A Spectator's Notebook

William Craig sounds determined' to wreck the White Paper proposals — but to do so from within, and peacefully, after the elections for an Ulster assembly. This is just about as good as could be expected. If, as looks likely, the Ulster Unionists split, but remain willing to use the ballot-box rather than the bomb and the gun, then it is possible that a more flexible political situation could develop. Willie Whitelaw's six-seat constituencies, electing on the single transferable vote system, should help moderate opinion to express itself; and if Craig hives himself and his followers off from the Unionists (or if, alternatively, he captures the party organisation, and Faulkner and Co. join the moderate centre) there should be sufficient party organisations to enable that moderate opinion to find party political articulation.

Groans for Bernadette

Harold Wilson and the Labour Party, as was to be expected, behaved well when the Irish Secretary presented his proposals. It had been decided in advance not to rush into any statements which might subsequently cause embarrassment or difficulty. Merlyn Rees, Labour's Irish frontbencher, wants the necessary legislation pushed through to enable a June election to take place in Ulster; but from what I hear, September is the more likely time. When Bernadette Devlin stood up in the Commons to have her say, great groans arose. She has totally lost the glamour she possessed when first she came to Westminster. Paul Johnson had her to lunch at the New Statesman during those beady days, and told me that, so moved was he by her, that he made an exception to one of his most stringent rules: that is, he met her at the door when she turned up, rather than having her shown upstairs. I don't suppose he'd even have her to lunch now, were he still editing. I hope not, anyway.

Two for 't'

One of the novelties of the White Paper was its spelling. It consistently mis-spelt ' combating ' and ' benefiting ' as ' cornbatting ' and ' benefitting.' Some readers may think it ill becomes The Spectator to draw attention to the spelling lapses of others, but we would argue that most of our mistakes are typographical. Anyway, it was interesting to see how the White Paper's mistakes were handled by the press. The Times on every occasion amended the spelling to the normal usage. The Daily Telegraph, in direct quotations from the White Paper, has both ' combating ' and 'combatting.' The Guardian, on the other hand, follows the White Paper with ' combatting ' but reverts to one ' t' for benefiting.' The general confusion was not assisted by the official handout summarising the White Paper. This, when it quoted the White Paper directly, amended it to benefiting '; but when it used its own language to summarise a different passage it followed the erroneous example of its original with ' combatting.'

I trust the Government, when it gets down to the problem of actually combating Violence and of actually persuading Ulster how benefiting is the British connection, will behave with more consistency than it spells.

No common sense

The nonsense talked and argued, and the performances given, by the new permis sives sometimes make life difficult for those who, like myself, are opposed to censorship on the ground that the good of freedom of speech outweighs the bad of corrupting films, television and printed words. I think we have to insist that free dom of speech and of the printed word must at all costs be preserved. This need not include freedom of expression, if by expression is meant, say, pornographic displays. Even if these do not corrupt adult audiences, they must surely have some effect, and not a good effect, upon the performers, and upon such children as might see them.

"Freedom of expression" is, in fact, a useless idea — does anyone believe that a man who enjoys raping !infants should be free thus to express himself?

Another piece of nonsense is the familiar proposition which goes something like this: the body is nothing to be ashamed of, nor are its natural functions; therefore, the body may at any time be exposed, and its natural functions displayed. A young schoolteacher, found guilty of gross indecency by Swansea magistrates for offences with two boys and two girls during a sex lesson she was giving, said that the children "wanted to know about sex, and as I have been teaching them that the bocjy is not something to be ashamed of, I felt I could not refuse . . . I exposed myself because the children asked me to. I have behaved responsibly at all times."

People like this seem to have no commonsense and no notions about privacy, decency and seemliness. What would this teacher have done had the children asked her about the body's excretory functions, as they might well have done? Would she have felt then that she could not refuse?

Tunnel ambiguities

I cannot say that I like the note struck by John Peyton's White Paper on the Channel Tunnel, although its spelling seems sound enough. The document is ambiguous. Formally, it purports, in the Minister's words, "to put together the available facts and other considerations which will form the background against which those concerned will have to decide whether or not to proceed further with so large and important a subject." In his Foreword the Minister also writes, of the growing traffic between the United Kingdom and the Continent, "Much of it passes through the Channel ports of Dover and Folkestone with damaging results for South-East Kent, which even very substantial ex penditure, current and planned, cannot wholly prevent." He might have added, but ominously did not, that a Channel Tunnel, if it were to be successful, would funnel vastly more traffic through South-east Kent.

The defence aspect

The White Paper is very curious about the defence aspect, curtly stating "While a tunnel would have certain implications for military movements, no defence risks are foreseen which could outweigh even the direct advantages of the Tunnel to the Services." Really. What greater defence risk could there be for this country, than that of an invading army pouring through a tunnel? Hitler would have loved there to have been a Channel tunnel. So would Napoleon. The only defence advantage that I can see is that a tunnel would enable more British troops to be landed on, or evacuated from, the Continent.

I fear that the explanation for the tunnel's support is to be found at the end of the first chapter of the White Paper, where it is stated " Britain is no longer economically or socially an island; our decision to join the European Economic Community has only emphasised what our patterns of trade and, indeed, of holidaymaking had already made clear. Traffic to and from the Continent will continue to grow."

Maybe. But if so, it should grow naturally, without Government intervention, and should base itself upon an expansion of the existing sea and air links, particularly from the east coast ports.