In December, Observer columnist Henry Porter launched a series of attacks on what he saw as a sustained government assault on civil liberties, writes Rafael Behr.
The articles (you can read some of them here, here, here and here) provoked some interesting responses and Tony Blair wrote an article in The Observer defending his government's record.
In this Sunday's newspaper he responds directly to Henry's views. The two men exchanged emails debating the subject, which you can read here.
Now we want to know your views, and we have been promised a response from government.
Has our constitution been subjected to authoritarian vandalism as Henry suggests, or are the laws he reviles in fact a legitimate response to the demands of government and the need to protect us from new forms of crime - including the suicide bomb?
Is the freedom from crime or terror an alienable right that can be traded with, or even trump other freedoms? Does Britain need a written constitution?
