Letters

Christian unity Sir: I am sorry that Piers Paul Read (‘The Pope’s anti-liberal revolution’, 24 March) assumes that the English and Welsh bishops have not welcomed the Papal Exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis. It is not always customary for bishops to issue immediate comments on Papal documents. I was, in fact, part of the drafting committee and thus closely involved in its preparation. My own statement expressed my admiration for the document and my wish for it to be promulgated widely among the Catholics of this country. I have no doubt my fellow bishops will be doing the same. Nor should it be assumed that the ecumenical movement is over or that we should cease to strive for deeper unity with the Anglican Communion.

Nations need borders Sir: Austen Ivereigh (‘Let’s sort out the migration mess’, 17 March) argues that giving an amnesty to the 500,000-odd illegal immigrants in Britain offers a practical solution to our immigration problem. The policy sounds wonderful and comforting, but the reality is that it will send out a trumpet call to people to come here illegally in the knowledge that they will be made legal later. The experience of the United States makes the point. Since 1986 alone, it has given seven amnesties covering millions of illegal immigrants. The result has been that the number of illegal immigrants has rocketed from below four million in 1980 to around 10 million today (accounting for 30 per cent of the foreign-born population).

Paterson’s pranks Sir: Could I, as the person who unwittingly provoked Jennifer Paterson’s outburst in the Spectator kitchen, say exactly what happened? I was not, as Simon Courtauld writes (‘Who wants to buy our old office?’, 10 March), ‘a junior member of staff’, but the magazine’s advertising director. The kitchen was opposite my office and the nearest other kettle four floors down in the basement. Since Paterson only used the kitchen on Thursdays and I used to lug up all her vegetables in between flogging space, I would in her absence make the odd cup of coffee there. Finding an offending unwashed spoon, Paterson threw not plates but the entire cutlery drawer out of the window, for which she was dismissed and later reinstated.

Nothing to fear? Sir: I rather enjoyed reading Tessa Mayes’s anxious tirade about the imminent arrival of Big Brother (‘Big Brother is coming’, 3 March), although perhaps not for reasons of which she would approve. During my 88 years of life so far (in at least 44 of which income tax at between 40 and 83 per cent has been levied on part of my earnings), I have never met any self-employed person who has not admitted to ‘fiddling’ his or her tax return as a matter of routine. If, as Tessa Mayes now claims, HMRC is being much more aggressive and — dare we say it? — astute in pursuit of those who manage their own tax affairs, I stand ready to lead the applause.

Don’t blame the website From Malcolm Gooderham Sir: Your leading article of 24 February misses a fundamental point. Notably, the e-petition initiative has helped to breathe new life into the body politic, and has put No. 10 at the heart of key debates and in touch with millions of voters. The fact that ministers and officials at the Department of Transport were unprepared for such a response is also worth noting, but does not undermine the thinking behind the website.  Rather, it highlights a failure on behalf of the ministry adequately to manage — and pre-empt — such a public reaction. For MPs, or anyone else, to blame a website really misses the point. Malcolm GooderhamPolitical adviser to No.

Tolerance: for and against From C. Vestey Sir: John Gray argues that ‘relearning the habit of tolerance’ may allow us to reach a ‘modus vivendi’ with Islam (‘The best we can hope for is tolerance’, 17 February). He has learnt nothing from the events of the last 30 years. It was tolerance (and cowardice) that gave us the ‘covenant of security’ that allowed hard jihadi networks to bed down in and operate from the UK in total freedom. We already tolerate honour killings and forced marriage by backing away from a robust response for fear of ‘stigmatising’ Muslims. We tolerate the creeping introduction of civil sharia law and other parallel legal systems.

Beating bird flu From Peter Dunnill Sir: Ross Clark’s article on what will happen if bird flu becomes a pandemic (‘Will you have a place in the bio-bunker?’, 10 February) is correct in its criticism of government. However, our government could learn a lot from America. Mike Leavitt, the equivalent to Patricia Hewitt in the USA, has worked his way through the States with the message that ordinary people must do their part. Put a tin of food under the bed each time you shop, he advises, which is official US government advice. Ross Clark asks why children are not a vaccination priority, and US research can help us here as well.

It’s about the child From John Parfitt Sir: Matthew Parris should do better than his elegant nonsense about so-called gay adoption (Another voice, 3 February). Until the inclusiveness lobby turned the word ‘discriminating’ into a boo-word, it was a compliment, meaning the ability to know the difference between good and bad, deserving and undeserving; to prefer Beethoven to Big Brother. We all discriminate every day, and why not? We favour the things we like. Likewise, if my Catholic friends wish to run an adoption service for married couples, why not, especially when others are catered for elsewhere? Or will the government now insist that the Shipwrecked Mariners’ Society make grants to pranged motorists and that the British Legion welcome conscientious objectors?

Arrogant, not brave From Jolyon Connell Sir: Michael Gove is heartened by the left-wing writers who have denounced Islamic terrorism rather than seeking to make excuses for it (‘All hail the new anti-Islamist intelligentsia’, 27 January). Fair enough. But he also seems pleased that such a number of them backed the Iraq war. He calls these writers brave. Brave is not the word I’d use. Invading Iraq was always likely to appeal to left-wing intellectuals. Its most fervent supporters were the American neocons, many of whom, after all, were one-time left-wing Democrats. The idea of creating a new promised land in the Middle East was arrogant, naive, impractical and almost certain to be counter-productive â” the hallmarks of many a failed socialist enterprise.

Out of control From Sir Peregrine Worsthorne Sir: Fraser Nelson is quite right to question David Cameron about ‘social responsibility’ (Politics, 20 January), and I would appreciate a chance to follow suit. My gripe is that Mr Cameron does not seem to recognise that all responsibility involves control. Only someone in control can be held responsible, i.e. accountable. Personal responsibility means that each individual could and should take control of himself or herself. So presumably social responsibility must mean that some individuals take control of other people. Unfortunately Mr Cameron fails to grasp this nettle.

Stop hounding us From Simon Hart Sir: Ever since he was sacked by Radio 4’s Today programme for his obsession with the Countryside Alliance, Rod Liddle has not been able to leave us alone (‘At least they understand democracy’, 5 January). The problem is that it suits Liddle to pillory us as a single-issue pressure group when he knows full well that the truth is somewhat different. While no one would deny that we have played an active and key role in the hunting debate up to and beyond the introduction of the largely ridiculed Hunting Act 2004, we have been far from ‘utterly silent on the real problems which this government (and previous governments) have inflicted upon our rural areas’.

Israel’s ‘spin’ From Alex Bigham Sir: Douglas Davis has clearly been spun a good line by some Israeli military analysts if he thinks the Israeli threat to use nuclear bombs against Iran is more than that — a ruse to scare Iran into returning to the diplomatic table (‘Israel will do whatever it takes’, 6 January). Iran’s nuclear sites are not a small, isolated reactor like Osiraq was in 1981; they are widespread, well-defended, near urban areas, and many are buried deep underground. After Israel’s failure to destroy Hezbollah last summer, does it really have the stomach to take on a country of 70 million, with an army of over half a million, without the support of the Americans?

Blair, brave? From Correlli Barnett Sir: I wish there were something I could do to help poor deluded William Shawcross (‘The West must be the strong horse’, 30 December). He seems to be just about the only man in England other than our deranged Prime Minister and his ministerial stooges still to refuse to accept that the intervention in Iraq has resulted in a disaster. Moreover, Shawcross’s prescriptions for redeeming the disaster are sheer fantasy. For example, he writes, ‘There should be thousands more US soldiers embedded with the Iraqi army. The same goes, on a smaller scale, for the British.’ But where are these soldiers to come from?

Contrary to the culture From Edward Nugee QC Sir: I have in the past felt a little guilty in my belief that an Islamic faith school falls into a different category altogether from an Anglican or Roman Catholic, or even Jewish, faith school. Rod Liddle (‘We are what the English Bible has made us’, 16/23 December) has expressed the reasons supporting my belief well. It is not discriminatory to support schools in which the faith that is taught is the faith that has contributed so much to what it means to be English, and at the same time to oppose schools in which the faith that is taught is contrary to the culture of this country.

Dawkins vs GodFrom R.F. ClementsSir: Richard Dawkins might be convinced of the existence of God (‘A man who believes in Darwin as fervently as he hates God’, December 9) by ‘a large-scale miracle which could not have been engineered by a conjuror’. What evidence does he want for the greatest miracle of all time? It happened 2,000 years ago. The physical resurrection of Jesus Christ was attested by some 600 people, most of whom had no idea that Jesus had to suffer and die on the cross and would be raised by the power of God. But (Acts x 40) ‘God raised up (Jesus) the third day, and showed him openly ...even to us who did eat and drink with him.’ The experience of meeting the risen Lord changed their lives.

The green gospel From Paul Horgan Sir: I read the article by Allister Heath (‘It’s a wonderful world: richer, healthier and cleaner than ever’, 2 December) with interest. The author is correct to point out that the optimism of Indur Goklany’s book will be drowned out by the doom-mongering of the environmentalist lobby. I believe that the reason for this is simple. Environmentalism is the new religion of the Western world. It has replaced the scientific secularism of Marxism/socialism, which itself replaced monotheism when this began to be discredited by Darwinism. This Earth worship has all the hallmarks of Christianity, which is why it is so easily accepted by the non-church-attending masses.

Readers respond to recent articles published  in The Spectator Security v. rights From the Attorney General Sir: Stuart Wheeler’s article (‘Why the Tories must say No to torture’, 25 November) includes a quote from me about deportation. Taken from a Human Rights Watch report, and by HRW from a BBC online summary of a radio interview, some bits have fallen off the quote along the way, and the end result is misleading. No one is advocating a free rein to deport where there are risks. What we are going to ask the European Court of Human Rights to look at is whether, when we are considering deporting terrorist suspects, we can strike a balance between protecting the interests, safety and security of the British public and the rights of the suspect.

Calling time on legislation From Christopher W. Robson Sir: In your leading article ‘To govern is not to legislate’ (18 November), you quote the late Ralph Harris as arguing that there should be a department for repealing laws. May I suggest that the creation of new laws has now reached a pitch where it would be wise to introduce a rule that all legislation should automatically lapse after a prescribed period unless an express resolution by Parliament calls for its continuance? Only in this way can the vast volume of legislation be controlled and the very important thrust of your article be delivered. Remember â” Ignorantia juris neminem excusat. Too much legislation makes a mockery of the citizen’s duty to know it all. Christopher W.

Saddam’s ‘parody’ of a trial From Sir Jonah Walker-Smith Sir: When I read the title to Alasdair Palmer’s article, ‘Saddam’s trial shouldn’t be fair’ (11 November), I assumed that it was written with tongue in cheek. By the time I reached the penultimate sentence — ‘the trials of genocidal killers are not, and should never be, fair’ — I realised, to my surprise, that he was in earnest. Doubtless Saddam Hussein is as guilty as sin of the crime with which he has been charged and convicted. So was Milosevic. So was Goering. But Milosevic and Goering received fair trials. Saddam did not.

Iraq: why the media turned From Jonathan Mirsky Sir: William Shawcross (‘Leaving Iraq would court disaster’, 28 October) rolls out the stab-in-the-back accusation that the media ‘helps only those violent extremists’ trying to destroy Iraq. But the media initially supported the war. Then Bush and Blair were caught lying and the realities of the war became apparent. The same happened in Vietnam. Newspapers and television were once pro-war. For many reporting the war, as I did in 1965 and 1967 (and Mr Shawcross himself did superbly), the realities changed the reporting. Nonetheless, the failed commander, General William Westmoreland, told me, ‘The war in Vietnam is the first war in history lost in the pages of the New York Times.