The Spectator

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.