Screening probationary subjects -WTH?

I've no problem with the principle of asking citizens to be well along the way to understanding at least one of the official languages of a country they'd like to be a citizen of (I'd expect the same if I was migrating). I have no problem with them broadly agreeing to work within the boundaries of law and ethos (if it could be defined). However, I am worried by this proposal reported here: War protest migrants may face passport penalties And this is what I'm taking exception to: "New migrants who demonstrate an 'active disregard for UK values', possibly including protesting at homecoming parades of troops from Afghanistan, could find their applications for a British passport blocked under new citizenship proposals published today." 'Active disregard' maybe; though disregard is not really what is meant, I suspect: 'disrespect' or 'contempt' might be the thing. However, it's really the example of what might be regarded as an instance of this. I think that a born subject (remember, actually, we aren't really citizens folks, we're subjects of her Britannic majesty and her heirs according to law) could protest at a parade without being even jailed provided the protest was not violent or likely to cause a breach of the peace. I don't think we should be screening people out for opinions which would be considered within the bounds of free speech (that is not criminal conspiracy or hate speech). The irony would be that we are asking them to have respect for diversity and expression of diversity whilst stifling in them legitimate diversity and opinion.
Now to be fair, Chris Huhne does say, "there should be no question of barring people because they criticise government policy. Democratic values must come first", but the example given is worrying. First they come for probationary citizens, then they come for you and me. Who gets to decide what is 'active disregard'; it sounds like one of those elastic concepts which could end up applying to anyone who sees things differently. Of course, it wouldn't start that way, but history does seem to teach it never does; it always starts 'reasonably'.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you. (And I want to know what the MoD have done with the photo of me on a protest ...)