Charles Clarke interview in New Statesman

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

some highlights:

Clarke is more robust on criminalising the "glorification" of terror. "It's simply wrong that it will become illegal . . . to promote a Palestinian state. But if somebody says on Newsnight . . . that he urges people to blow up a bus or two . . . I would say that is behaviour that rightly ought to be illegal." Once again, he "will be interested to see what have to say".

(...)

"I have been frustrated at the inability to have general conversations of principle with the law lords . . . because of their sense of propriety. I do find that frustrating. I have never met any of them. I think there is a view that it's not appropriate to meet in terms of their integrity. I'm not sure I agree . . . and I regret that. I think some dialogue between the senior judiciary and the executive would be beneficial, and finding a channel is quite important."

(...)

Many think that the higher courts will block deportations, in line with the Chahal case of 1996, in which the European Court of Human Rights ruled that a Sikh militant could not be sent back to India. What will Clarke do then? The answer is a surprise. In an unprecedented legal move, he hopes to take the Chahal case back to Strasburg and ask the European court to rethink its decision. "I am absolutely ready, and keen, to do this, and I have discussed it with other EU governments. I want to revisit the Chahal judgment if we can find a legal device to do that." Presumably he means to bypass the British justice system altogether? "I'm not in a position to talk about the legal route," he says.

(...)

"I call myself tough, not populist. I tell people I'm not a liberal partly because I've become so jaundiced about the identification of the word with the legal profession. Lawyers have hijacked the use of the word liberal. I don't think I'm different from Tony. On the other hand, there are issues where you don't agree."

(...)

Clarke is not always so emollient. I ask about the memoir in which Sir John Stevens, the former Metropolitan Police commissioner (who is a Clarke fan) accused Blunkett of backstabbing. At first, Clarke simply says: "It went wrong with David. I don't know why." But does he think Stevens should have written the book? "Actually, I don't. No. It's very difficult when senior public servants write accounts of this type. I don't think he should have done it. I shall not write a book of that type, and I don't think others should."

http://www.newstatesman.com/200509260017

You'd think he might try and throw a left-wing bone given that its the New Statesman, but no.