UK limiting freedom of expression for immigrants

It seems that the UK government plans to limit freedom of expression for immigrants wishing to become citizens. The Guardian has the story. It seems if you voice opposition to government policy (and by this I mean the policy of the current party in power) you can be declined citizenship:

At the weekend stories attributed to government sources suggested that immigrants who took part in anti-war demonstrations could jeopardise their chances of qualifying for citizenship.

....

But, when it was pointed out that demonstrating was not illegal, Woolas suggested that an applicant could also lose points not just for breaking the law – but also for engaging in certain activities that were legal.

Sarah Montague, the presenter, asked: "Are you effectively saying to people who want to have a British passport, 'You can have one, and when you've got one you can demonstrate as much as you like, but until then don't'?"

Woolas replied: "In essence, yes. In essence we are saying that the test that applies to the citizen should be broader than the test that applies to the person who wants to be a citizen. I think that's a fair point of view, to say that if you want to come to our country and settle, you should show that adherence."

That's Phil Woolas, the immigration minister. Well, Phil, allow me to acquaint you with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights:

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see any clauses where it says that it's fine to limit these rights if the person is applying for citizenship.

This isn't just a bad thing for immigrants: if new citizens are biased towards that agree with a particular political party due to requirements for citizenship, then it also skews the electorate. Allowing this decision to go through is essentially allowing a single political party to manipulate elections by biasing the selection of eligible voters.

Frankly I think Mr Woolas should consider resigning for conflating party interests (i.e. the Labour party's interests) with the national good on such a massive and dangerous scale. But he won't. It seems the last honourable man left the party in 2003.

But at least I have something to comfort myself with. Being Irish, I am an immigrant, but I am also entitled to vote in parliamentary elections. Oh, and since I am entitled to live and work in the UK, and my passport allows me to travel at least as easily as a UK one, I don't really have to worry about his threats. Guess which party can't count on my support?