Corruption is Everywhere > Vietnam President Resigns; Lid Coming Off the EU Parliament Bribery Scandal

..

Vietnam President Nguyen Xuan Phuc resigns

By Joe Fisher

   

Vietnam’s President Nguyen Xuan Phuc announced he will step down from his position following a number of changes among the country’s leadership in recent days.

File Photo by John Minchillo/UPI | License Photo

Jan. 17 (UPI) -- Vietnam's President Nguyen Xuan Phuc announced he will step down from his position following a number of changes among the country's leadership in recent days.

Phuc is the third high-level official to either resign or be dismissed from his position this month following the dismissal of two deputy prime ministers, Pham Binh Minh and Vu Duc Dam. The National Assembly will meet Wednesday to make the resignation official.

As president, Phuc played a key role in Vietnam's Communist Party and its policymaking committee, the Politburo. In a statement by his party he was thanked for his service, but it was also noted that he was responsible for violations by those serving under him.

Other government officials who served with Phuc are facing criminal charges related to corruption and misconduct.

"As he was well aware of his responsibilities to the Party and the people, Phuc filed a request to resign from his positions and retire," said the statement obtained by VN Express International.

In 2022, the Communist Party prosecuted or disciplined some 539 members in an effort by general secretary Nguyen Phu Trong to rein in corruption.

Is this extraordinary level of corruption peculiar to Communists? Or is it common to all government parties? It is definitely not restricted to Vietnam.

Vietnam has greatly increased its efforts to rid the corruption among its government officials and business leaders, increasing the investigation of corruption cases by 50% in 2022, engaging in 453 investigations.

Phuc served as prime minister from 2016 to 2021 before being elected president in April 2021.

Former deputy prime minister Dam was ousted in connection with a scheme involving the distribution of COVID-19 testing kits. One of Dam's primary responsibilities was leading the country's pandemic response.

Did he have a deal with the party that he would resign if they stopped investigating him? What do you think?

Former European Parliament member to give details in bribery scandal

Obviously, being a member of the European Parliament does not require a moral compass as a prerequisite.

By Clyde Hughes   

Former European Parliament member Pier Antonio Panzeri agreed on Tuesday to cooperate with authorities

in connection with the bribery scandal. Photo by Stephanie Lecocq/EPA-EFE

Jan. 17 (UPI) -- Former European Parliament member Pier Antonio Panzeri said on Tuesday he will work with prosecutors investigating an alleged bribery scheme.

Panzeri agreed to offer "revealing, truthful and complete statements" about third parties involved in the scandal as well as his own involvement "if applicable" in exchange for a possible reduced prison sentence, Belgium's federal prosecutor said.

Prosecutors accuse Panzeri of accepting money from the governments of Qatar and Morocco in exchange for influencing decisions in the parliament.

Panzeri, who served in the European Parliament from 2004-2019, is charged along with three others for money laundering, corruption and participating in a criminal organization after police found nearly $1.62 million in bags of cash at several locations around Brussels, including Panzeri's home.

The Belgian prosecutor said in its ongoing investigation that Panzeri will tell detectives details showing if foreign countries, including Qatar, illegally influenced the parliament's work, how the bribery scheme operated and who was involved.

He is also expected to turn over financial documents connected with his arrangements with those countries and who directly benefited.

Panzeri also agreed to admit to bribery, pay a fine and forfeit the assets he obtained, said to total more than $1 million.

An Italian court ruled on Monday that the Panzeri's daughter Silvia Panzeri could be extradited to Belgium because she allegedly knew of her father's activities. She has denied the allegations.

The scandal also ensnared Eva Kaili, a Greek legislator, who at the time served as the European Parliament's vice president.

Kaili was removed from her European Parliament post in December after being arrested in connection with the scheme.

Corruption is Everywhere > Chinese Police Stations - Two more located in Canada; Chinese corruption and Canada's indifference; Chinese-Canadian Minister in Conflict of Interest

..

Two More Chinese Police Stations in Canada Among 48 Additional

Illegal Police Outposts Identified Globally: Report

The Chinese Embassy in Ottawa in a file photo. (Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press)

By Andrew Chen

December 6, 2022; Updated: December 7, 2022

In addition to the three unofficial Chinese police stations in Toronto that have drawn widespread concern in recent months, two more have been found in Canada, according to a new report by Safeguard Defenders. They are among 48 Beijing-operated illegal police outputs around the world that have been newly identified by the Spain-based human rights NGO, which had earlier identified 54 such outposts.

“Patrol and Persuade,” released Dec. 5, is the third report in a series of investigations conducted by Safeguard Defenders focusing on these overseas police service stations that it says are part of transnational repression and long-arm policy by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The NGO notes that all of its documentation is exclusively based on open-source accounts published by Chinese authorities and state media run by the CCP.

This brings the total number of unofficial Chinese police stations discovered to 102, with an overall presence in 53 countries. Among the two newly identified stations in Canada, one was found in Vancouver while the exact location of the other remains unknown.

A previous report, published in September, found that two local-level police authorities in two provinces under the Chinese Ministry of Public Security have been operating 54 overseas Chinese police service stations around the world, including three that are posted in the Greater Toronto Area. The service stations are run by the Fuzhou Public Security Bureau in Fujian Province and the Qingtian Public Security Bureau in Zhejiang Province.

Safeguard Defenders’ new report identified two additional local Chinese police jurisdictions that have been running at least 48 other overseas Chinese police service stations. These include 29 stations set up by the Nantong Public Security Bureau based in Jiangsu province, and 12 created by the Wenzhou Public Security Bureau, which is also in Zhejiang Province. Six additional stations are found operated by the Qingtian police and one station is set up by the Fuzhou police authority.

The Dec. 5 report says the operations of the Wenzhou police authority began with a 2016 “pilot” project in Milan, Italy, and the Nantong police authority began its overseas campaign in February 2016. The Qingtian police bureau also began its overseas operations in Milan in 2018.

“This directly refutes PRC [People’s Republic of China] authorities’ statements that the operations started in response to the Covid 19 pandemic,” Safeguard Defenders said in its report.

Operation Fox Hunt

Safeguard Defenders initiated its investigation after it saw the Chinese authorities touting the success of the overseas police service stations in supporting a Beijing campaign aimed at fighting telecommunications fraud committed by Chinese nationals living abroad.

According to the September report, between April 2021 and July 2022, the Chinese police “persuaded” up to 230,000 claimed fugitives to return to China “voluntarily” to face criminal proceedings, though it has also admitted that not all the targets have committed crimes.

“Persuasion to return” is a key method of the Chinese government’s “involuntary returns” operations, which include its “Operation Fox Hunt” and broader “Sky Net” campaign, Safeguard Defenders said.

The method entails either “tracking down of the target’s family in China in order to pressure them through means of intimidation, harassment, detention or imprisonment into persuading their family members to return ‘voluntarily,’” or directly approaching the target “through online means or the deployment of—often undercover—agents and/or proxies abroad to threaten and harass the target into returning ‘voluntarily,’” according to the report.

The Dec. 5 report cited new data from an Oct. 27 working report by the CCP’s Central Commission for Disciplinary Inspection, which said that since the start of the operations in 2014 and October 2022, over 11,000 successful Fox Hunt operations have been concluded in 120 countries.

New information also identified at least one illegal “persuasion to return” operation run through the Wenzhou station in Paris, France, and at least 80 cases where the Nantong overseas police stations have assisted in the operation to capture or persuade individuals to return to China.

“This contradicts PRC authorities’ statements that the stations are merely providing administrative services,” said the report.

The Chinese Embassy in Canada has previously acknowledged the existence of the three police service stations in the GTA in response to a CBC News inquiry, but argued that the stations are for providing Chinese citizens living abroad with civil services such as driver’s licence renewal, and that the stations are staffed by volunteers who are “not Chinese police officers” and “not involved in any criminal investigation or relevant activity.”

Safeguard Defenders, however, pointed to a contradictory statement from the Qingtian Public Security Bureau, which claimed to have “hired” 135 people to manage its first 21 service stations, according to a statement published on May 2019 by the People’s Public Security Daily, a state-media under the Ministry of Public Security.

The news article also indicated the Qingtian police service stations’ participation in Beijing’s Fox Hunt operation, saying that “through the construction of overseas service stations, Qingtian police have achieved new breakthroughs in overseas pursuit of fugitives.”

“Since 2018, they have successfully concluded 6 criminal cases involving overseas Chinese. Through the assistance of the ‘Police and Overseas Chinese Liaison Office,’ one person on the red notice was arrested and two have been persuaded to return to China. The [City of Qiantian] ranks number one in “Fox Hunt Operation,” the state media outlet said.

Another jurisdiction, Wenzhou, uses similar language announcing the hiring or appointment of 19 persons early after the launch of their first stations, which was further confirmed by a certificate for a Stockholm “overseas liaison officer” for the station, according to Safeguard Defenders.

===========================================================================================

Ottawa hears of ‘active foreign interference network’ in secret

Privy Council Office memo

By Sam Cooper  Global News

Posted December 13, 2022 1:15 pm

Updated December 13, 2022 2:48 pm

The Parliament Hill Peace Tower is framed in an iron fence on Wellington Street in Ottawa on March 12, 2020.

Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press

A February 2020 Privy Council Office national security memo documented China‘s alleged “subtle but effective foreign interference networks” that targeted the 2019 federal contest, said MP Michael Cooper.

Apparently, this memo took at least a year to travel from the Privy Council's Office to the PMO. it's a good thing they are in the same building or it might never have gotten there.

In the Procedure and House Affairs Committee hearing Tuesday, the Conservative member from Edmonton quoted from a redacted document, saying: “Investigations into activities linked to the Canadian federal election in 2019, reveal an active foreign interference network,” and added that it referenced the Chinese Communist Party.

The PCO regularly briefs the Prime Minister’s Office and appropriate cabinet ministers on national security intelligence. The redacted document was provided to the committee, which is mandated to investigate federal documents regarding allegations of People’s Republic of China (PRC) foreign interference. Global News has reviewed the document.

While Cooper did not cite the document’s source, intelligence sources say it comes from the Privy Council Office’s Intelligence Assessment Secretariat. Cooper said the redacted “Daily foreign intelligence brief” was published on Feb. 21, 2020.

The multi-partisan group of MPs began hearings in November in response to revelations in Global News reports that outlined Canadian intelligence probes into what sources called China’s vast campaign of interference targeting Canadian elections and politicians, as well as Beijing’s alleged covert “Fox Hunt” police operations in Canada that are targeting Chinese-Canadian communities.

These CSIS investigations were summarized in memos and briefs that started in January 2022, Global reported last month, and intelligence sources said they contained an allegation that China’s Toronto consulate covertly funded an interference network that included political staffers and at least 11 election candidates. Those sources also said that this information was provided to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and several ministers.

Beijing has denied the allegations.

Separate Global News intelligence sources with awareness of the Privy Council Office report say that the document also refers to at least 11 Greater Toronto Area election candidates targeted by the PRC in the 2019 contest, part of a loosely organized network that involves community leaders, political staff and some politicians who take “broad guidance,” from China’s consulate in Toronto, according to the February 2020 PCO memo.

Intelligence sources also told Global News that the Consulate made a clandestine transfer of around $250,000 to the Toronto-based network, a detail that the prime minister was not briefed on. Contrary to what members in Parliament and elsewhere have said, no names of network members were included in the memos and briefs, and there is no evidence showing that China directly earmarked money for the 2019 federal contest.

Sources with knowledge of the redacted February 2020 Privy Council Office memo say it determined that some of “at least 11 candidates in the 2019 election” are likely unaware of China’s influence efforts, but some have knowingly cooperated with the clandestine interference schemes, according to the document.

Cooper asked Liberal Dominic LeBlanc, the minister of intergovernmental affairs, if he had been briefed on China’s alleged election interference in the 2019 election.

LeBlanc said he has been briefed generally on foreign interference, but citing security reasons, he said he could not disclose whether he has been informed of “specific cases.”

“I don’t have this supposed list of 11 candidates. In my discussions with security officials, they did not provide these names,” he said.

And, apparently, he didn't ask for them. In fact, no one in the government has asked for them even now.

Cooper added the Procedure and House Affairs Committee is aware of CSIS investigations that say China has targeted politicians and riding associations as part of its election-interference campaigns. Cooper did not cite dates or more specific information on the CSIS investigations.

In response to a question from B.C. NDP MP Rachel Blaney, who asked why Canadians have not been informed of the names of 11 candidates allegedly targeted by China, Liberal Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly reiterated that both she and Trudeau were not provided specific information in 2022 on China’s alleged election interference, including the names of 11 candidates targeted by China, or whether China had directly funded candidates in the 2019 contest.

And, again, neither she nor Trudeau has asked for them? Why, probably because Trudeau already knows at least one or more of those.

“Reports of Chinese election interference in 2019 are very troubling and we take (the reports) seriously,” Joly said. “We must ensure there is no interference, and we are taking a whole of government approach,” to combat disinformation and interference from nations including China and Russia.”

===========================================================================================

Trade minister apologizes for breaking conflict of interest rules

Mary Ng failed to recuse herself from contracts granted to personal friend, report finds

Richard Raycraft · CBC News · 

Posted: Dec 13, 2022 12:27 PM ET | 

Minister of International Trade Mary Ng speaks during a news conference in Ottawa on May 5. Ng has apologized after the conflict of interest and ethics commissioner found she contravened the Conflict of Interest Act. (Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press)

International Trade Minister Mary Ng has apologized after Canada's conflict of interest and ethics commissioner concluded she placed herself in a conflict of interest through her involvement in a decision by her office to award contracts to a friend's company.

Ng's office signed contracts for media and communications training with public relations agency Pomp & Circumstance, co-founded and run by Amanda Alvaro.

The commissioner stated in his report, released Tuesday, that Ng and Alvaro are friends according to the definition in the Conflict of Interest Act. Alvaro is a regular panellist on CBC's Power & Politics.

The contracts were signed on behalf of the minister in March 2019 and April 2020. 

"Minister Ng twice failed to recognize a potential conflict of interest involving a friend, an oversight of her obligations under the Conflict of Interest Act," Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion said in a news release.

"There is simply no excuse for contracting with a friend's company."

In a statement posted to Twitter Tuesday, Ng apologized.

"I take full responsibility for my actions. I should have recused myself and apologize to all for not having done so," Ng said in the statement.

"At no time was there an issue of any personal benefit for me, nor any intention for anyone to benefit inappropriately."

There is more on this story at CBCNews.

CBC would never mention it, but Mary Ng is from the Greater Toronto area and is also of Chinese origin. What are the odds that she is one of the 11 crooked MPs accepting funds from China?

==========================================================================================

Corruption is Everywhere > Greece's PMO uses Predator Spyware; China Covertly funded 11 Canadian Election candidates

..

Greece's Prime Minister 'used state intelligence agency to spy

on political rivals, journalists and businessmen'

By HANNAH MCDONALD FOR MAILONLINE

PUBLISHED: 13:44 EDT, 5 November 2022 |

Greece has been rocked by a 'wiretapping' scandal as a bombshell report claimed Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis 'used state intelligence to spy on dozens of people including potential political rivals, journalists and businessmen'.  

Documento reported that the list of targets included former premier Antonis Samaras, current members of the cabinet and shipping magnate Vangelis Marinakis, owner of Olympiakos and Nottingham Forest football clubs.

Illegal software known as Predator was used in collaboration with technology employed by Greece's state intelligence agency EYP, the newspaper added.

Influential members of the conservative New Democracy party - potential rivals in any future leadership challenge to Mr Mitsotakis - were among those targeted, of which there were 30 politicians, the newspaper said.

Documento reported that the list of targets included former premier Antonis Samaras (pictured)

The weekly, which has close links to the main opposition Syriza party, sourced its information to 'two people with key roles in the surveillance' and said illegal software was also used to tap mobile phones.

'The evidence is missing,' said government spokesman Giannis Oikonomou, who nonetheless called on judicial authorities to investigate what the newspaper has reported.

Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis (pictured) 'used state intelligence to spy on dozens of people including potential political rivals, journalists and businessmen'

He accused the report of trying to 'hurt' the government and undermine stability.

On Friday, a European Parliament committee investigating wiretaps in Greece and other EU states called for a deeper investigation of the case.

Shipping magnate Vangelis Marinakis, owner of Olympiakos and Nottingham Forest football clubs, was also targeted

A Greek parliamentary committee set up to investigate the scandal folded after a month and critics said it failed to summon key witnesses.

The affair exploded in July when Nikos Androulakis - an MEP and leader of Greece's Socialist party - filed a complaint against alleged attempts to tap his mobile phone using Predator spyware.

Within days, it emerged that Mr Androulakis had been under surveillance separately by Greek intelligence before he became leader of Pasok, the country's third largest party.

Two Greek journalists and another senior opposition politician also claim to have been under surveillance.

The affair exploded in July when Nikos Androulakis (pictured) - an MEP and leader of Greece's Socialist party - filed a complaint against alleged attempts to tap his mobile phone using Predator spyware

The scandal forced the resignations in August of the Greek intelligence service chief as well as a close aide and nephew to the prime minister.

The Greek government has flatly denied using illegal surveillance software. It has admitted that state intelligence monitored Mr Androulakis, without disclosing the reason.

'Surveillance software exists in Greece as in the rest of Europe, but no (Greek) public authority has purchased or uses it,' Oikonomou said Saturday.

Mr Mitsotakis has promised to ban the use of illegal wiretaps by law. But critics note that one of his first acts when he became prime minister in 2019, was to attach the national intelligence service to his personal office.

Canadian intelligence warned PM Trudeau that China

covertly funded 2019 election candidates

Toronto Chinese Consulate

By Sam Cooper Global News

Published November 7, 2022 

Canadian intelligence officials have warned Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that China has allegedly been targeting Canada with a vast campaign of foreign interference, which includes funding a clandestine network of at least 11 federal candidates running in the 2019 election, according to Global News sources.

Delivered to the prime minister and several cabinet members in a series of briefings and memos first presented in January, the allegations included other detailed examples of Beijing’s efforts to further its influence and, in turn, subvert Canada’s democratic process, sources said.

Based on recent information from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), those efforts allegedly involve payments through intermediaries to candidates affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), placing agents into the offices of MPs in order to influence policy, seeking to co-opt and corrupt former Canadian officials to gain leverage in Ottawa, and mounting aggressive campaigns to punish Canadian politicians whom the People’s Republic of China (PRC) views as threats to its interests.

CSIS told Global News it could not answer some questions for this story. But the service confirmed it has identified the PRC’s foreign interference in Canada, which can include covert funding to influence election outcomes.

 “The Chinese Communist Party … is using all elements of state power to carry out activities that are a direct threat to our national security and sovereignty,” CSIS stated.

The briefings did not identify the 2019 candidates. But the alleged election interference network included members from both the Liberal and Conservative parties, according to sources with knowledge of the briefs.

Global News was not able to confirm from the sources which cabinet ministers may have been privy to the briefs nor the specific timing that the information was reportedly shared.

Chief among the allegations is that CSIS reported that China’s Toronto consulate directed a large clandestine transfer of funds to a network of at least eleven federal election candidates and numerous Beijing operatives who worked as their campaign staffers.

The funds were allegedly transferred through an Ontario provincial MPP and a federal election candidate staffer. Separate sources aware of the situation said a CCP proxy group, acting as an intermediary, transferred around $250,000.

The 2022 briefs said that some, but not all, members of the alleged network are witting affiliates of the Chinese Communist Party. The intelligence did not conclude whether CSIS believes the network successfully influenced the October 2019 election results, sources say.

CSIS can capture its findings through warrants that allow electronic interception of communications among Chinese consulate officials and Canadian politicians and staffers.

Sources close to this situation say they are revealing details from the 2022 briefs to give Canadians a clearer understanding of China’s attacks on Canada’s democratic system. Out of fear of retribution, they have asked their names be withheld.

In response to the briefing details, experts say the alleged interference points to weakness in Canada’s outdated espionage and counterintelligence laws, which sophisticated interference networks run by China, Russia and Iran are exploiting.

Justin Trudeau's comments were typical Trudeau - sound like you really care about this and then don't do anything more than you absolutely have to. Trudeau has to be cautious with his response so as not to put in place laws that will prevent global environmentalists from contributing to Canadian election campaigns.

There needs to be an inquiry into this to expose the 11 MPs and shame them into resigning. It's hard to believe the Canadian media is protecting these MPs rather than Canada's democratic government. I wonder how many cabinet ministers Trudeau and the Liberal media are protecting?

There is much more on this story at Global News.

The ‘Islamophobia’ Problem - A Rather Clever Opinion Piece

Douglas Murray
The Spectator

British MP Sayeeda Warsi

This is a good time to bury bad news. And sure enough it turns out that a cross-party group of MPs and peers that includes the failed MP Baroness Warsi has chosen this moment to try to persuade the government to adopt their own definition of ‘Islamophobia’.

Long-time readers will know that I have no sympathy for this term. The most succinct summary of the problem is often erroneously attributed to the late Christopher Hitchens. It is that, Islamophobia is ‘a word created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons.’

That ‘Islamophobia’ was created by fascists is provable: the term was conjured up and pumped into the international debate around politics and religion decades ago by the Muslim Brotherhood. The claim that it is used by cowards slightly lets others of its users off the hook. For it is not only used by cowards. It is also used by sinister and sectarian figures who wish to protect their own religious patch from any and all discussion or scrutiny. That it intimidates cowards is evident from every day’s news.

But now, at a crucial juncture in this nation’s history, this group of MPs and Peers are attempting to push through an agenda of their own. As Tim Shipman described it in the Sunday Times the group is proposing a set of ‘tests’ of what is ‘Islamophobic’. Let us take them in turn:

– ‘Does it stereotype Muslims by assuming that they all think the same?

Well let us see. Would it be Islamophobic to say ‘All Muslims believe that the Quran is the revealed word of God, that Mohammed was the messenger of Allah and that this revelation has been revealed for all time as the unalterable, final revelation from God?’ It would appear so. And yet it would also be true. There are certain things which all Muslims do agree on. There are many other generalisations that one could make that are more critical. Yet to say so would be ‘Islamophobic’.

– ‘Does the criticism consist of generalising about Muslims in a way that excludes them?’

An interesting one. Let’s try a couple out. How about ‘All Muslim majority countries are either dictatorships, despotisms or countries where the army remains on standby at any moment to wrestle back control from religious zealots’? Or how about ‘Muslims tend to be bad at understanding and advocating minority rights unless they happen to be in a minority themselves’? Both of these statements are at least highly defensible. I would suggest they are also true. Yet they undoubtedly ‘generalise’ in certain ways, and if just one Muslim said that they felt ‘excluded’ by people failing to talk up the pluralism and freedom in the Islamic world we would have to agree that both statements are indeed ‘Islamophobic’.

– ‘Is the behaviour or practice being criticised in an offensive way so it makes Muslims rather than the issue the target?’

Well it rather hinges on two things, doesn’t it? One is the question of ‘what is offensive’. Who is to judge? Who is to say? Is a cross-party coalition of low-grade MPs and Peers to make this judgement? Who would like Sayeeda Warsi to make this call? Or Labour’s Wes Streeting, who is also supporting this sinister move? Does anyone feel that either individual’s intellect, knowledge and skill at impartially weighing up matters makes them fit for the task of deciding what the rest of us can think, write or say? Then there is the question of determining whether ‘Muslims rather than the issue are the target?’ Again, are the brains behind all this sufficiently huge to make this judgement call? If one draws attention to certain aspects of the private life of the man who invented Islam is one aiming the point at Muslims or the issue of, say, historical attitudes towards child abuse? Who is to say? I can guess at least some of the applicants for the role.

– ‘Does the person criticising really care about the issue or is he or she using it to attack Muslims?’

There is nothing sweeter than the sound of totalitarian ideology presented in the lingua franca of social justice. Do you ‘really care about the issue’? Who the hell is to say? And why should it matter? Let us say that I object to Islamic anti-Semitism. Let us say that I cite the considerable stream of examples (both current and historical) which I could bring to my aid to explain there is a problem here.  Do I care? Or do I not? And who should decide?

Sayeeda Warsi says that some people use criticism of Islam’s approach to gays and women as a clever cover – a sort of ploy – for attacking Islam. ‘I’ve never known homophobes care so much about gay people and misogynists express such support for women as when they are criticising Muslims’ she is quoted as saying.

And that is interesting isn’t it? Firstly because there is again the question of ‘who is to judge’. If these criticisms are indeed legitimate – and even Baroness Warsi in her more liberal moments might agree that they’re not conjured up wholly out of air – who decides which person is allowed to say a truth and which person is not?  Are gays allowed to criticise Islamic homophobia? If so am I – as a fully signed up, equity card-carrying gay – allowed to go to town on Islam whenever I like? My own experience and observation has often suggested not. So who can? Is a gay who raises a really very mild objection, filled with caveats and ‘in a very real sense-isms’ allowed to dip their gay toe in this Muslim water? I suppose we shall see.

But really it is – as so often – not a matter of absolutes. After all, one reason why people who might not be big on gay marriage, or don’t swallow every claim made about the ‘gender pay-gap’ might be voluble about Islamic homophobia and Islam’s attitudes towards women is that there is a question of degree. It includes the difference between whether you’re allowed to marry somebody of the same gender or whether you should have a wall pushed on you. And it is a matter not of whether, if you add up pay differentials taking pregnancy and other life-factors into account, women are still under-renumerated (remunerated?) in certain sectors or whether all women are now and for all time (and should be) second class citizens. There is a difference is there not? A difference about the size of an ocean where plenty of people might peaceably swim.

Apparently the Home Secretary is being pressured – for reasons of optics – into signing up to this sinister and sectarian agenda. The rest of the government could be forgiven for having much else on its mind. I hope all relevant members of the government realise in their spare moments that this matters very much indeed. Future freedoms – including freedom of religion and freedom of speech in this country – will depend very much on this ugly agenda not being deployed.