Why, therefore, has he, along with the rest of his Cabinet colleagues, been unable to apply the same understanding to what is, I imagine, the far greater effect of this Government’s foreign policy in Iraq?ANDREW BAXTERLONDON W5 IMF is combatting Niger famine Sir: I must take the strongest possible exception to the accusation that the IMF contributed to the crisis in Niger (“IMF and EU are blamed for starvation in Niger”, 1 August).The country is facing severe crop shortfalls because of a lengthy drought, limited irrigation, and a plague of locusts. Let’s give all this politically correct tripe a rest and let the police get on with their difficult job.DARAN TURNERCOLCHESTER, ESSEXSir: Peter Hain appears to understand the principle of cause and effect when he says that the current stop-and-search policy will act as a recruiting agent for terrorism (report, 2 August). I speak as a British citizen of mixed race origin and if the police should want to stop me and search me they are more than welcome. May I draw her attention to the fact that many innocent citizens of this country, irrespective of race, colour, or creed are now fearful of being blown up while going about their business on the streets of London, on the Tube, on the buses or on aeroplanes, and all this is down to misguided Islamic extremists.The fault lies not with the law enforcement agencies of this country but with the extremists who happen to be of Islamic persuasion and of brown skin tone. The government should ponder this and ditch these laws, and for once show us that it is actually there to listen and can act for us, the citizens.ERMINIA YARDLEYLONDON SE3Sir: Roma Tearne seeks Tony Blair’s assurance that her sons will not be mistaken for suicide bombers and be shot while walking the streets of London or anywhere else in Britain (letter, 2 August). The patronising laws which exist to protect the rights of the accused at the expense of everyone else are wrong.As Ms Brooke rightly says, these contempt of court laws show a total lack of respect for the public in general.

We deserve the right to know what is going on in this disgraceful “war on terror”. The right of a defendant to a fair trial far outweighs the public’s right to have up-to-the-minute information about police investigations.RICHARD MARRLONDON W3Sir: I fully agree with Heather Brooke’s article. Her argument is fundamentally flawed.Her main justification for scrapping the contempt of court laws is that the public are not affected by what they read or see in the media, which is ironic because her article itself is an attempt to influence opinion.There is a hierarchy of rights, and the most important are the rights to life and freedom. They protested because we could foresee that a loosely worded law on incitement would target the very Muslim communities who felt they wanted it. The law would also unleash litigious religious purists to use the courts and media for their purposes.Indeed, none of the effects of religious hatred legislation will be conducive to the social cohesion we so badly need.

We hardly needed the tragedy of terrorist bombs in London to alert us to the fact that religions are probably the best propagators of hatred of other religions, and that each, like any ideology, has its extremists.We have seen writers, including Salman Rushdie, Hanif Kureishi, Gurpreet Bhatti, and comedians and artists, not to mention some of the best legal minds in the country, protesting against the government’s proposals Their action was hardly in the name of self-interest. But laws enacted because of a desire to be seen to do something in a crisis are almost always used by over-zealous police officers to oppress minorities. And then the minorities, deprived of the human rights enjoyed by the majority, resort to other methods.ANDREW C BLUNDYLONDON SE7Sir: Steve Richards is short-sighted in his view of the Government’s Religious Hatred Bill. You may disagree with, for example, Henry Morris, but his work is backed up with a vast amount of scientific data.ALAN HOWECLACTON-ON-SEA, ESSEX, Laws could damage human rights Sir: Steve Richards seems to have lost the plot (“It is not illiberal for the state to curtail free speech in protection of its citizens”, Opinion, 2 August).If there was the slightest evidence that the proposed anti-terror laws would have made any difference to the attacks in London or to the likelihood of further such attacks, then they might command more popular support.

He is not a creationist.Thirdly, it is absurd to claim that creationists are without scientific evidence to back up their claims. Michael Behe, the well-known author of Darwin’s Black Box, is himself a professor of biochemistry. William Dembski, one of the leading proponents of intelligent design, states baldly that the theory “shares none of scientific creationism’s religious commitments”.Secondly, Darwinism, while admittedly accepted by much of the scientific community, is a theory under increasing attack from within that community. Trying to rename creationism as intelligent design is dishonest, and Christians aren’t going to win over any souls by being caught taking liberties with the truth.