Nick Cohen

Even by the low standards of English lawyers, the men and women who run the Law Society have behaved like shameless hypocrites. Instead of confining themselves to offering professional advice, they set themselves up as Islamic theologians. In a practice note on Sharia-compliant wills, the Law Society advised the 125,000 solicitors in England and Wales to urge Muslim clients to discriminate against women, non-Muslims, adopted and 'illegitimate' children. 'Male heirs [should] in most cases receive double the amount inherited by a female heir,' it said, and 'non-Muslims may not inherit at all'. Likewise 'illegitimate and adopted children are not Sharia heirs' and should not be left a penny.

[audioplayer src="http://traffic.libsyn.com/spectator/TheViewFrom22_9_Oct_2014_v4.mp3" title="Fraser Nelson and Lord Falconer discuss the police's use of Ripa" startat=57] Listen [/audioplayer]With the possible, although far from certain, exception of the men and women who hire me, it is fair to say that Britain’s editors have a death wish. They suppress their own freedom. They hold out their wrists and beg the state to handcuff them. They are so lost in ideological frenzy that they cannot see that free journalism is the first casualty of their culture wars. The Daily Mail acclaimed David Cameron’s threat to repeal the Human Rights Act and pull out of the European Convention on Human Rights as ‘triumphant’.

Nationalists build walls to keep their people in and the rest out. They create 'us' and 'them'. Friends and enemies. If you disagree, if you say they have no right to speak for you because not all Scots/Serbs/Germans/Russians/Israelis think the same or recognise their lines of the map, you become a traitor to the collective. The fashionable phrase 'the other' is one of the few pieces of sociological jargon that enriches thought. All enforcers of political, religious and nationalist taboos need an 'other' to define themselves against, and keep the tribe in line. The process of separation and vilification is depressing to watch but familiar enough. Scottish nationalists are preparing a rarer trick, last seen in the dying days of Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia.

When Thomas Piketty published his Capital in the 21 Century, the Financial Times tried to dismiss his research as bogus. Its more conventional thinkers hated his argument that the children of the rich would receive vast amounts of unearned wealth because the assets of their parents would grow faster than the real economy. If Piketty was right, claims that we were a society which valued social mobility would become a joke: a screen that hid the rigged game of life. However idle or stupid they were, rich kids would win, whatever politicians parroted about “opportunity for all”. Only hefty wealth and inheritance taxes could stop them, and build a fairer Britain.

People talk about their commitment to equality and diversity so readily they must assume there is no conflict between the two. The phrase falls off the tongue as if it were an all-in-one package, and people can 'celebrate diversity' and support equal rights without a smidgeon of self-doubt. Until, that is, they have to make a principled choice. Then, whether they admit it or not, they find that they can believe in equality or they can believe in diversity, but they cannot believe in both. If this sounds like the start of a patient exploration of a delicate philosophical distinction, don't be deceived. There is nothing difficult to understand, and my patience with the double standards of multi-culturalism snapped long ago.

Last week, Nick Cohen suggested that Lady Butler-Sloss was not the correct person to lead the child abuse enquiry. She has now resigned from her role.  The Guardian says today that Lady Butler-Sloss cannot be the right person to lead the inquiry into alleged child abuse. ‘Not only was her brother, Lord Havers, attorney general – and briefly lord chancellor – at the time of some of the allegations of cover-up. She is also of the same generation as those around whom rumours swirl. If she were still sitting as a judge, she would never contemplate being involved in a case that might touch, however remotely, on family or friends.’ Unfortunately, this isn’t true.

Theresa May has suggested she may reignite plans for a 'snoopers’ charter', in order to provide intelligence services with greater surveillance powers.  She has called for new powers in order to respond to the terror threat from British jihadists returning from the Middle East.  In September 2012, Nick Cohen explained in The Spectator why a communications data bill would be a dangerous thing: Ever since the millennium, I have wondered how long the utopian faith in the emancipatory potential of the web will last. Of course, we know the new technologies give the citizen new powers to communicate and connect. We hear this praised so loudly and so often, how could we not know?

Ruth Richards, head of communications at Mind, has written a response to my criticism of the pointlessness of politically correct descriptions of the mentally ill and handicapped. As you would expect it is worth reading in full, but I am afraid it left me unconvinced. She thinks that the effort to reshape language is worthwhile, and cannot see how today’s polite discourse will become tomorrow’s insults. 'I don’t agree that in however many years’ time the terms we use today will become offensive in their own right. “Person with mental health problems” is just far too clunky to be shouted in the playground.' So it is. But 'mental' is already an insult, and other attempts to change the world merely by twiddling with language have been equally futile.

[audioplayer src="http://traffic.libsyn.com/spectator/TheViewFrom22_19_June_2014.mp3" title="Paul Staines from Guido Fawkes and Evan Harris of Hacked Off debating Steve Coogan's involvement with Index" startat=1508] Listen [/audioplayer]I have looked everywhere. I have Googled, and asked around. But I can find no evidence that Steve Coogan has ever taken the trouble to defend freedom of speech at home or abroad. I promised myself I would never again mock ‘luvvies’ in politics after I saw Tim Minchin, Dave Gorman, Robin Ince and Dara Ó Briain give up their time to help Index on Censorship’s campaign against Britain’s repressive libel laws. Steve Coogan did not stand alongside them.