The rebels of southern Sudan and Darfur are blessed as noble victims, but the Buddhists of Tibet are ignored because their pacifism, and China's overwhelming strength, make it easy to forget them. The MEK in Iran was castigated as a vicious terror group when the US was toning down its quarrel with Iran and is being rehabilitated now that Washington is interested in regime change again.It's not just the hypocrisy of it all - the way that the Middle East is singled out for "democratic" concern and freedom fighters are treated differently depending on where they come from - which arouses the anger of the developing world against the lecturing from the West. It is that this hypocrisy reflects so obviously a mask for Western self-interest. America wants to change the world order, but only where it suits them.Now it may be that, for security reasons, the US is concentrating on the Middle East first and, in due course, will turn its attention to Burma and Tibet.

The prospect that British citizens, as well as foreign nationals, could face indefinite house arrest - one possibility under the proposed new "control orders" - rang the civil liberties alarm in a way that detention orders applicable only to foreign nationals had not. That such orders would be issued not by a judge, but on the say-so of the Home Secretary, raised the deeply troubling spectre of the law being distorted for political ends.Since then, the arguments have swung furiously to and fro, culminating in this week's row of defeats in the Lords. Following last night's government victory in the Commons, battle is rejoined in the Lords today.Here we have politics at its fiercest and most raw, conducted at many levels. We have a remarkably united Upper Chamber pitted against a sharply divided Commons. We have the Tories, led by a former hard-line home secretary, defending civil liberties and leaving Labour to argue for the primacy of national security. And we have a British Prime Minister insisting that while civil liberties are "extremely important", freedom from terrorism "is the most important consideration that we have to have uppermost in our mind".All the while the clock is ticking. The provisions under which 11 foreign terrorist suspects are currently held, most of them at Belmarsh high-security prison, expire on Monday The general election may be less than two months away.

The Government cannot afford to leave a legislative vacuum - or, if it does, it must make sure someone else takes the blame: the Tories and Liberal Democrats, for instance, if they keep up their opposition.Urgency fosters brinkmanship and scare-mongering. The Home Secretary yesterday held out the prospect of the Belmarsh detainees being released within the week. The former head of the Metropolitan Police had earlier spoken of 100, perhaps 200, al-Qa'ida-trained terrorists stalking British streets. As with earlier scares - the tanks at Heathrow, the ricin in north London - the British public, to its great credit, has refused to be panicked.

Michael Howard, meanwhile, accused Tony Blair of wanting the Bill to fail so that he could brand the Tories soft on terrorism.The next two days should show whether the Government really does want this Bill on the statute book or whether it is merely using it, cynically, to discredit the Opposition and frighten voters about terrorism in the run-up to the election The Home Secretary has conceded a little ground. He has allowed that judges will be brought into the process of issuing "control orders" and agreed to regular parliamentary reviews But he has adamantly refused to compromise on anything else. It will still be possible for suspects to be detained indefinitely without charge or trial at the behest of the Home Secretary.In justification, Mr Blair says he is acting on the advice of the security services and the police - in other words, "trust me, trust my judgement" Which highlights a separate problem. It was the advice of the security services and Mr Blair's judgement that took us to war in Iraq Both were deeply flawed. Is it any wonder that MPs, of all parties, are rather more sceptical this time around?Even if this tangled legislation is eventually passed in an acceptable form, however, one conclusion is inescapable. The coincidence of a fiercely negative ruling by the Law Lords, the imminent expiry of emergency powers and the proximity of a general election are not conducive to just, wise or even competent law-making The evidence is all before us..