Jim Hopkins: Why are we principled about one tyrant and not others

"Excuse me, sir. Excuse me," pleaded the dishevelled vagabond, clearly the worse for wear.

On the crowded pavements, people averted their gaze, anxious not to be delayed by the forlorn figure seeking to engage them in unsolicited discourse.

Undeterred by their manifest lack of interest, the unfortunate fellow tried again. "Excuse me, sir," he implored, this time clasping the arm of a suave passerby.

"What do you want?" snarled the stranger. "If it's money, I don't have any."

"Oh, no, sir. It's not money. I just want to ask you a question, sir."

"Well, be quick," said the suave one. "I've got a very important meeting with some very important people in a very important news organisation."

"Really, sir?" inquired the vagrant. "What do you do?"

The passerby sighed an exasperated sigh. "Well, if you must know, I'm a political commentator. And I really don't have time."

"Are you, sir?" interrupted the vagrant. "Good heavens. How fortuitous. You're precisely the kind of learned person with whom I wish to have intercourse."

"Hang about," barked the stranger.

"Oh, no, sir. Nothing untoward. Just dialogue," the dishevelled one explained. "You see, sir, I'm a columnist. Not a commentator, mind. Nothing so flash. No, I just fills the space between the ads, sir, so the readers don't feel cheated. And I'm puzzled, sir. Look, I might be wrong, but did we or did we not invade Iraq?"

"Of course we didn't," snapped the commentator. "It was a disgraceful, illegal invasion similar to the militaristic excursions of the Romans and British at the height of their imperial arrogance. And it wasn't sanctioned by the UN, either. So of course we didn't support it. Indeed, we publicly stated our belief that there would have been much less gore with Gore. A bold and courageous stand, I might add."

"Indeed you might, sir. A most astute observation, in my ill-informed opinion. So, just getting this straight, sir: we didn't fight them although they were a despotic and despicable regime which, under other circumstances, we might very well have sought to wipe off the face of the Earth ... "

The commentator nodded as the bedraggled columnist continued his meandering chain of thought.

"Except when one of them despotic, tyrannical types arrives at our borders."

"No, no. Not at our borders," said the commentator brusquely. "In Bangkok. That's where the trouble started."

"Yes, sir. Another point well made, sir," the columnist replied. "But it was our office and he did say 'Hello, I am a diplomat who used to serve the despotic and tyrannical regime that you so courageously chose not to fight and I'd like to visit your country, please, with a view to possibly seeking asylum'. And we said 'Certainly, sir. Go right on through. Just make sure there's no fresh fruit in your luggage."

"Yes, well, it was an administrative blunder that has gravely embarrassed our Government, who've therefore moved swiftly to close this unfortunate loophole in our otherwise impregnable defences."

"Impregnable's the word, sir. Even though, hypothetically, they might've been breached more than 300,000 times since 1999. For all we know, sir, this vigilant little country of ours might have unintentionally welcomed some despicable tyrant's entire army, all of whom are now happily passing themselves off as sharemilkers in Dargaville."

"Don't be alarmist," rasped the commentator. "That simply couldn't happen."

"If you say so, sir," the columnist responded. "But some very strange things have happened lately. Like this diplomat chappie from a despotic regime - which we wouldn't fight - who comes here and tells everyone who he is and what he's done and that's all perfectly fine until he gets mistaken for somebody else entirely, some ministerial chappie who actually arrived about 11 months later and all of a sudden it's 'Sod off, Saddam' and 'Go home, Omar'. Look, call me a queer tosser, sir, but it doesn't make sense."

"All right then, I will call you a queer tosser," yelled the commentator, "because those of us who understand these things realise we have an international obligation to oppose tyrannical regimes in a principled and consistent fashion."

"You mean both ways, sir?"

"What?"

"Well, you know, not just coming in but also going out, sir. I mean, presumably, if we're taking a principled and consistent stand against the tyrannical regimes, we'll not only stop their evil henchmen coming in but we'll also refuse to visit them in their despotic place of residence, sir. And, therefore, that nice Mr Swine will be announcing next week that he won't be giving our cricket team any visas to go to Zimbabwe."

"Of course he won't be announcing that, you blithering idiot."

"Why not, sir?"

"Because no one's worried about Zimbabwe. They're only worried about finding some fiendish Baathist terrorist under their comfy bed at home. That's why we've taken a principled and consistent stand."

The poor old columnist scratched his puzzled head. "Sorry, sir, I don't understand," he stammered. "Why are we being so principled about one tyrannical despot and not the other?"

"Because it's election year, you moron," bellowed the commentator. "Now, if you'll excuse me, I must get to my meeting."

"Certainly, sir," said the columnist. "You go, sir. And thank you very much, sir. You've made everything crystal clear."