This story encapsulates much that has been so pernicious about the 12 years of misrule to which the country has been subjected. No one can remember a government returning in the very next session to try to undo something to which it had agreed (albeit reluctantly) in the preceding parliamentary term. The free speech protection was proposed by Lord Waddington, a former Home Secretary. It stated: "For the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices, shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred."

This was done for a purpose. There are too many instances of people being questioned by the police under existing public order legislation for holding views that may be considered offensive or intolerant for yet another measure to be passed without setting out the circumstances in which it is meant to be used. These instances include a grandmother, Pauline Howe, who was visited by two constables because she wrote to her local council to complain about a gay rights march and what she considered a "public display of indecency". She was told she might have committed a "hate crime".

A similar experience befell Joe and Helen Roberts, a Christian couple lectured by Lancashire police on the evils of "homophobia" after criticising gay rights in a letter to Wyre Borough Council. A few years ago, Lynette Burrows, a family campaigner, was the target of a police inquiry after saying on the radio that she did not believe homosexuals should be allowed to adopt. Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the former head of the Muslim Council, had his collar felt, as did the Bishop of Chester for making remarks in a religious context that no sane person could have taken as stirring up hatred against homosexuals. The most preposterous example was the Oxford student who was arrested and threatened with prosecution for calling a police horse gay.

Given these examples, it was outrageous for the Government to try to remove the additional protection for people who are not seeking to foment hatred of homosexuals or violence against them, but simply expressing an opinion. In a free society, people should be at liberty to hold intolerant views if they wish. Our public order laws are meant to mark the boundary between free speech and a deliberate attempt to whip up violence; yet since they are already misused, it was essential to add "for the avoidance of doubt" to the new law. As Lord Waddington said: "Police officers, pressurised by diversity training, seem to feel duty bound to come down like a ton of bricks on people who express disagreement with the behaviour of some gay rights activists, and members of the public are left feeling harassed and frightened."

The venom with which members of the Government attacked this basic restatement of freedom of expression makes you wonder whether they have taken leave of their senses. Claire Ward, a minister in the Justice department, called it "ill judged, ill conceived and ill advised". She added: "We believe we have got the balance right without the so-called freedom of expression saving provision."

It was that "so-called" that gave the game away, a sneering reference to a principle that it is supposedly Parliament's duty to uphold. This Government has never understood that it cannot legislate away bigotry and intolerance; nor should it seek to stifle strongly held religious views. It can set a framework for ensuring that rabble-rousers are properly dealt with under the law. But we are not talking about that. This is about suppressing thoughts or opinions because a particular party or pressure group does not like them. Well, they have to live with them in a free society; and ours has become progressively less free as people are told what to think, what to do, what to eat, where to smoke, how much to drink, who to like and who not to.

Why did the Government fight tooth and nail to try to remove from the Statute Book a measure intended to protect the innocent and guide the police away from making so many absurd judgments because they think that is what the law requires?

A "for the avoidance of doubt" clause should have been included in many other new laws over the past 12 years that have had what ministers insist were unintended consequences. Labour may have been beaten back this time; but it will try again to chip away at our liberties. So, "for the avoidance of doubt", when the time comes, it would be better to kick them out of office before they cause any more damage.

END