Is criminalising membership in the banned group Islam4UK really necessary...

[Ladymuck]

... "to tackle terrorism? as stated by the British Home Secretary?

[SteveT]

What suggestions would you make to improve the situation Ladym?

[mockney piers]

Improve what situation SteveT?

I have to say this announcement made me feel very uneasy for two reasons.

One, we're a free society (well we used to be)

Two, it's suppressing debate and dialogue. It forces the discontented even further underground making them harder to keep an eye on, and to many moderates or undecided it probably helps legitimise extremism to a certain extent.

Just because we (there i go with the royal again) don't like someone doesn't mean we can ban them.

[giggirl]

New Labour has put civil liberties in this country back a hundred years. Look at the BNP - it's depressing to any sane person that they are out there doing what they do but I don't want to live somewhere where whole groups of people are legally banned/silenced. As the Godfather said "keep your friends close and your enemies closer". It won't do any good to drive them further underground.

[Santerme]

Why ban them? Why not just take their money away?

I mean he cannot be out doing his best to get back into employment when he is busy being an oxygen thieving little gobshite can he?

Is it not possible to draft a law along the lines of, "Acceptance of State benefits from the UK government implies an acceptance of the basic tenets of British law, including Parliamentary democracy. Any individual who can be demonstrated to be a member of an organisation that intends to overthrow that democracy, may not receive any benefits from the British Government, including health care and education provision. Members of organisations which express a desire to change the policies of the British Government through democratic means shall be exempt from this ruling."?

Indeed, if he carries on and the legislation incorporates as purported that simple name changes will not be tolerated, I think the game will catch up with him and Bellmarsh will beckon and he can hang out with the real terrorists and lead them in their war on the west (at least until he gets a hook up his arse from Abu Hamza while Abu whispers 'My but you've got a purty mouth').

[ratty]

100 years? Are you sure?

[????]

Under the Terrorism Act 2000, a group can be banned if it "commits or participates in acts of terrorism, prepares for, promotes or encourages terrorism or is otherwise concerned in terrorism".

Groups can also be outlawed if they "unlawfully glorify the commission or preparation of acts of terrorism".

So, if you believe the government believes this then fine....on the other hand if they are playing to the gallery - especially in those areas where they are worried about BNP taking their vote eg Dagenham - and that is my my supicion, then it is another terrible erosion of our civil rights which sadly this Labour government has an absoultely appalling record on.

However, these extremist idiots should have been given contempt of court for failing to acknowledge the judge...if a John Smith (;-)) tried that stunt in an english court he'd have been in contempt faster than you can say 'one rule for us'

[????]

100 years? Magna Carta is 700 years old and today and enshrines the principal of the right to be tried by a jury of your peers the first trial without jury being allowed thanks to Labour Legislation started today

[Santerme]

It's even more simple than that, the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006

The bill amended the Public Order Act 1986:

Section 29A

Meaning of "religious hatred"

In this Part "religious hatred" means hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief.

Let them march and arest them....they feel everyone else lacks religious belief

Poetic justice

[????]

Sorry Santerme, to be clear I am all in favour of the march itself being banned for Public Order reasons etc but the OP's referring to the fact that the organisation itself has now been made illegal

[Santerme]

I realise that but I believe the end game here is to find a way of arresting the tosser and getting him off the streets...because we know he will continue to agitate under a different name.

It is a game of chess, my way is simply to indulge him and hit him with public order offences under the 2006 Act.

Banning the organisation is window dressing.

Sorry iPhone typing

[flapjackdavey]

Why ban them? Why not just take their money away?

I mean he cannot be out doing his best to get back into employment when he is busy being an oxygen thieving little gobshite can he?

He thinks Allah pays his JSA , the idiot

he and his cronies are despicable little rodents ... sad and ridiculous .

[mockney piers]

"The and his cronies are despicable little rodents ... sad and ridiculous"

Exactly, a small band of self important little shits. A demagogue and his gullible idiot. They're not dangerous themselves, like allowing Griffin to talk his real agenda he exposes himself. The more these people are vocal the more it is obvious how ridiculous they are.

Banning them lends them legitimacy ironically, it allows them to feel right and righteous in their voice and their cause.

The idea of banning benefits for those who do not agree with some basic tenets of citizenship is seductive but down that route madness lies.

I'm with quids, ban the march on grounds of disorder and use existing powers to arrest if proof of incitement to violence is caught, treat them as criminals, not as political matyrs.

[mockney piers]

Oh, and Santerme, I feel your iPhone pain!!!

[PeckhamRose]

I think this is a drawing room subject.

But having said that, I don't think it is a matter of necessity or not, I think the point is that here we have yet another LAW made for us by a party that just loves making laws saying what we can and can't do.

[Ladymuck]

SteveT Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What suggestions would you make to improve the

> situation Ladym?

Well, I am not too sure about suggestions, but what I am fairly sure about is that criminalising membership of this organisation will do little to improve "the situation".

[matthew123]

mockney piers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> One, we're a free society (well we used to be)

As far as I am aware this country has never been a free society (if so when?) - it may have been improved or rolled back to various points through history but the way people are makes it necessary to have checks on so-called freedom because otherwise people/groups will just take the piss.

[Mick Mac]

giggirl Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> New Labour has put civil liberties in this country

> back a hundred years.

> I don't want to live somewhere where whole groups of people are legally banned/silenced.

Not convinced by that GG.

The tories in the 1980s gagged Sinn Fein and prevented them speaking in any visual media in England or the UK. So we are not going back 100 years - 20 maybe.

[i'm not intending to change the subject - just challenging that particular point - please continue...]

[brum]

I can't see how banning an organisation will reduce the threat of terrorism. Just as the ridiculous ban on the voice of Gerry Adams didn't prevent IRA attacks. It all smacks of politicians abusing powers for political expediency.

[Magpie]

My understanding is that the people behind this group were previously members of other islamic groups which have been banned due to links to terrorist groups/encouragement of terror. Hence its just the next step in that game, ban the latest version, and wait for them to start up another group with the same aims etc only for that to get banned.

What sticks in the throat is that this Choudary character is in receipt of benefits (both financial and indeed legal) from the very state and system he is attempting to abolish. He is effectively laughing at us and our way of life. I assume that jobseekers allowance can removed if he is not actively pursuing a job, but not sure about the rest of the money he receives. Further, there are a number of foreign nationals in the orgnisation, but we won't deport, again this

sticks in the throat.

On the other hand the groups activities are doing the opposite of what they intend to achieve, ie it effectively drums up anti-islamic feeling in the country and support for the BNP, rather than paving the way for a Sharia Britain, and resulting in mainstream political parties taking a stricter approach to immigration.

[vinceayre]

ooh I wouldn't have said that Magpie, you will be denounced as a Islamaphobe, racist and may even be called a white prick by certain sections of the forum, don't you know to hold this view is simply not allowed and is probably in contravention of the human rights of these mentally ill, and therefore totally without blame, wannabe terrorists.

And apparently according to some forumites they only get tuppence a week in benefits anyway, not that they would know how to screw the system,they are upstanding members of our community after all. Rather like those nice young men wrongly convicted of calling our soldiers murderers rapists and baby killers they are all on benefits as well, and so they should be, poor dears life must be so hard for them hating the country you live in, maybe we could all club together and give them the air fair to a nice free state like Iran perhaps where they can slag of the government and rulers to their hearts content, that is until they are hung of course.

[jimmy two times]

I'm fed up of this kind of thing. They should be F*cked off out of the country.

[*Bob*]

vinceayre Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

Maybe we

> could all club together and give them the air fair

> to a nice free state like Iran perhaps where they

> can slag of the government and rulers to their

> hearts content, that is until they are hung of

> course.

It's a perverse position you've got there, Vince.

That UK residents should respect the freedoms of speech enjoyed under UK law by.. er.. keeping their mouths shut!

And the difference bewtween a country that hangs people for saying the wrong thing and a country that deports people who say the wrong thing to a country that hangs people for saying the wrong thing.. the difference is..??

[Huguenot]

"ooh I wouldn't have said that Magpie, you will be denounced as a Islamaphobe, racist and may even be called a white prick by certain sections of the forum, don't you know to hold this view is simply not allowed and is probably in contravention of the human rights of these mentally ill, and therefore totally without blame, wannabe terrorists"

You really can't work it out, can you vinceayre?

One was a bloke who appeared to be mentally ill, the other was a silly bunch of stoodents who create identity through conflict.

One is an argument that debsases people because they're foreign and ill, the other debates benefits for people who reject the political system.

Arse / Not arse.

[Santerme]

Magpie Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> My understanding is that the people behind this

> group were previously members of other islamic

> groups which have been banned due to links to

> terrorist groups/encouragement of terror. Hence

> its just the next step in that game, ban the

> latest version, and wait for them to start up

> another group with the same aims etc only for that

> to get banned.

>

> What sticks in the throat is that this Choudary

> character is in receipt of benefits (both

> financial and indeed legal) from the very state

> and system he is attempting to abolish. He is

> effectively laughing at us and our way of life. I

> assume that jobseekers allowance can removed if he

> is not actively pursuing a job, but not sure about

> the rest of the money he receives. Further, there

> are a number of foreign nationals in the

> orgnisation, but we won't deport, again this

> sticks in the throat.

>

> On the other hand the groups activities are doing

> the opposite of what they intend to achieve, ie it

> effectively drums up anti-islamic feeling in the

> country and support for the BNP, rather than

> paving the way for a Sharia Britain, and resulting

> in mainstream political parties taking a stricter

> approach to immigration.

I tihnk you may be missing the point...the whole idea of this now banned organisation is too create rift and division, it was the objective, actually eloquently addressed by Ken Livingstone after 7/7, of the tube bombers...

These lowlifes are different in only one respect, words and actions are protected under this country's democractic process and is their inalienable right to speak and march, which I through gritted teeth support.

This country after a shakey start is embracing multiculturalism, it has come a very long way in my lifetime.

Only in an state of anarchy could these people's view become mainstream, not that in a state of anarchy they would last long!!