KEY POINTS:
Exactly whose security is being served by one of the solemn pledges exacted from Ahmed Zaoui that he "will not publish in any form any statements that could be interpreted as promoting violence"? It is hard to see how this country could be endangered by any such statement from him, and hard to see how any other's security could be at risk if Mr Zaoui was allowed to speak freely at this distance.
The only people who stand to suffer if Mr Zaoui was to give vent to views "that could be interpreted as promoting violence" are his lawyers, who presented him always to have been a peaceable man, and, now, the Security Intelligence Service, which has revised its assessment of him.
They are the parties to the deal that has seen the SIS revoke the risk certificate against him in return for the pledge and promises of co-operation with the service. The suspicion that the gagging clause is primarily for their benefit is reinforced by the undertaking required of him to consult the SIS if he is unsure whether a proposed statement might be interpreted as promoting violence.
The only losers in this arrangement are the public, who would be very interested in Mr Zaoui's unguarded comments. He is the most prominent refugee in this country from the tension in Islamic states that has generated terrorism worldwide. As an Algerian politician, member of a religious party that won an election only to be foiled by a military coup, his honest views would be interesting.
Prudently, he has said almost nothing in the five years he has been waiting here to find out if he can stay. Unfortunately, the credibility of anything he says now will be compromised because there are things he is not allowed to say. For good or ill, let him speak.
