Bruce Anderson: Don't pity those foreigners who exploit our generosity

'Blunkett is introducing a range of restrictions that even Margaret Thatcher might have blanched at'

Until well into the 1980s, David Blunkett was a committed socialist on the far left of politics, but he was never a liberal. Liberal concerns such as extending democracy and human rights leave him unmoved. Even in an authoritarian government, his lack of interest in rights issues is conspicuous; his instincts are even more authoritarian than the Prime Minister's. The most illiberal Home Secretary for many years, Mr Blunkett recently told a group of Times journalists that the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into British domestic law had been the biggest mistake of the Blair first term.

This intolerance might seem at odds with Mr Blunkett's personality, which is humane and generous. But there is an explanation for all this. Only he knows how tough his early struggles were. Blind, from a poor background, he found himself in a world where almost everyone seemed determined to write him off. He must have experienced long periods when he despaired of ever escaping from patronised drudgery. This has not endowed him with an overwhelming sympathy for weakness in others. Indeed, there is a parallel with Margaret Thatcher. She too is capable of constant personal kindness, but she too is inclined to believe that those who fail in life do so because they were not prepared to try hard enough to succeed.

David Blunkett is now introducing a range of restrictions which even Margaret Thatcher might have blanched at. Crises often necessitate crisis measures, but it is rare to find a minister who is quite so enthusiastic about imposing them. It is almost as if Mr Blunkett found 11 September a liberating experience.

Others will be less certain, and will wish to remind the Home Secretary that we British fight wars to protect our liberties. In emergencies, it may be necessary to defer to the Prussian instincts inherent in officialdom, but this should be a temporary concession, to last no longer than the duration of hostilities. Equally, the burden of proof should rest with those who wish to circumscribe liberty. They should be required to demonstrate that their restrictions would make the rest of us significantly safer.

The measures which Mr Blair is proposing fall into two categories. The first group would restrict the freedom of speech of British subjects. The second would give the Government the power to act against foreign residents who are, in effect, enemy aliens, and who are abusing this country's hospitality in order to threaten the Queen's peace or to undermine allied nations.

It is important that a clear distinction should be drawn between the two types of action which the government is proposing. A much higher standard of proof should be demanded before the authorities are permitted to encroach upon British freedoms, as opposed to the activities of temporary residents in this country.

This even applies to the fraught subject of religion. For many years, we British have enjoyed the freedom to disparage one another's religion, or lack of it (the blasphemy laws have long since rusted away). This may lead to outbreaks of poor taste; it may even exacerbate social tensions, but it is not clear how that could be prevented. The problems of defining "religion" and "hatred" will defy the ingenuity of clever lawyers, while increasing their takings. Not only that; the experience of the law on racial hatred – which should be easier to define – is that prosecutions are harder to achieve and that the law is often at risk of ridicule for being used against unworthy targets.

A dotty old baggage called Lady Birdwood used to spend a lot of time circulating dog-eared communications alleging that the Holocaust never happened, but would have been a good idea. Offensive, indisputably – but this aged semi-lunatic was avid for notoriety and prosecution, which the authorities were sometimes obliged to grant her. That was a foolish waste of the law's time and dignity; who breaks a butterfly upon a statute?

Moreover, other perfectly good legal instruments could be used against expressions of racial – or religious – hatred when they reach a dangerous level and need to be repressed: the common law offences of breach of the peace, and incitement to violence. If Lady Birdwood had expressed her opinions outside a synagogue, she ought to have been arrested for breach of the peace. Incitement to violence would have been well beyond her dottiness, but anyone who did succeed in committing that offence ought to be dealt with severely, and the law already provides for long prison sentences.

It is not clear why incitement to violence on racial or religious grounds should be more serious than any other form of incitement to violence. But judges ought to be given greater discretion than the Home Office currently encourages to vary sentences according to local conditions. If incitement to violence on racial or religious grounds broke out in particular areas, the judiciary ought to move rapidly to warn potential offenders that they might well face a sentence in double figures. As so often in modern Britain, the problem is not too few laws, but too little order. Fresh legislation will merely distract the authorities from enforcing the existing – and adequate – law.

That does not apply to the political activities of foreign residents, where the law is defective. If it is true that the security authorities are aware of 20 dangerous subversives who are abetting terrorism but who could not be convicted in an ordinary law court, the government is right to act. It is only to be hoped that the new statute could also be used against the Real IRA.

Some of these terrorists who will be interned may pose no immediate threat to British lives. But if they are acting to assist Osama bin Laden to undermine friendly regimes, their activities could be almost as damaging to Britain's interests as their participation in domestic terrorism.

For years, our allies in the Middle East have complained that we are harbouring terrorists who use British freedoms to strike at Britain's allies. For years, we have been disregarding such protests, because we were more worried about what judges in Strasbourg might say than about the heart-felt complaints of our hard-pressed friends abroad.

These recent events have demonstrated that we cannot be so squeamish about upholding our national interests, or about protecting friendly regimes, even if some aspects of their domestic policies might also attract censure at Strasbourg.

Mr Blunkett's lack of interest in protecting the liberties of his fellow subjects ought to be open to reproach. It is to be hoped that the opposition will resist his attempts to bounce any such legislation through the Commons, and will insist on proper scrutiny and debate.

But that need not apply to his measures aimed at foreigners who up to now have cynically exploited Britain's generosity and naivety. After 11 September, we must surely realise that the time for naivety is over. On those measures, Mr Blunkett deserves full and unswerving support.