TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- UK's Blair cracks down on Islamist radicals
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

UK's Blair cracks down on Islamist radicals

quote:

UK's Blair cracks down on Islamist radicals Fri Aug 5, 2005 11:33 AM ET By Katherine Baldwin LONDON (Reuters) - Britain's Tony Blair unveiled sweeping anti-terrorism measures on Friday to silence or deport Islamist radicals even at the expense of human rights laws, alarming Muslim leaders and civil rights campaigners. Saying the landscape had changed since last month's London bombings, the prime minister announced plans to ban two Islamist groups and bring in new powers to expel or exclude foreign nationals who incite violence or glorify terrorism. "The first batch of deportation orders will begin shortly. Let no-one be in any doubt -- the rules of the game are changing," Blair told a news conference. Some of the measures put Blair on collision course with the courts and human rights activists who had reserved judgment since the July bombings on his anti-terrorism plans. They also threatened to rupture a cross-party consensus in place since the attacks. The opposition Liberal Democrats said Blair could not count on their support, warning him the measures could inflame tensions. Four British Muslims, three of Pakistani origin, killed themselves and 52 others in blasts on three underground trains and a bus on July 7. A second wave of attacks on July 21 killed no one but caused panic when four bombs failed to explode. Since the bombings, Blair has been under pressure from much of the media to silence or expel "preachers of hate" who use mosques to incite violence, or who have justified the attacks. Blair said he would also seek new powers to close down places of worship used to foment extremism and deport any foreigner who actively engaged with extremist bookshops or Web Sites. The moves come as Italy and other European countries toughen their anti-terrorism laws in the wake of the London attacks. UNDERMINING DEMOCRACY? Blair said he wanted to work with the Muslim community, not alienate them. But critics said he had gone too far in the delicate balancing act between liberty and security. Blair said Britain could override human rights laws if courts blocked deportations and London failed to gain assurances from other countries that they will not torture deportees. Britain's courts have in the past thwarted government expulsion measures because the European Convention on Human Rights requires guarantees deportees will not be mistreated. "The circumstances of our national security have now self-evidently changed ... We can retest it and if necessary we can amend the human rights act and that covers the British court's interpretation of the law," Blair said. Shami Chakrabati of rights group Liberty dismissed Blair's plan to accept "pieces of paper" as guarantees against torture and condemned Blair's willingness to override human rights laws. "I think that shows, in my view, a clear lack of respect for some of the most fundamental values in our democracy," she said. Britain is seeking non-torture guarantees from 10 states including Lebanon and Algeria, after striking a preliminary deal with Jordan last month. Blair said Britain would outlaw Hizb ut-Tahrir, a group which says it is dedicated to creating an Islamic caliphate centered on the Middle East but rejects violence. The Muslim Council of Britain said it believed the group to be non-violent and said banning it would drive it underground. Imran Waheed, a spokesman for Hizb ut-Tahrir, said the group would contest any move against it: "We think this exposes the government's fanaticism in curtailing legitimate Islamic political debate in Britain for their own political ends." Blair said London would also ban a successor organization to al Muhajiroun, which celebrated the Sept. 11 2001 attacks on the United States but has been officially disbanded. Blair recognized he faced battles ahead but vowed to ensure his proposals were implemented. "I'm also absolutely and completely determined to make sure this happens," he said. (Additional reporting by Andrew Gray) http://today.reuters.com/news/newsA...-BRITAIN-DC.XML

Man, curbing civil liberties and abondoning some of the most fundamental tennets of western democracy (the right to free-speech, the right to freedom of religion, a commitment to the upholding of human rights and so forth) while caught up in a state of panic will sure show those terrorists who's boss!

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Man, curbing civil liberties and abondoning some of the most fundamental tennets of western democracy (the right to free-speech, the right to freedom of religion, a commitment to the upholding of human rights and so forth) while caught up in a state of panic will sure show those terrorists who's boss!

Renegade have you ever heard the discourse that openly takes place by some of these individuals in reference to Western society, while they live in the midst of it mind you. Freedom of speech has always entailed responsibility in our actions, sadly until something happens, after the fact usually then people speak up. Protesting the war and presenting differing political viewpoints are one thing, standing in front of the Finsbury Park Mosque and calling for jihad, cut them down limb by limb and we side with the terrorists are all statements that leaves one dumbfounded. In a democracy there are ways to express one's opinions, advocating violence tacitly or directly through such filth, while under the guise of religous freedoms does not hold sway. All of a sudden the freedom of speech of these hatemongers becomes more important than the words they preach to spread hatred of others. What is freedom of speech without responsibility when others use that right to threaten the broader society as a whole.

If you are in Britain, respect Britain. I am an immigrant myself and would never preach or endorse the deaths of other people in America no matter that I disagreed with the war in Iraq.

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan Renegade have you ever heard the discourse that openly takes place by some of these individuals in reference to Western society, while they live in the midst of it mind you.

Oh yes. Believe me, we have our fair-share of idiotic Muslim fundamentalists in Australia as well...

quote:

Freedom of speech has always entailed responsibility in our actions, sadly until something happens, after the fact usually then people speak up.

The right to free speech and the need to be responsible for our actions are essentially two different things. Our right to speak freely extends to the point at which the speech incites direct physical harm to individuals (to use the old example, this would mean shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre or, to use the more topical example, encouraging the faithful to slaughter "infidels") and so, providing that these boundaries are not crossed, this is the extent to which our responsibilities lie with regards to speech so as far as I'm concerned. Anything else - regardless of how abhorrent, distasteful or stupid the topic of the speech may seem - is fair game.

quote:

Protesting the war and presenting differing political viewpoints are one thing, standing in front of the Finsbury Park Mosque and calling for jihad, cut them down limb by limb and we side with the terrorists are all statements that leaves one dumbfounded.

If these men are saying "It is your categorical duty as a Muslim to kill the unfaithful" then, as I said above, this would constitute a direct call to inflict physical harm and this goes well beyond the right one has to speak as one wishes. If, however, the extent of their "hate-speech" consists of platitudes like "Osama bin Laden is a good Muslim" or "These terrorist attacks were a justifiable response to Western policy in the middle-east" (which, let's face it, are the sorts of things that the Muslim clerics targetted by this new legislation are saying - I have not heard of one of these clerics here, in the UK, or anywhere else in the western world directly calling for violence against their fellow civilians) then this is, as I see it, well within their fundamental right they have to speak freely. Can you deport / imprison someone for calling Stalin or Hitler good men, despite the large number of people they killed? Could you deport them for supporting the Vietnam war, in which tens of thousands of innocent civilians were indiscriminantly killed in the name of an ideology? If not then what, exactly, is the difference?

quote:

In a democracy there are ways to express one's opinions, advocating violence tacitly or directly through such filth, while under the guise of religous freedoms does not hold sway.

You're going to have to distinguish between "advocating" violence and "inciting" violence, though. The invasion of Iraq was inherently violent, for instance, and resulted in the deaths of nearly 500 times as many civilians as the London train bombings, but is Blair likely to imprison / deport the people who supported it?

Like I said, the direct call to violence is inherently wrong and no society need tolerate those who attempt to do so. However, there is a big difference between what these Muslim clerics are saying (or at least what I've read about them saying) and the sort of extremities of speech that would justify them being outlawed.

quote:

All of a sudden the freedom of speech of these hatemongers becomes more important than the words they preach to spread hatred of others.

But that's the thing: freedom of speech is central to the idea of democracy. You can't justify the invasion of a sovereign state under the guise of support for democracy and then follow it up by undermining the fundamental tennets of democracy at home, as Blair and Howard are doing right now. What sort of logic is that?

As an atheist, I find most religious speech distasteful, especially the sort of fundamentalist drivel coming from the mouths of these immams. However, as I recognise the right of these views to be aired publicly (and summarily exposed, publicly, for the idiotic tripe that they are) I will also gladly stand up for their right to say it.

quote:

What is freedom of speech without responsibility when others use that right to threaten the broader society as a whole.

Precisely, but right to free speech != right to incite harm upon society.

quote:

If you are in Britain, respect Britain.

Define respect? I am a British national and an Australian citizen and I don't particularly respect either government at the moment. Do I have an obligation to respect these administrations or the culture / laws they supposedly represent?

quote:

I am an immigrant myself and would never preach or endorse the deaths of other people in America no matter that I disagreed with the war in Iraq.

Yep, obviously agreed.

I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand it is a limit on freedom of speech, which could end up creating more of the same sparks it's trying to get rid of. But on the other hand, it's also a good security mesure. Absolute freedom is self-contradictory in nature. Every law is a limit on some form of freedom, and we all know society does not work without those limits.

Now the thing that bothers me is that this seems to be particularly targeted at muslims. This could make alot of people think it's an attack on islam, and could create more tension. And while blair denounces islamic radicals, he's still working closely with a christian radical.

I think these measures will actually get through, even if barely, and most people will be generally for it. That is until one day the new laws are somehow used against a non-Muslim Westerner voicing their opinion on something. They really are basically saying "don't worry, the laws will only be used on people with a turban." Which is putting a lot of faith in the very same people that lied their way into this.

Changing our fundamental ways of government are obviously a very sensitive issue. Even in these stressful times we might think it necessary but whos to say where it will lead us. Governments are rarely willing to give up power they already have, and what measures such as this certainly do is give them power. It almost seems as if the same pro-democracy leaders are calling for a temporary change to mild demo-authoritarianism (totalitarianism?). You know - only to defeat the enemy and win the battle. Once they're all successfully assimilated to Western ideals, things will change back to normal.

My fear is, once we've entered these demo-authoritarianism forms, the only ones who can change it back are the ones with everything to lose in doing so. That is to say - they won't. Then, go figure, we've become what we were trying to prevent.

Finally someone is going to stand up to those extremists in their country. Anyone who goes to live in a country and spreads hate speech about that country is a fucking moron and should be hanged. It's like all those mexicans who cross here and say that americans suck and call us "gringos."

that's just wrong:

quote:

Blair said Britain would outlaw Hizb ut-Tahrir, a group which says it is dedicated to creating an Islamic caliphate centered on the Middle East but rejects violence.

how are these guys a threat?

I think its about time we stoped paying them benifits and kicked them out of the UK

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan Renegade have you ever heard the discourse that openly takes place by some of these individuals in reference to Western society, while they live in the midst of it mind you. Freedom of speech has always entailed responsibility in our actions, sadly until something happens, after the fact usually then people speak up. Protesting the war and presenting differing political viewpoints are one thing, standing in front of the Finsbury Park Mosque and calling for jihad, cut them down limb by limb and we side with the terrorists are all statements that leaves one dumbfounded. In a democracy there are ways to express one's opinions, advocating violence tacitly or directly through such filth, while under the guise of religous freedoms does not hold sway. All of a sudden the freedom of speech of these hatemongers becomes more important than the words they preach to spread hatred of others. What is freedom of speech without responsibility when others use that right to threaten the broader society as a whole. If you are in Britain, respect Britain. I am an immigrant myself and would never preach or endorse the deaths of other people in America no matter that I disagreed with the war in Iraq.

I agree with you but you do understand the concept of freedom of speech right? If you're for freedom of speech, you're for the freedom of expressing exactly the kind of views you hate and detest, otherwise you're not for freedom of speech. Everyone's for the views they like. And believe me man, I hate extremist and fundamentalist just as much as you do, if not more. I don't want innocent civilians being killed eigther, wheather they're American, British or Iraqi. No sane person would want that. And as a Muslim, I hate these fucking fundamentalist even more than you because of the negative image they give to Islam and Muslims, and how they justify their peverted actions using religion (btw, Islam explicitly forbids harming non-combatants, and particularly does not tolerate women, children and old people being harmed, heck, it even forbids you from destroying public property). If you read up on statistics of hate crimes against Muslims and Arabs after 9-11, you'll be surprised by the proportion and magnitude they've shot up by. Plus, I don't need to look at statistics, I've experienced this stuff directly many times. The fucking fundamentalist bastards are not only a threat to the West but also a threat to Muslims (in the West and elsewhere).

im still waiting for the "OMG BUT WHAT ABOUT TEH" FEELINGS OF THE ISLAM EXTREMEISTS OMG?!?!?!?"

i know some of you treehuggers are thinking it so just come out and say it already.

how is there fredom of speech if its possible to commit a 'hate crime'?

quote:

Originally posted by raydn how is there fredom of speech if its possible to commit a 'hate crime'?

Is that a 1984 reference?

Not really just a thought. I mean it seems to work only one way.

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan What is freedom of speech without responsibility when others use that right to threaten the broader society as a whole.

That, my friend, is a mouthful, and totally dead on.

why werent these measures introduced for the BNP?

I think this is a disgrace to democracy. If we ban ppl from saying stuff like this, then why start wars to defend our "freedoms"?

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r That, my friend, is a mouthful, and totally dead on.

Truly sickening that the freedom of speech of these people are deemed to be at stake while some blame Blair's policy for the bombs and don't even look twice at the perpetrators actions, as some of these comments show what kind of individuals are under scrutiny.

"Omar Bakri Mohammed is a London-based cleric for the al-Muhajiroun group. Mr Bakri caused controversy when he said he would not inform police if he knew Muslims were planning a bomb attack in the UK.

British-born Abu Izzadeen, a spokesman for the group al-Ghurabaa (the Strangers) has declined to condemn the 7 July London bombings.

He told BBC2's Newsnight the bombings were "mujahideen activity" which would make people "wake up and smell the coffee".

Abu Uzair, a former member of al-Muhajiroun, told the same programme that the September 11 attacks in the US were "magnificent".

He said Muslims had previously accepted a "covenant of security" which meant they should not resort to violence in the UK because they were not under threat there.

"We don't live in peace with you any more, which means the covenant of security no longer exists," he said"

Accepted a covenant of security my ass, we don't live in peace with you any more, who is the WE that he speaks of (intolerant Islamists). I don't give a shit if you are white, black, Indian, etc, when you resort to killing innocent people or advocating it you have crossed a boundary. I already see the Lib Dems in Britain saying that they couldn't be counted on to support any policy by Blair as presented, what will they support frankly, nothing being done about these individuals who have no respect for British society and laws. Its the old saying you have to give respect to get it, I will respect their rights to freedom of speech when they respect the right of innocent people to exist in their society who had nothing to do with the war in Iraq. If the war in Iraq is dead wrong, what makes the killing of British citizens on British soil okay in the eyes of these individuals. Sadly those who share the same views like Omar Bakri will always have their defenders who make them out to somehow be the victims, here you have a cleric saying he wouldn't inform on a potential bomber in the UK, imagine what he preaches in the mosques. Sick.

quote:

Originally posted by raydn I think its about time we stoped paying them benifits and kicked them out of the UK

What about the decent Muslims who grew up & were born in the UK as well? British-born Muslims. If they're decent people and don't harm society (and society only benefits from them), why not allow them to stay there?

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan I don't give a shit if you are white, black, Indian, etc, when you resort to killing innocent people or advocating it you have crossed a boundary. I already see the Lib Dems in Britain saying that they couldn't be counted on to support any policy by Blair as presented, what will they support frankly, nothing being done about these individuals who have no respect for British society and laws. Its the old saying you have to give respect to get it, I will respect their rights to freedom of speech when they respect the right of innocent people to exist in their society who had nothing to do with the war in Iraq. If the war in Iraq is dead wrong, what makes the killing of British citizens on British soil okay in the eyes of these individuals. Sadly those who share the same views like Omar Bakri will always have their defenders who make them out to somehow be the victims, here you have a cleric saying he wouldn't inform on a potential bomber in the UK, imagine what he preaches in the mosques. Sick.

You're so full of shit. On the one hand you don't tolerate the killing of innocent Westerners (which you shouldn't), but, on the other hand, you're absolutely OK with innocent Iraqi's being killed (which you shouldn't aswell). And don't give me this bullshit about colateral damage etc. Majority of the prisoners in Abu Gharib are just normal citizens who have nothing to do with insurgency or terrorism, who're being tortured and sexualy abused as we speak. Fucking uraniums bullets the military is using is casuing thousands of Iraqi children to be born with horrendous fucking defects as we speak. How the fuck is targeting and bombing water and energy supplies colateral damage? It's very hypocritical of you to not tolerate innocents British/Americans being killed whereas you don't give a shit about the plight of the Iraqi's nor are you proposing any actions being taken to stop the attrocities currently taking place in Iraq as we speak. And this isn't just limited to Iraq, but broader British/US policies in the Middle East over the last few decades. If you're going to criticize attrocities and injustices, then don't pick which ones will and which ones you won't. They're all wrong.

So stop being a hypocrite NYCTrancefan.

I'm going to take my time to respectfully respond to you, first off do not assume what I think because you do not know jack shit about me and my views. You can ask anyone on this forum and they will state that I in no way support Iraq and collateral damage so before you go about using your profanities like a two bit, jump the gun clutz, know who you are referring to. I have not been posting here frequently as in the past so maybe you don't know my viewpoints about Iraq, in no fucking way do I condone, accept or support what innoncent Iraqis have to endure, so you spare me the assenine slanders about what my views are. I have resisted responding to many of your post, but this one is the worst of all in that you assume I condone what is happening to Iraqis.

Take note I condone no violence against innocent people, and what does any of what you say have to do with the killing of innocent people in Britain or Iraq. The only condoning I see here is an apologist who feels oh well the bombing in Britain may be wrong but there's Iraq. Before you make a post to me take the time to see my posts on Iraq and maybe you will be better informed next time. Note I never once made mention of defending the U.S. troops in Iraq or their actions at any point in my posts and I would challenge you to show me. You would never be able to.

For someone like myself who thinks globally and respects other cultures and societies and have a deep passion and interest for them your statements pertaining to me are insulting and absurd in tone and faulty assumptions.

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan Truly sickening that the freedom of speech of these people are deemed to be at stake while some blame Blair's policy for the bombs and don't even look twice at the perpetrators actions, as some of these comments show what kind of individuals are under scrutiny.

Well, that was a very misleading statement when I already made clear that I'm opposed to innocent people, regardless of their culture/ideology/religion/nationality/whatever, being killed. Sorry if I misunderstood, but, you seemed to be implying alot of things about me which are absolutely false. I already told you that I agree with you for the most part. In my first post all I was trying to point out is that you can't have freedom of speech by putting limits on it and penalising people for exercising it, regardless of how appaling their views are.

quote:

Originally posted by ali92 What about the decent Muslims who grew up & were born in the UK as well? British-born Muslims. If they're decent people and don't harm society (and society only benefits from them), why not allow them to stay there?

I'm actually really amazed that you managed to magic up and read so much much out that single sentence I wrote.

In case you forgot the thread topic is about 'Islamic radicals'. I don't know what planet you must be living in if you think the UK benefits from having people here preaching hate against us. So where did i mention or even indicate that i was refering to descent muslims or even muslims?.

I also seem to recall 4 descent British-born Muslims that decided to go sightseeing in london a few weeks ago.

I spose thats a hate crime to point that out

quote:

Originally posted by raydn I'm actually really amazed that you managed to magic up and read so much much out that single sentence I wrote. In case you forgot the thread topic is about 'Islamic radicals'. I don't know what planet you must be living in if you think the UK benefits from having people here preaching hate against us. So where did i mention or even indicate that i was refering to descent muslims or even muslims?. I also seem to recall 4 descent British-born Muslims that decided to go sightseeing in london a few weeks ago. I spose thats a hate crime to point that out

and you think this will stop if you ban this kind of hate crime?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.