On September 30, 1938, on his return from Munich, Neville Chamberlain famously claimed that he had achieved ‘Peace for our time’. The Munich agreement was intended to give the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia to Hitler, as part of an attempt to satisfy his desire for Lebensraum (‘living space’) for Germany, thereby restoring peace to Europe. The irony of this passionate peace talk was that merely one year later, Europe was plunged into the horrors of the Second World War.

The United States, during the 1950s and 1960s was clearly not the epitomy of peace either in a period characterised by segregation and injustice, with African Americans suffering unjustly at the hands of White America. Martin Luther King Junior aimed to restore peace to a racially divided America, through various non-violent activities, observing that:

‘True peace is not merely the absence of tension: It is the presence of justice.’

Whilst great strides have been made in the realm of race relations during my lifetime, and that of my parents, I would only need to step into the deep South, to see that racial harmony is not uniformly prevalent.

My most poignant memory of my schooldays is not of watching my peers stick pins into teachers’ chairs, waiting in anticipation for the squeal of pain, or of moving the clocks forward every Wednesday, in a bid to escape ten minutes earlier from painstakingly dull maths lessons. It is of watching the heart-breaking scenes of the September 11 attacks unfold on the common room television screen, during what would otherwise have been an ordinary lunchtime. There was nothing ordinary about this experience however. As I watched on in horror surrounded by my peers, this was the point at which I realised that peace is not only an alien concept, but is also completely unattainable.

In a society characterised by differences, be they of religion, race or culture, peace will always remain an aspiration but will never become the defining attribute of our time. The bombings of July 2005 confirmed fears that the biggest threat facing society is terrorism. The familiarity of the central London sites that were blasted, was all too much for Londoners not to feel a sense of fear. The suicide bombers were intent on destroying the jubilation resounding around the UK, following the announcement a day earlier that the capital was to host the 2012 Summer Olympics, and five days after the success of the Live 8 concert. The timing of the attacks was certainly no coincidence – the terrorists clearly set out to destroy the peace.

With London now facing a gun crime epidemic, many feel that the capital is no longer a peaceful city in which to reside. A senior policeman was recently quoted as saying that such extreme violence, was “threatening the fabric of London,” and indeed it is. The level of gun crime in London rose by four per cent last year, and what is clear from the emerging trends is that this figure is only set to increase further, as increasing numbers of young people become involved in gang–related activity. Wouldn’t it be nice to live in a society, free of terror, free of crime, free of prejudice, and free of threat? Now that would be heaven. Maybe the only place where peace truly exists is among such higher realms. Just a thought.

Many people had flown in from all over the world to participate in this tribunal and the Arab and European press were present. Firstly, a long indictment sheet was read out by one of the leading Lebanese lawyers present. Secondly, victims of the war came to give evidence and they were questioned by lawyers and also by the panel of judges. After the victims gave their evidence and had been questioned, it was the turn of various expert witnesses to take the stand. These included environmental experts, economists, medical experts, psychiatrists, weapons experts, physics experts and international lawyers. For those of you who are outraged at the defendant seemingly being ‘tried’ in absentia, the Government of Israel were indeed invited to attend but unsurprisingly, they declined to respond to the kind invitation. The hearings were conducted in French, Arabic and English with simultaneous translation between any of those languages available on earpieces for all those present.

I do not intend for this to be an article written in legalese for it would be too complicated and I fear I would not be able to do justice to the topic which of course is International law so when I use the term law, it is used loosely and is purely demonstrative. However it is worth remembering that the lawyers questioning the witnesses are experts in international law and that three members of the tribunal are very experienced judges in their own countries and so the conclusions that they come to based upon the evidence that they heard during the course of the hearing are likely to be accurate. One further thing to add and I must make this very clear, is that this article is not an attack on the Jewish majority in Israel or the Jewish religion. The purpose of this article is simply to make people aware.

The ‘kidnapping’ by Hezbollah (a de facto government and armed forces controlling a large part of Lebanon, but not the official Government of Lebanon) of two Israeli soldiers was all that the Government of Israel needed to launch straight into a full scale war. One would have thought that diplomacy could have been used, some discretion and manoeuvring on the part of the international community, but nothing was done and the results are patently obvious for all to see. The Government of Israel, through the Israel Defence Forces or IDF, systematically tore the country apart, targeting especially Beirut and Southern Lebanon. All this for the ‘sake’ of two soldiers. If only Britain looked after its citizens so well!

The weapons that were used by the IDF came under much scrutiny during the course of the tribunal. I heard countless times that the injured were being brought into surgeries and that doctors did not know how to treat them; they had not seen such weapons before (suggesting that experimental weapons were used). Indeed for a layman, it was certainly illuminating as I had no idea that such bombs as were described even existed. What good use technology has been put to. A common characteristic of the dead was that the side of them exposed to the explosion was burnt to a crisp, they were completely black on one side and the other side was normal. The weapons expert told us that these were a new kind of bombs which had been classed as ‘flash’ bombs as the effect of the bright flash was what produced the effects on the victims. Others were brought in with not a mark on their bodies even though they had been caught up in explosions. I was again told that these bombs produce vibrations at a certain frequency which ruptures internal organs without marking the shell of the body i.e. the skin. This appears to be an attempt to ‘normalise’ killing and make it as acceptable. As if by having no visible signs of injury, it is possible that the world would views these acts as more acceptable. The last of these ‘innovative’ weapons I shall mention even stranded the weapons expert. Victims were brought in with dozens of lesions all over their bodies, however, there was no material inside these lesions and there was also no exit wound… These dozens of little lesions more often than not got infected securing a slow and painful death for the unlucky ones. Another disturbing aspect of the bombing of Lebanon ties in with the next paragraph. There has been much anecdotal evidence of the so-called ‘toy bombs,’. Essentially a child usually finds an interesting looking, colourful piece of metal, with perhaps a ribbon attached to it. The child goes to pick up the ‘toy’ and it explodes in his or her hand, killing or maiming the child. These are usually small cluster bomblets which seem to have been specially prepared. A present from the IDF.

Cluster bombs deserve a paragraph all to themselves. Israel fired over 1,800 cluster bombs containing over 1.2 million cluster bomblets into Lebanon during the course of the conflict. 75% of these were fired during the last 72 hours of the conflict. The UN estimates that 40% of such bomblets do not explode upon impact leaving a vast quantity of exploded bomblets all over the areas targeted. We learnt during the course of the weekend that the areas targeted by the IDF were mainly agricultural areas. So farmers have a choice: either not harvest and starve, or attempt to harvest in a field full of cluster bomblets and risk death or being maimed. It was suggested during the tribunal that this was a calculated attack by the IDF in order to stunt the economic growth of Lebanon. Indeed it is hard to come to another conclusion when one considers any possible rationale the Government of Israel had for targeting such areas. Unless perhaps Hezbollah hide in olive trees? Maybe they do.

The economic expert showed us two very illuminating maps. The first map he showed us was a map of IDF rocket attacks. Next to it he put up a map which showed the relative wealth of all the areas of Lebanon. From looking at the maps side by side on a large projection it was evident that the richer parts of Lebanon were bombed and the poorer regions of the country were left relatively untouched. It was quite remarkable how close a fit the two maps were. This of course lends great credence to the viewpoint that the Government of Israel was economically targeting Lebanon with a view to causing some long term damage. (Lebanon had made an impressive recovery from its civil war, 1975-1990, and tourists were returning to Beirut.) Further bolstering this fact are the words of the rather eloquent Dan Haloutz, Chief of Staff of the IDF, who stated that he wanted a total war against Lebanon to ‘put it back’ 20 years and in fact Ehud Olmert graciously promised Lebanon a ‘very painful counterattack on a large scale’. Well, that is exactly what they got. And why not?

Now to the environment, an often forgotten factor in war. The main primary damage to the environment was caused by the IDF targeting the main power station in Beirut. The power station had been stocked for the summer. When bombed, an estimated 150,000 tons of heavy IFO 150 fuel spilled into the Mediterranean. The fuel spread over 120km and in places it is 50cm or so deep. Everybody knows what risks are brought in by fuel spills and so it is not worth me cataloguing them here. The Government of Lebanon have to be criticised heavily for the inadequacy of their response to this environmental disaster as they were incredibly slow in even attempting to deal with this. In fact, that fuel was being held in two separate containers which were both bombed by the IDF, on separate occasions. It does pay to make sure after all…

What I have written sadly is only the tip of the iceberg and I have repeated pleaded with Mr Ajumogobia for more column inches but my requests fall on deaf ears. What I have tried to bring out here is the nature of the attacks on Lebanon in 2006 which any impartial observer would describe as collective punishment. The specific targeting of civilian infrastructure; roads, bridges, water sources, power stations, tower blocks, schools, ports and agricultural areas all point to collective punishment (indeed it is so obvious that to me it is not even an issue).

32 vital points (water distribution, electricity, bridges and ports), 109 bridges, 137 roads destroyed or damaged, over 1000 civilians killed, over 4400 civilians injured, over 7000 air attacks conducted in an area not exceeding 1500km2, destruction of the main runway of the airport, farms, schools and factories destroyed. The total estimated cost for Lebanon was between £4 billion and £8 billion. The Jury found Israel guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The sad irony in all this is that, despite all the above, the Government of Israel lost the war (this, admitted by Major General Yiftah Ron Tal). The IDF was defeated by an ‘army’ of roughly 5000 fighters. The theme of this issue is ‘Peace in our time’ and in closing I will comment briefly on that. The impunity with which the IDF acted during that summer is nothing new. This has been happening for years in the Occupied Territories, and as long as this impunity continues, aided by the biggest bully in the playground (the United States), there can be no prospect of peace in the Middle East. Governments wishing to condemn and discourage terrorist acts must do so from a position of moral superiority. The tragic reality is that, through reckless use of lethal force that would clearly violate the right to life in Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (if it applied), the IDF have killed many more innocent civilians in Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza than all Arab militant groups (including Hezbollah and Hamas) have killed in Israel.

The result can be seen in the current law and order situation. The prevalence of street crime has degenerated into sectarian conflicts: the bombing of churches and places of worship of Ahl-e-tashreeh (Shi’i Muslims) and reprisal bombings of mosques by Muslims of different sects. These problems would not be occurring on this scale if democratic institutions were in place. Musharraf, reckoned to operate at the behest of the United States, was accused of fighting a proxy war for the United States in Afghanistan and the Taliban, who had been ousted by the American intervention, reacted, resorting to suicide bombing, starting with the North Western provinces and coming deep into Islamabad, Karachi and now Lahore.

Benazir Bhutto, seen to have returned to Pakistan as a US ally, almost immediately became the victim this, escaping of an attempt on her life by a suicide bomber at Karachi; 100 other lives were lost. However, she ultimately could not escape the attack of the December 27, 2007 in Rawalpindi. Now that the elections are over and that the main parties have formed a coalition, it is hoped that through a process of dialogue and mediation, Pakistan’s Afghan neighbours will be encouraged to refrain from such drastic responses.

The country is also in judicial strife and has been since Musharraf sent home almost 60 judges of Supreme Court and High Court of all four provinces and banned general striking. The little faith which the people had in the judicial system, most of which had already faded because of the corrupt governments, is now fast eroding. Consequently people have begun to take the law into their own hands, creating a state of virtual lawlessness in the country. The new government has resolved to restore the judicial system. There is thus new hope that a democratic culture will be put in place that promotes peace, unity and harmony amongst the agitated and warring people.

However, General Musharraf intends to stick around for another five years. This is in spite of the recent formation of a parliament that opposes most of his policies and the fact that major factions of the newly formed coalition between the left-wing Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) and the right-wing Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz fraction (PML-Nawaz) appear to be gunning for him. In all of this the West looks on silently, as in its eyes the only democratic alternative to the dictatorial rule of Musharraf was Benazir Bhutto, portrayed in the western media as a candle in the wind, the Aung San Suu Kyi of Pakistan. Now that she is out of the picture, there is a dilemma: if Musharraf is to be gotten rid of who is to take control the country?. Bhutto’s party has just won the election with a reasonable majority. But the votes it received were mainly sympathy votes, not based on any particular agenda or policies and the party is now struggling to sustain itself in the absence of its influential head. Indeed she was the main reason that no one during her chairmanship of the party was ever given the opportunity to show their ability or capacity to lead the party.

Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, on the other hand, is seen by the West as a supporter of fundamental Muslims and an advocate of dialogue with the Taliban, a proof of his ideology being his close ties with the Saudi Royal Family. It therefore appears that US and others consider that the only immediate option available is to allow Musharraf to continue, even though he is opposed by the Pakistani people.

So while Nawaz Sharif is calling for Musharraf to resign, western powers are trying to find ways to keep him. Meanwhile Zardari (Benazir’s widower and current head of her party) and the PPP are hedging their bets for fear of rocking the boat. This reminds me of the events surrounding Pakistan’s first experience of martial law, in 1958, when the then President Iskander Mirza imposed martial law but appointed the army chief General Ayub Khan to run it. Mirza’s plan was to ease out Ayub and replace him with another chief. However, within days it was already evident to observers in the media and the diplomatic corps that the duumvirate would not last. Watson Sims of The Associated Press has recounted a joint interview he held with Ayub and Mirza: When Ayub walked into the room there was a palpable change in the atmosphere and “it was immediately clear who was in charge”. Within days, Ayub would overthrow Mirza and take over as President. Consequently, in the present situation, if the more favourable Peoples Party was to be allowed to run the next government on the basis of some sort of balance or understanding with the presidential office, Musharraf could well suffer the fate of Iskander Mirza. The biggest threat to Mr Musharraf is likely to come from Messrs. Zardari and Sharif’s pledge to pass legislation within the first 30 days of the new parliament that will reinstate the deposed judges sacked by the President last year.

President Musharraf imposed the state of emergency on November 3, 2007, days before the Supreme Court was due to rule on the legality of his new presidential term, which he secured while he was still army chief. He stepped down as head of the army later that month, just over eight years after he first seized power in a bloodless military coup, under intense domestic and international pressure. This pressure mainly from the US because of resistance in the House of Representatives and Senate to giving financial support to Pakistan under a dictator. However the general masses have taken a negative view of fiscal assistance of the US. People in Pakistan see it as a bribe to the military and political elite to carry on fighting America’s proxy wars.

Pakistan, over the 68 years of its existence as a sovereign state, has failed to nurture its democracy. It would be wrong to blame this unconditionally on the military; the real culprits are the ruling political elite who fail to understand what democracy really is. They see democracy not as the will of the people but their own and attempt to legitimise their power on the basis of popular support. However voter turnout at the last election was less than 40 per cent – an embarrassment compared to many other developing countries, such as neighbouring India. Democracy in its real sense has never existed in Pakistan, the ground reality being that most political parties are still governed by feudal landlords who generate votes through the tribal and caste system. The common man has given up on the political system, too busy trying to make ends meet. And many of the people who do vote, do not do so on the basis of any manifesto but based on the caste of the candidates and in support of those whose land they plough.

The existence of this feudalistic system is based on 70 per cent of Pakistan’s economy which relies on agriculture, most of it owned and operated by a handful of people whose power is based on hereditary politics. It would not be inaccurate to suggest that the common masses are stuck in the medieval ages, playing into the hands of the ruling elite. Recently on a local Pakistani television channel, GEO, on a programme called ‘50 seconds’, I heard a politician furiously criticising the government and painting a beautiful picture of how different the situation would look when he had been successful in reinstating the deposed judges. Someone from the audience got up and said that she was pleased with those plans but then asked, “What do you intend to do about terrorism or rising food prices or the lack of education? Inflation? Unemployment?”. These issues have never been addressed in Pakistan which stands very much as it did in 1947, well behind countries (such as Singapore) who gained independence much later.

The central problem lies in the country’s education system. The truth being that none of the seasoned politicians wants to revolutionise the education system or allow small businesses other than their own family-owned ventures to flourish. There is the fear that when people are educated they will gain greater awareness of things happening around them and will no longer vote along feudal lines, undermining the support of the ruling establishment. Democracy is a mindset which people in Pakistan will not have and until unless educational institutions are set in the right direction and people are allowed to at least know what this mystery called democracy really is.

An unstable Pakistan means and unstable Middle-East and will lead to the failure of parts of South-Asia to benefit from region’s economic growth. If US seek a strong long-term ally in Pakistan, supporting a single individual for their own interests will not do. Moreover, within Pakistan, drastic measures have to be taken at a grassroots level to change the legal, educational and governing institutions in Pakistan. It is sad that in spite of the hundreds of western NGOs operating in Pakistan none appears to have criticised the educational system or raised their voices in the West to help make changes. The only time politicians seek Western assistance is when there is an opportunity to pull a dictator’s leg or when a democratically elected politician, such as Iskindar Mirza, refuses to let go of power. Achieving democracy in Pakistan will be a difficult process. It will require a fundamental cultural shift in the mindset of the people.

A case in point is Pakistan. The political situation as it currently stands is confusing. Progress has been, if anything, stagnated by the recent general elections. An intricate web has been woven by political motivations, religious extremism, and military might, all set against the backdrop of years of administrative corruption and mismanagement. Added to this is a population which now, more than ever, demands a transparent, accountable government which will fulfill promises made long ago of peaceful stability, and social and economic growth.

2007 was a year of political turmoil, the consequences of which spilt over into the New Year. The figure exerting the greatest influence in Pakistan has been and continues to be President Pervez Musharraf. Though many think recent developments have weakened his power and that his demise is imminent, it is not seem likely that he will fade from the political landscape any time soon. Musharraf came to power via a military coup d’état in 1999. In 2002 and again in 2007 he extended his term in office by five years. When the Supreme Court of Pakistan endeavored to review the legality of his re-election (in 2007), he declared a state of emergency: from November 3 to December 15 of last year the Constitution was suspended, private television channels were shut down, and several judges and lawyers were jailed. Chief Justice Mohammed Chaudhry was placed under house arrest and the judiciary, under new leadership, confirmed Musharraf’s re-election.

Such measures are reminiscent of dictatorial rule. But while absolutism is unacceptable in this day and age, perhaps the strict methods Musharraf has taken during his time in power, when balanced against the desperate need for stability, pervasive in Pakistan today, are justifiable. Musharraf has after all been an outspoken ally of the West against the ‘war on terror’. In 2002 he condemned Islamic extremism and in 2005 denounced terrorism outright. This, however, seems to be less a nod to the democratic ways of the Western administrations than a strategic manoeuvre to have international sanctions lifted and to increase the amount of fiscal aid flowing into Pakistan.

His domestic politicking dampens any democratic credentials Musharraf may have further. While he granted general amnesty to political leaders in exile, including Benazir Bhutto, Nawaz Sharif (another important leader of opposition) was for a longer period excluded and prevented from returning. Moreover, though inroads were made into negotiating a power-sharing agreement with Bhutto, no conclusive results were reached.

In any case, discussion of these negotiations is obsolete in the wake of her assassination. Leader, at home and in exile, of her father’s leftist Pakistan Peoples’ Party (PPP), Bhutto was an inspirational political candidate. She had been Prime Minister twice, a significant feat given that she was the first woman elected to hold such a post in a Muslim nation. However, despite her grand rhetoric and vision, she was dismissed from office both times due to charges of corruption. Allegations were made against both her and her husband, Asif Ali Zardari, in several countries. Many still believe there was truth to the accusations though neither was jailed and the issues never fully resolved. An ally of democracy and advocate of change and growth, she had powerful ideas to propel Pakistan forward, both economically and socially. Nevertheless, the tangible effects of her rule were few. The question remains as to whether she learned from her past mistakes and would have made a genuine difference if she had lived. We will never know.

Following her death, Zardari assumed leadership of the PPP, with their 19-year old son acting as a figurehead. Neither commands as much respect, nor rallies as much support, as Bhutto herself did. Though the PPP achieved a majority in the February 2008 elections it cannot oust Musharraf without forming a coalition with another party. The head of Musharraf’s opposition has effectively been severed. No predictions can be confidently made as to short-term future developments. This must be especially disconcerting for Pakistanis who are unsure which way the balance will tip and how long the current turmoil will continue to upset their day-to-day lives.

The ubiquitous threat of violence can by no means be ignored. Several attempts have been made on Musharraf’s life throughout his time in power and Bhutto was herself warned of the risks she would be taking upon returning (acutely so when she escaped the first attempt on her life in ___). It also important not to forget the immense death toll of innocent civilians which increases with every attack. However these extremist undertakings have led to no improvements. They are fundamentally incoherent. Different factions loyal to different leaders target different persons in power. Indeed many factions are actually in conflict with one another. Their only success has been to exacerbate the already very difficult circumstances and entrench in the Pakistani peoples’ minds the constant apprehension of attack. The bombings that continue to happen all over the country have highlighted the instability that exists. The longer the political struggle and stalemate continues, the faster an already deteriorating country will be torn to pieces and peace will begin to appear an unattainable goal.

The world we live in today moves so quickly and suddenly that we often feel confused ourselves (or at least I do). When my friend Amy found out that Heath Ledger had died, she ran along the corridors in halls, exclaiming, “Oh my god, oh my god, Heath Ledger’s dead, oh my god!” at 11pm London time. Ledger had been found unconscious in his bedroom three hours earlier, in New York. Less than a century ago it would have taken the Titanic a week to sail across the Atlantic from Southampton to New York. But just 57 years later, Concorde had its maiden flight and the typical transatlantic flight now took three and a half hours. Moreover, as New York time is usually five hours behind London’s, you effectively landed in New York before you left.

So how do we reconcile ourselves with this world? Do we run away from it? Or is ignorance truly bliss? Ergo are those who find peace with themselves ignorant?

For my lower 5th work experience, I spent a week at a nursing home, taking care of some of the older generation who suffered from Alzheimer’s and dementia. It was painful, watching some of them who were not yet fully grasped by dementia, themselves knowing that sooner or later they would have to let go. One of them had been a regional boxing champion in the 1950s. Another was, at her prime, matron at a boarding school. Another kept calling me ‘Newby’ while another refused his lunch, demanding that I inform my parents of my whereabouts. Were they at peace with themselves? I will never know.

One lunchtime I went to a different ward to help out, and as there was a piano and some old music scores, I played a few Sinatra and Piaf numbers. The old ladies were smiling and clapping. One of them got up and tried to dance. Just a couple of hours earlier, they had seemed lost in their thoughts with their blank expressions, but I watched as their eyes lit up and their expressions glowed. How long had it been since they last felt that warmth? How many months? How many years? Imagining myself as one of them, in my own time, I wasn’t at peace with myself then. If you were there, perhaps you would have felt the same. If your long-term husband, wife or partner passed before you did, where would you be? Forget about world peace and humanitarian crises; at the end of the day, how many of you will care about what goes on in the Rift Valley or Gaza when your own life is in the spotlight?

The media can be overwhelming at times with its deluge of information and when we try to switch ourselves off to it, it becomes difficult to keep up with our society. So we end up striving to become something we are not. “One of the nice things about looking at a bear”, Stephen Fry once commented, “is that you know it spends 100 per cent of every minute of every day being a bear. It doesn’t strive to become a better bear. It doesn’t go to sleep thinking, ‘I wasn’t really a very good bear today’. They are just 100 per cent bear, whereas human beings feel we’re not 100 per cent human, that we’re always letting ourselves down. We’re constantly striving towards something, to some fulfillment.”

Celebrity culture latches on to this. The UN recently condemned celebrities such as Amy Winehouse, Pete Doherty and Kate Moss for glamorising drug use (and causing problems in Africa as a result). But this stroke of negative publicity in the end still helps to promote the same people it sets out to rebuke. Waiting in line to pay for groceries at my local Sainsbury’s always intrigues me: the magazine racks are neatly arranged close to the tills – OK!, Hello!, Heat, Cosmopolitan, Grazia. I often wonder who buys all these magazines and why. Why, of all the newspapers in the country, does The Sun have the largest readership (around eight million daily)?

When, after Jack’s death, Ennis finds his blood-stained shirt, which he thought he had lost twenty years prior, from their time on Brokeback Mountain, hidden and wrapped inside Jack’s own blood-stained shirt, I felt a lump in my throat. Somehow I thanked God, something I never do being an enthusiastic atheist, that I would never be in that position, and that I can be reasonably at peace with myself. In this day and age, in England, perhaps I will never be able to feel the same strength of emotion for my girlfriend. Ennis held the shirts to his chest, and took a deep breath. I cannot imagine what was going through his mind. I cannot imagine what I would feel if I was in those circumstances in twenty years time, with an object of equal sentimental value.

At the end of the day, we are all alone in our thoughts. And peace? Surely it begs the question: if you cannot find it within yourself, in your time, how can you find yourself? Or will you always want to be someone else? “L’enfer, c’est les autres”, so perfectly put in the Sartrien existential masterpiece, Huis Clos. Perhaps hell is truly just other people.

King’s Bench: To what extent were you involved in politics prior to your appointment as Attorney-General?

Lord Goldsmith: I was actually heavily involved in politics when I was at University and maintained my interest subsequently but wasn’t properly active on the national political scene. However, when I became Chairman of the Bar I was very engaged in political issues but of course not from a party political standpoint. One of the interesting features is that Charles Clarke [former Education and Home Secretary] and I were together very much involved in student politics at Cambridge but whereas I didn’t want a full-time political career, Charles did and he went on from his role at the Cambridge Union to become a full-time politician. What is interesting is how thirty years later, through very different routes, we came to sit around the same Cabinet table.

KB: Do the dual roles of politician and lawyer encompassed in the position of Attorney-General pose a fundamental conflict of interest?

LG: No. I think it is critically important that there is, at the heart of Government, a senior lawyer who can help the Government reach effective and lawful solutions in order to meet its objectives. This is especially important since the role of the Lord Chancellor has changed so radically, as the Attorney-General is now only the position left which has to be filled by a senior lawyer.

KB: Isn’t there the danger that the role becomes an overly political one?

LG: The Attorney-General stands at the interface between politics and the law; between the executive and the judiciary. It is therefore important to understand the nature of political life because so many of the decisions that are taken (although they are not political decisions) are made in a political context. That does not mean that you allow political considerations to interfere with your judgment as to what the law requires or as to what the public interest is. But it would be naïve if you didn’t understand what commentators and the world were concerned about.

KB: The advice you gave as to the legality of the Iraq War has proven to be perhaps the most controversial decision of your tenure (and indeed of the previous administration). What do you say to those of your critics who argue that your lack of experience in international law prior to your appointment had a bearing on the advice you gave?

LG: Absolute nonsense. People seem to forget that one of the benefits of being Attorney-General is that you have, as I had, extensive advice within Government on all aspects of the law from people with great knowledge and experience in the various areas. I believed that the advice I gave was right; I still believe that it was right and there are a large number of lawyers who agree with me. Indeed there were a large number of countries that took the same view, which is why the coalition in Iraq has so many different countries included.

KB: Do the Government’s recent revelations about the practice of rendition by the United States on British territory indicate further at a culture of subservience to the United States?

LG: I don’t think it shows that the UK Government was subservient to the United States. I know myself that that wasn’t the case – even if quite a number of the disagreements between us were played out in private and not in public. However I am deeply concerned about this information. We don’t know the full extent of the issues over the two people who were said to have been on the planes that landed on Diego Garcia. I do strongly disapprove of the American practice of extraordinary rendition (by which I mean kidnapping to take people to places where they can be subjected to interrogation methods that we would regard as unlawful) and am troubled by why it is that the United States did not reveal the presence of these two people. I therefore support the calls for a detailed investigation as to what actually took place and as to what the Government is doing to check all the flights that third parties have suggested may have been rendition flights.

KB: Despite the failure of the previous administration to raise the terror detention limit, Gordon Brown seems insistent on pushing to raise the limit to 42 days. Do you think that such measures are again inching us towards internment?

LG: I would put it differently. I am against raising the period of pre-charge detention beyond where it is at the moment, unless it can be shown that it is a necessary thing to do. I don’t think there is evidence to show that it is necessary to do so and I therefore believe that it is counterproductive as well as wrong in principle: counterproductive because it sends the message that we are not a just society which values the liberties of individuals and wrong in principle because I believe that personal liberty is a critical fundamental right that should only be taken away when there is a very strong justification for it.

KB: Are you in favour of the admissibility of phone intercept evidence in court?

LG: I am in favour of it subject to appropriate safeguards. These, first of all, have to include appropriate safeguards for individual privacy so that phone-taps shouldn’t take place unless they are justified in the first place. We have got these already. Secondly, the intelligence agency or the state should not be required to produce evidence which is inculpatory if they wish not to do so because it would reveal secret methods or capabilities. Thirdly, methods have to be found to ensure that the disclosure of phone-tapping is dealt with in a proportionate manner so that the resources of the intelligence agencies are not wasted on fishing expeditions. But I do believe that it is in principle important to allow intercept evidence to be used in court as it will help the prosecution of some of the most dangerous criminals in the country.

KB: How much damage do you think the cash for honours scandal has done to public trust in politics and in the Labour Party?

LG: There is no doubt that cash for honours caused a great deal of damage to the image of politics and indeed to the Labour Party and it is a consequence of the funding arrangements we have. I think we have now reached the stage where the funding arrangements of our political parties are really broken beyond repair and we need a radical new approach so that people don’t start to think that politics is about grubby money-raising. When you look at the way things stand at the moment in politics, if you are going to get your message across, you have to raise money in order to publicise it. The sums that are raised by British political parties remain still insignificant compared to the moneys which are raised in the United States.

KB: Is public funding the solution?

LG: I suspect that partial public funding, though it is unpalatable to many people, has to be part of the future solution.

KB: What do you consider to have been your greatest achievement as Attorney-General?

LG: Transforming the Crown Prosecution Service and taking it from a backward-looking service to a forward-looking service proud to serve the public and the communities in which it works, which plays a central role in the criminal justice system. The CPS has new powers, new responsibilities and new status. They are better protectors of liberties, stronger at prosecuting cases and in facing their role as not just protectors of justice but as the defenders of victims and people too.

KB: Is there anything that you wish you had been able to see through?

LG: I served as Attorney-General longer than I ever intended to do and therefore wanted to step down. However, I think I would have liked to have seen through the reforms of the Serious Fraud Office. I concentrated my early years on volume work, that is work in the Crown Court and the magistrates’ courts, and was turning my attention to fraud cases. We did make a number of important changes to the law but it remains an area I would have liked to have seen through. I would also have liked to have seen employed lawyers, particularly in Government services, really being treated as equals within the profession which is what they are and deserve to be. However there remain pockets of resistance to this.

KB: Why did you decide to join Debevoise & Plimpton?

LG: I thought very hard about what I wanted to do and had a lot of offers, including quite a lot of pressure to come back to the Bar. But I wanted a new challenge and I strongly believe that with the globalisation of the law you need the globalisation of legal practice. Business, commerce and consumers now operate across frontiers in ways they never have before. This offered me the opportunity of a global law practice which I find challenging and rewarding. Debevoise is also a firm which has a strong ethos of public service and pro bono which I strongly support and provided the opportunity for me to continue with these whilst being a full-time lawyer.

KB: What do you expect the future holds for you?

LG: I am someone who has always found new challenges as I have gone through life. Sometimes have been unexpected – for instance I never planned to be Attorney-General. I remain a member of the House of Lords and continue to take part in the legislative process. However I am very much enjoying my present role and have no plans to change it. On the contrary, my present plans are to expand what we are doing here. Personally, despite all the globetrotting that I have been doing recently, I very much hope that my future will involve some appearances in the English courts. That has been my life and so I hope that I will continue to be available for hire!

King’s Bench: How and why did you first get involved in politics?

Imran Khan: No social reformer has ever single-handedly changed a country. It is only through politics that you can change a country. Even Gandhi was also a brilliant politician who mobilized the people and had an entire political party behind him.

My idea was always to stay in social work. I had thought about going into education after building the hospital but realized that that was not enough. NGOs can fill some of the cracks, but here in Pakistan we have huge fault lines which can only be corrected by political action backed by strong will. The only way we can change this country is to bring in the proper people at the helm of leadership; people who are conscientious, who want to change the society.

KB: To what extent do you think your popularity stems from your status as a celebrated sporting figure as opposed to your political stature and principles?

IK: It might be true that in early days of my politics people didn’t really know what we were saying, but our message has been successful. For example, since our inception twelve years ago, we have been advocating the independence of the judiciary. Today there is consensus in the whole country about independence of judiciary. Moreover all the main political parties are actually doing their politics on our objectives and agenda. This is our political success.

Another example is accountability which is a term we introduced to the political discourse in 1996. All subsequent governments exploited this issue and established courts and bureaus but then only paid lip-service to them and brushed everything under the carpet. The same disgraceful action has been repeated under the National Reconciliation Ordinance, a deal done through the Pakistan People’s Party to forgive all the financial corruption of politicians. So people have now realized what we are fighting for. This is the reason our vote bank is growing faster than any other party.

KB: Who are your political heroes?

IK: I greatly admire Nelson Mandela for his vision, credibility and selflessness. I also have a great deal of respect for Mohammad Ali Jinnah (the founder of Pakistan) and Mahathir Muhammad (former Malaysian Prime Minister). Both made great sacrifices but did not compromise on their principles.

KB: What does your party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, stand for?

IK: Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) is committed to bringing political stability through credible democracy and bringing transparency and accountability to the leadership of government through an independent justice system. We believe in federalism and in giving autonomy to the provinces, as envisaged in the 1973 Constitution but never granted.

The PTI is not merely a political party; it is a broad-based, grass roots movement that embraces the interests of all Pakistanis. People whose cultural and ethnic diversities blend into common goals and aspirations for a just society based on a democratic culture and the rule of law.

KB: The Economist recently labelled your country, Pakistan, as ‘the world’s most dangerous state’. Do you agree?

IK: I don’t agree but if United States keeps supporting a dictator and things go on as they are, then I am afraid this might become true. I find Pakistanis very talented, vibrant and also in fact moderate by nature. If they were trusted and given the chance to have their say in the system then they would themselves eliminate extremists by the vote. When elections have been held, the extremists have always been sidelined. It is only under military dictatorships when moderate politicians are suppressed that militants and extremists find a fertile breeding ground. Currently the whole system is controlled by a single man and no one has any trust or say in the system. People are deprived of all basic needs; there is frustration and hopelessness. This is one of the reasons you have seen such an increase in suicide bombings in Pakistan when just few years back they weren’t heard of.

KB: What, in your view, has given rise to the unprecedented levels of extremism in Pakistan?

IK: There has been an increase and it is due to lack of a representative government. Militancy was also encouraged by the Agencies during and after the Afghan War for Jihad in Kashmir. The solution lies in having a true sovereign state with an independent foreign policy first and then providing autonomy to the provinces as envisaged in the 1973 Constitution (in letter and spirit). We had been victims of terrorism long before 9/11 and are now suffering more due to a new form of militancy generated by the US war on terror on our western border. One area in which we truly differ from the Americans is that of the execution of anti-terrorism plans. The US is promoting a single-track military option whereas we would advance a political solution first and keep the threat of military action in reserve.

KB: The Bush administration has stood behind President Musharraf in spite of the events of the last few months. How close a relationship should Pakistan have with the United States?

IK: The US administration should stand behind people of Pakistan rather just one person, particularly when he is so unpopular within the country. In fact this is the main reason for the huge anti-American sentiment in our country. Because the US is supporting a dictator who has no public support in Pakistan, the majority which is against him has also turned against the US. The US administration should back the democratic process rather than personalities.

KB: What is your personal political ambition?

IK: My ambition is to bring about a social and economic revolution in Pakistan through justice at all levels of society and moderation. I aim to take the Pakistani people out of this plight through education and enlightenment.

KB: It now appears that Benazir Bhutto was killed on the orders of Baitullah Mehsud, although some still blame the Government. Who do you think is responsible for her death?

IK: It is very difficult to say. It could have been any of the groups that are now fighting against the Pakistan army. Benazir Bhutto had specifically stated that she would fight against al-Qaeda, the Taliban and the fundamentalists. So, clearly, each of these various groups may have been responsible. It could have also been the stakeholders, people who had been in power for nine years who were threatened by her. This is why an independent inquiry is needed.

KB: Do you fear for your life?

IK: I have no fear of death. When I came into politics I always thought there was the possibility that I would be killed. My lack of fear is due to my growing faith in Islam. Spirituality does two things for you: firstly, you become more selfless, and secondly, you learn to trust in providence.

KB: What is your vision for the future of Pakistan?

IK: My vision is huge. I want Pakistan to be a modern Islamic welfare state that is based on the freedom of man. Our potential can only be realised in a free environment. This means freedom from illiteracy, freedom from all forms of state oppression, equal opportunities for all citizens, a proper system of law and order and reducing the size of the bureaucracy. I believe in an efficient state that allows for the natural genius of people to evolve and develop, which does not impinge on people’s individual rights.

KB: What can supporters of your movement in the UK do to help your cause?

IK: One of Pakistan’s greatest assets are the overseas Pakistanis especially students because they are learning skills in very competitive environments. I think they can provide real hope by attracting the funds and skills that will propel Pakistan into the future. However this will only happen when we get the system right in Pakistan. If we have a corrupt system which serves as a deterrent to our overseas nationals bringing in their skills and capital, this great asset becomes totally ineffective.

I would want students in UK to keep creating awareness both inside and outside Pakistan and prepare themselves to take responsibility in the future when our party embarks on serious nation-building.

King’s Bench: What made you decide to become a lawyer?

Miriam Gonzalez: I was probably too young at the time I decided to become a lawyer. At first I actually wanted to be a diplomat. Luckily during my five year degree, I realised that I wasn’t cut out in any shape or form to be a diplomat, and became very interested in the legal aspects. I went to Bruges afterwards to add a European flavour, which happened to be around the time that telecoms liberalisation was exploding in Europe. I had never had a vocation but it was a really interesting moment in terms of regulatory issues in the telecommunications area. I thought it was the perfect combination of law and politics: much more practical than diplomacy and offering the chance of making more of a difference.

KB: Why did you choose to specialise in European trade law?

MG: It wasn’t a conscious decision and I didn’t specialize in it during my degree. In Spain we don’t have specialisation – it is very different from the UK in that sense. However it became a conscious choice in my last year at Bruges. Everything was happening very fast and I am a person who works very much on the basis of adrenaline. So I never mapped out a path whether it was to becoming a lawyer or indeed anything else. There is always a huge element of good luck and chance.

KB: How did you break into a legal profession within the European Union?

MG: I was a pretty obnoxious student – one of those that applied for everything. One of the scholarships I received was for the College of Europe, through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Spain. I thought this would offer me an interesting legal angle. You have to understand the Spanish perspective. By the time I finished my degree it was very clear in Spain that the EU meant more than just cash coming into our infrastructure and that actually there were legal implications. This new legal relationship was not something they explained well at University.

You’ve asked me about something that I feel really strongly about. Even today I see an enormous number of firm lawyers who know a lot about their areas of specialisation but have very little knowledge of the EU system and of the kind of obligations that they must advise their clients on in relation to it. There is also an element of Euroscepticism: “Oh it doesn’t matter because we don’t like it…” Well whether you like it or not does not matter. You have to understand it and in Spain the only way to understand it was to go abroad.

KB: What was it like working in the EU Commission?

MG: The Commission was a fantastic experience. I was very lucky to be brought straight from College into leading the telecoms negotiations team at the WTO. These were professionally some of the happiest years. And then as I was being dropped back into the EU system, Chris Patten came along and asked me to be his advisor on the Middle East, North Africa, and Latin America. I said yes and again bypassed the whole bureaucracy [laughs]. I had five fantastic years with him and learned an enormous amount. I then worked for Benita Ferrero, but only for a few months. I didn’t have the typical career at the Commission; I always managed to do things that I found really interesting.

Having said all that, I realize there are many inadequacies in the Commission. It has received some bad press and has been stereotyped a fair amount. I spent a year at the Foreign Office dealing with similar issues as in the Commission but frankly I was much happier at the Commission. There was greater flexibility and also a great level of commitment: you get a team of five or six young, committed people who get a policy done within six months. They are also very original in the manner in which they tackle certain issues, such as the Electronic Commerce Directive. There is no way that could have been produced within a national administration. Having looked at it from the outside, I have less of a problem now defending the Commission then I did from the inside.

When people see the Commission as ‘Brussels’, it looks like a terrifying monster. In reality it is not so big. It struggles with resources, but works on the basis that there are a lot of committed people. In Simon Jenkins’ biography, the head of his cabinet wrote that in Brussels you get a lot of first and a lot of third-rate people but not enough second-rate and this is a problem because it is the second-rate people who sustain an administration. This is very accurate.

KB: What are your views on the reformed document of ‘EU Constitution’? Is it of any real significance?

MG: I suffered learning about the constitution when I was still in Brussels. It is a document of very little real relevance to the structure of the EU. There were a variety of mistakes with the EU embarking on it in the first place but they are treaty maniacs [laughs]. They cannot live without having some project to reform. I have always been of the opinion that we need to stop this and get back to basic implementation to first prove that a good job can be done. The EU is almost like an adolescent, constantly questioning the purpose of existence and it is all a bit silly. Having said that, I don’t feel that this treaty is a big deal and it is certainly not a constitution – they should have never called it a constitution. Yes it changes bits and pieces, but the fuss that was created around this referendum was unnecessary. Calling Javier Solana the Highest Foreign Minister won’t change anything important as he will have the same powers. I do not believe this is something that really worries citizens. What worries most people are the day-to-day issues.

KB: How would you describe your experience, thus far, at DLA Piper?

MG: Again I have been really lucky to find DLA. When I was looking for a job, while still at the Foreign Office, I wanted to leave the administration and get back into private practice. I had worked for BT many years ago and wasn’t looking for a law firm at all but for an in-house role. At DLA we met and got on very well. I have been lucky because this is one of the firms that is expanding so it isn’t as stuffy or as protocol-led. It is about taking action, finding new products and innovating. I don’t think I could have found this kind of dynamism in many other law firms.

KB: Is working in a business law firm a world apart from the EU?

MG: Not really. A lot of what I do is advice on EU regulatory issues so it is actually very similar. One issue I am a bit obsessive about concerns the great amount impractical advice about EU regulation that is being dispensed. There is an enormous amount of legal advice that clients get about litigating on the various EU articles. We are strongly of the opinion that in advising a client you must offer both the legal advice and the policy advice, but make the distinction clear.

KB: What would you describe as the greatest challenge of your job?

MG: The greatest challenge was coming to run a practice that was not already set up. I really had to start from scratch: finding the team, the clients and building up our reputation. This can be unnerving in a way because some in months it works well while others it is more difficult, but you need to keep going regardless. It is very challenging but this is precisely why I like to do it. In general I feel there is really bad advice out there on some of the issues we deal with, so it is very rewarding to do a good job and have clients returning to us for more advice.

KB: Has being the wife of a prominent politician affected your career?

MG: No it hasn’t really. It affects you at home because it is always a bit of a struggle to work and take care of two kids. And of course the more demanding the job of your husband is, the more that bounces back on you. But again this has been a product of chance because I am aware of the fact that in other political parties there is more of an expectation for the wife to play a certain role. I feel that the Lib Dems are quite modern in this respect and don’t expect me to be a flowerpot.

KB: If you had not become a lawyer, would you have liked to be involved in politics?

MG: I would have loved to be a politician and still want to become one someday. It obviously would only make sense in Spain and so there is a geography challenge [laughs] but I feel very strongly about politics. I still follow the situation in Spain in great detail and I try to do so as much as possible without it interfering with my job.

KB: What do you value most about having lived and worked in and with so many different countries?

MG: The most important lesson you take away is understanding that your manner of doing things is different. On an international level you see people of so many different nationalities taking completely different approaches to the same issue. It is a very humbling experience because we miss an enormous amount due to the way we are programmed along cultural lines. I hope you don’t mind me saying that I think the people who do get out are the best people that I have met both in the professional and the personal sense. They are the most interesting and the least threatened by change. That being said, this does come hand in hand with problems. When you live and travel internationally you lose a bit of your roots and can start to feel that you are never exactly complete anywhere. I think, though, that this is a price worth paying. Here at DLA we put a lot of emphasis on having international teams; in my team I now have people from New Zealand, the United States, Colombia, Spain, Britain and you really do get the best of everybody by doing this. There is no point in thinking that you are the best because this is never true. There will always be someone who knows more or just as much as you do.

Mr. Haady might think that he was merely provoking an amusing intellectual debate.  But for millions of openly lesbian women and openly gay men around the world (many of whom fear violence at the hands of heterosexual men, such as those who beat Jody Dobrowski to death on Clapham Common in October 2005, “as if trying to kill an animal”), it is not funny.  Two assumptions run through thousands of years of persecution of men who love men, and women who love women.  The first is that women are inferior to men.  If a man consents to sexual penetration by another man, or otherwise “acts like a woman”, he forfeits his superior male status.  The second is that there is an obligation to procreate, owed by individuals to society as a whole, or to their parents.  The social obligation might have arisen from the anxieties of ancient tribes about their numbers matching those of the neighbours with whom they competed for land.  The family obligation seeks to preserve family honour, provide heirs for property, titles and surnames, and permit parents to experience grandparenting.

These two assumptions (men must “act like men” and must inseminate women) found their way into the Jewish Bible (eg Leviticus 20:13:  “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death …”), and from there into religious and criminal law in countries with Christian and Muslim majorities.  The death penalty for anal intercourse was not repealed in England and Wales until 1861, and survives today in such countries as Afghanistan, Iran, Nigeria (certain northern states), Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan.  For the Nazis, the obligation to procreate was necessary to coerce expansion of the Aryan “master race”.  In Roman Catholic Church doctrine, the obligation is slightly different:  an individual must seek sexual pleasure only through contraception-free sexual activity that might have procreative potential, and only within a different-sex marriage.  Thus, even masturbation is “gravely disordered” and a sin.

Mr. Haady finds support for his argument in a reference to persons with an “incurable tendency” to be lesbian or gay, in Judge Walsh’s dissenting opinion in Dudgeon v. UK (1981).  The European Court of Human Rights rejected Judge Walsh’s reasoning and held, by 15 votes to 4, that the right to respect for private life in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights does not permit governments to criminalise adult, consensual, private, same-sex sexual activity.  Several influential tribunals have agreed:  the United Nations Human Rights Committee (Toonen v. Australia, 1994), the Constitutional Court of South Africa (National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v. Minister of Justice, 1998), and the Supreme Court of the United States (Lawrence & Garner v. Texas, 2003).

Since Dudgeon, the European Court of Human Rights has decided that lesbian women and gay men cannot be excluded from the armed forces (Smith & Grady v. UK, 1999), cannot be denied custody of their children from prior different-sex marriages because of their sexual orientations (Mouta v. Portugal, 1999), must be treated equally in all aspects of the criminal law (A.D.T. v. UK, 2000, S.L. v. Austria, 2003), must be granted the same rights as unmarried different-sex couples (Karner v. Austria, 2003), and cannot be excluded from the opportunity of adopting children as unmarried individuals (E.B. v. France, 2008).  The Court has yet to rule that same-sex couples must be granted equal access to legal marriage, but has already concluded that “the inability of any couple to conceive or parent a child cannot be regarded as per se removing their right to [marry]” (Christine Goodwin v. UK, 2002).

In addition to his complete ignorance of the post-1981 case law of the European Court of Human Rights, Mr. Haady seems unaware of the UK’s Immigration Rules (which have authorised the immigration of same-sex partners of UK residents since 1997),  Council Directive 2000/78/EC and the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003 (banning sexual orientation discrimination in employment and vocational training), the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000 (equalising the age of consent), the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (removing all other sexual orientation discrimination from the criminal law), the repeal in 2003 for England and Wales of s. 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 (banning “promotion of homosexuality” by local authorities), the coming into force in December 2005 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (allowing same-sex couples to adopt children jointly) and the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (allowing same-sex couples to register civil partnerships and acquire all the rights and obligations attached to legal marriage), and the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 (banning sexual orientation discrimination in access to goods and services, including the services of adoption agencies).  The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill will require equal treatment of same-sex and different-sex couples in relation to donor insemination and surrogacy.

I can add nothing to Richard Harmer’s skilful demonstration, in his reply to Mr. Haady, of the absurdity of a 21st-century obligation to procreate on our overcrowded planet (however sensible it might have seemed to ancient tribes with poor human rights records).  But I must comment on Mr. Haady’s hypothetical Barry, who is happily married to a woman, but suddenly finds himself more attracted to his friend Paul than his wife.  In countries such as China, India, Egypt and Nigeria, it is probably true that the vast majority of men who love men, and women who love women, are living in different-sex marriages, or are facing huge parental pressure to enter such marriages.  But they are often desperately unhappy (see “Brokeback Mountain”), and feel trapped between the social and family obligation to procreate only in a different-sex marriage, and their true feelings (which they often follow on the side).  Most men in Barry’s position, and women facing the same dilemma, do not need “a magic pill” to “make them heterosexual”.  What they need is a legal system and social climate in which (at least) they never feel obliged to enter a different-sex marriage that is not right for them (and end up hurting their spouses), and in which (ideally) they can contract a same-sex marriage with the person they love.

Should the editors of King’s Bench have published Mr. Haady’s article?  The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act  2008 (Part 7, clause 126, Schedule 26), makes it an offence to incite hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation.  Once this provision comes into force, an article like Mr. Haady’s could attract the attention of the police.  I do not think it should, especially because (were it politically feasible) I would prefer to see existing UK laws prohibiting incitement to hatred based on race or religion repealed rather than extended, as the 2008 Act repeals the common-law offence of blasphemy.  On the justifiability of these interferences with freedom of expression, I exceptionally prefer the position of the US Supreme Court (which does not permit laws banning “hate speech” or blasphemy) to that of the European Court of Human Rights (which permits both types of law).

Assuming that the new UK offence will be interpreted as continuing to permit an article like Mr. Haady’s, should King’s Bench have allowed him to spread his views?  Although the right to freedom of expression might include the right to offend a minority, or insult one’s neighbour, it does not have to be exercised.  All human rights should be employed responsibly and sensitively.  On the one hand, Mr. Haady’s views are highly offensive to lesbian and gay students and staff in the School of Law at King’s, as offensive as telling Hindu, Jewish or Sikh students and staff that they “pose a threat” to the Christian majority in the UK.  I doubt that King’s Bench will follow up this debate with one on whether “we should aim to find cures for non-whiteness and belief in Islam”, or (as a gay student suggested to me) on whether “the Holocaust was a good thing”.  On the other hand, one could argue that the editors have done a public service by exposing the ugliness of Mr. Haady’s prejudice against lesbian women and gay men (cf. Jersild v. Denmark, 1994).

On balance, I do not think that King’s Bench should have published Mr. Haady’s article, any more than one arguing that women are inferior to men, and should not be allowed to vote, attend university, or qualify as solicitors or barristers.  Excavating a “dinosaur” point of view (in the UK) and placing it beside a modern point of view (in the UK) is not a proper debate.  Instead, the “Big Debate” should have addressed a live issue in Asia, Africa and the Caribbean (repeal of the laws criminalising sexual activity between men, often a legacy of the British Empire, in such countries as India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Singapore, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Mauritius and Jamaica), or a live issue in the UK, such as:  (i) the opening up of legal marriage to same-sex couples, and the repeal of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (or its extension to different-sex couples);  (ii) exemptions for religious organisations from laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment and access to goods and services (should there be a blanket exemption, or no exemptions, or do the current exemptions draw the line in the right place?); or (iii) the repeal of laws prohibiting incitement to hatred based on race or religion, or their extension to sexual orientation and other grounds.  At the very least, King’s Bench should not have enhanced Mr. Haady’s text with captions and photographs that supported his extremely intolerant message, such as those on pp. 28-29 (”… annual gay pride convention:  fun over family? Two men choose homosexuality over their partners.  A gay couple offer a public display of affection - what are the effects on society?”).

Returning to Mr. Haady’s proposal (which is effectively that scientists should search for a voluntary, non-fatal, “Final Solution to the Lesbian and Gay Question”), I am grateful that the recent, rapid growth of anti-discrimination law in many countries seeks to value human diversity, rather than eliminate differences and minorities.  If precious resources for scientific research should be devoted to the search for a “cure”, I would suggest that it should be a “cure” for prejudice against lesbian women and gay men, and other forms of intolerance.  If and when this “cure” is developed, I would be delighted to present the very first “magic pill” to Mr. Haady.

The educational content almost outweighs the explicit, taking an innovative slant on issues such as racism, pornography and homosexuality; and even providing some sound economic advice: the economy is unstable; the only safe investment is in porn. But don’t worry learning is made easy and fun with songs such as “What Do You Do with a B.A. in English?” and “It Sucks To Be Me”. The general Avenue Q approach is to shout about issues we normally whisper with the aim of making us laugh at ourselves and more importantly, at each other.

The puppets are controlled by multi-talented actors who multi-task: singing, acting, and puppeteering all at once, professionally and with indefatigable energy.

After the show I caught up with the wonderful Simon Lipkin who plays Trekkie and Nicky.

King’s Bench: Were you sure that you wanted to act above all other things when you first decided to pursue a career in acting?

Simon Lipkin: Yes, absolutely. I was never good at anything else [he lies!! We went to the same posh school.] I would always spend time in the theatre, or at concerts.

KB: Do you miss not having experienced the uni life at all?

SL: Well, I grew up quickly. I went to the Sylvia Young School where I did academic work two days a week and would spend the other three days doing voice-overs and acting. I suppose when I gained a scholarship to a performing arts college at sixteen I had a similar experience but I have never been particularly interested in the uni scene.

KB: Avenue Q script approaches certain controversial issues with sensitivity but when the show first opened did you fear criticism?

SL: The song ‘Everyone’s a Little Bit Racist’, for example, is not meant as an insult to cultural diversity; it is not about the superiority of blacks or whites. We just nudge against issues that may be on people’s minds. It is all for comic value, which is why we poke fun at a diversity of races and no race is singled out.

KB: What has driven your success? The idea of fame or a love of acting?

SL: Absolutely not fame in the slightest – fame scares me and the small amount of fame I get from doing the show scares me. I do it because I love what I do and the absolute buzz from making an audience laugh or cry, which is a little bit wanky, I know….

KB: What has been your most embarrassing moment on stage?

SL: I have had several. Once my trousers fell down while I was playing in Joseph. It was a quick change and ran across the stage which is when it happened but I got a cheer from the audience. At least it is nice to know that you’re appreciated. I also wore a nappy on-stage once which was quite embarrassing and got caught in a deck chair. I am quite clumsy in general.

KB: Is there anyone you have felt uncomfortable performing in front of when doing Avenue Q?

SL: My grandmother - she’s lived through a war but she wasn’t ready for that.