had to skirt around the edges. A couple of days later the game was up and people in Englandandwales were allowed to publish the story as well.

This is interesting then. Perhaps one day we could find ourselves in a situation where webhosts based in Scotland will not feel under pressure when they are bullied by dodgy billionaires with pushy lawyers. British bloggers who are perhaps not so keen to sign up to a United States-based webhost may find they can get as much freedom of speech right here in Britain, just north of the border.

That’s not what I said. That’s what Ruth Kelly said last year when she tried to bat away questions about her ties to Opus Dei.

Funny, because that’s not what she’s saying today.

I think that over the past couple of years, the level of understanding within government of the scale of the threat that we face from… Islamist individuals and organisations has really increased and I think that as a result of that we have to take to a new level our partnership with those Muslim organisations who are showing real leadership on those issues.

So is your faith a private matter as Ruth Kelly said last year, or is it a matter for state intrusion as Ruth Kelly has said today?

Ruth Kelly has rejected claims that the government is “demonising” Muslims, after reports it is to ask universities to spy on student suspects.

The communities secretary said many groups understood the need to work in a new way to “face up to” the threat.

She urged council chiefs to help battle extremism – saying it was an issue for all communities, not just Muslims.

Ruth Kelly — the communities minister — is a person who refuses to say whether she believes that sex between two consenting adults is a sin or not. She is a member of an extreme religious organisation that advises women on what they can and can’t wear. But she will defend her precious Labour government whenever it criticises a different religion for advising women on what they can and can’t wear. It is sickening.

Phil Woolas — whose brief covers race relations — suggested that a teacher should be sacked for wearing a veil. I doubt very much that Aishah Azmi’s decision to wear the veil at work genuinely created a barrier to communication.

Has Phil Woolas ever actually been in a classroom? Most schoolchildren spend the whole lesson just staring down sullenly at their desk, doodling on their jotters or gazing at somebody they fancy. It wouldn’t surprise me if there are some pupils who don’t even notice their teacher has a veil on or not!

More seriously, it is a fact that people are able to take in more information when they are not looking at the speaker’s face. Taking in information from somebody’s face is a waste of brain power. I find myself that when I have to listen carefully I end up focusing on a stationery object in middle distance. So in what way is covering your face going to make people listen less?

It is true that if somebody has hearing problems then they will have to look more at the face to understand what they are being told. But this shouldn’t even be an issue because Aishah Azmi was prepared to teach her class without the veil. Yet Phil Woolas still wanted her sacked.

That’s the person with responsibility for race relations adding to the chorus of whining about Muslims currently emanating from senior government figures. Attacks on Muslims appear to have increased ever since Jack Straw made his comments about the veil.

Congratulations to the communities and race relations ministers for doing their best to pour petrol on this race relations fire.

Update: And here is Mr Eugenides’ view.

I signed this pledge — the first time I have ever signed a pledge at PledgeBank. You see, I think TheyWorkForYou.com is a pretty nifty website.

So I guess I’d better write a letter then!

Dear Mr Straw,

I am writing in response to comments you made in the House of Commons on 20th July 2006 about the website TheyWorkForYou.com, which you criticised because it “measure[s] Members’ work in quantitative rather than qualitative terms”.

While it is true that TheyWorkForYou.com provides an at-a-glance ‘numerology’ of MPs’ work, this section is preceded by a clear disclaimer: “Please note that numbers do not measure quality. Also, MPs and Lords may do other things not currently covered by this site.”

Furthermore, TheyWorkForYou.com provides a whole host of useful services such as a record of MPs’ voting history. The website also provides an accessible, easy-to-use version of Hansard which members of the public can annotate (thereby enhancing the debate that is essential in a democracy). In short, TheyWorkForYou.com allows voters to keep track of how their MPs are representing them in Parliament.

It is disappointing to see an elected representative singling out such a valuable resource for criticism. Websites such as TheyWorkForYou.com, The Public Whip, and WriteToThem.com are ever-valuable resources in the internet age. They enhance democracy, and I would go as far as to say that they are necessary for as long as the Government’s own websites and Parliament.uk remain as inadequate as they infamously are.

Incidentally, this is the first time I have felt concerned enough to sign a pledge on another useful website, PledgeBank.com. I should also make clear that I am in no way associated with TheyWorkForYou.com or MySociety, apart from the fact that I use their websites.