UK's Blair cracks down on Islamist radicals
 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050805/...ity_britain_dc

By Katherine Baldwin Fri Aug 5,11:32 AM ET

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.
ADVERTISEMENT

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)

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

I'm not a fan of taking away civil liberties, but one would think you shouldn't emmigrate to a country and then spend all of your time trying to foster hate for that country.

From the BBC site hxxp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4747573.stm

PLANNED MEASURES
-Home secretary to consider deporting any foreigner involved in listed extremist centres and websites
-Make justifying or glorifying terrorism anywhere an offence
-Automatically refuse asylum to anyone with anything to do with terrorism
-Examine calls for police to be able to hold terror suspects for longer before pressing charges
-Use more control orders against British terror suspects
-Create a list of preachers who will be kept out of the UK


Now, if you were an American citizen who sent a check to the IRA or a CIA operative who helped train the Contras, would you not be allowed to enter the UK, either?

I would say they could keep this person out of the UK given the above statement.

A little more dicey given A) I doubt they would know that person helped train the Contras and B) it's been over two decades since this happened.

It seems to me that this is more involved with foreigners and other other refugees seeking asylum. I think UK citizens are fairly protected from most of these guidelines.

I just pointed those two examples out as instances where "anything to do with terrorism" or "terrorism anywhere" will net people unexpectedly (if the laws are applied logically).

My take on this is that at least Blair (I hope) is not being hypocritical about who is and isn't a practitioner of terrorism: terrorism is terrorism no matter who practices it and no matter the intent (that is, if the letter of the law is observed).

Maybe now the UK will extradite the islamic terrorists who bombed Paris in the 90s and that they've been sheltering since then...

How would what Blair is doing compare to the Patriot Act?

Wha? Why ban a Muslim group that rejects violence? Even if they want a Islamic Caliphate in the Mid East, if they are against terror, what threat do they pose?

Some of these proposals are ridiculous. Make 'justifying' terrorism an offense? So if in a unversity discussion, a Professor gives reasons for why people may engage in terrorism (ie, providing a justification for their actions) he may be fined?

I was giving the Brits a lot of credit for {in bad British accent}a stiff upper lip {end bad British accent}. They had a bunch of busses bombed and there they were, a few hours later, "Bombings, schmombings. Where's my darn bus? It's late and I've gotta get home" or "Terrorists? Nah, they're dead. They blew themselves up. Time to catch the bus". In this country, people wouldn't fly for months. Heck, my mom, who has traveled for work her whole life to parts of SE Asia, Africa, South America, everywhere- very comfortable with flying, asks me "Are you sure you still want to fly home for Thanksgiving" "No, I want to drive the 12 hours from KC to Houston. Of course, I'm flying. And probably won't be nearly as crowded as in year's past at the airport." Even really rational people were overly irrational about it, we got some crazy security changes that make no sense and won't prevent anything (is it that hard to not lose a @#$# lock, TSA?!? I've already lost 3 that you brain surgeons couldn't reattach to a simple suitcase).

And it looked like the Brits were over it in a day- it was really heartening to see. But, no, apparently stupidity is a trap you can fall into all over the world. It's like Blair is taking a page out of the American's "Trample Civil Rights" playbook on this one.

SI

Probably not a fine, but jail.

SI

Wikipedia is my friend. :)






Disbanded? Where did the members go? Back to Hisb ut-Tahrir?


Tony Blair specifically stated that saying you reject violence is one thing, but cooperating and supporting efforts to stop violence is simply not happening with this group. They are obstructionists and when that obstruction is going to cost lives and fuel fear and terror, it needs to go.

I agree with Blair 100%.

I'm sorry but all you've quoted STILL leaves me saying WTF? The part you bolded, they want non-violence coups in those countries. They hate Hindus, so what, is mere hatred without action (conversion attempts don't court) a crime now? I don't see anything really wrong with anything they are doing. They using their freedom of expression to promote their views. What's wrong with that.

Sorry, but Blair is off his rocker on that one.

Good for the Brits. We Americans should do the same here.

I'm guessing the same ideology that gives those people freedom of dissention also gives Tony Blair the right to defend his nation as best as he can.

It never ceases to amaze me how conservatives can object to hate crimes to come to the defence of racists and Holocaust deniers by claiming freedom of speech as long as they don't participate in violence itself, but if it is Muslims that are engaging in the same activities, then they must be supressed and banned.

If hate crimes are bad because they criminalize thought, then these laws against non-violent groups (and groups which do NOT believe in using violence) are bad as well.

It seems the libertarians (and us moderate libertarians) are the only ones consistent on the issue. The KKK has a right their opinions and so do the non-violent Hizb ut-Tahrir.

Defending the nation? Pah... racism it is... unless the Brits through out BNP members who walk the line in advocating violence against those of South Asian decent.

I'm really confused, I need a drawing to sort out this one single sentence. :)

If the USA issued a law to make hate mongering (KKK) an illegal act, I wouldn't feel my civil rights trampled at all. I would applaud the move.

The goal of the radical fundamentalist Islamists is to take over the West and establish Islamic rule. It is pretty simple really. And in that respect, their goal is no different than it was 1300 years ago. They are at war with us, whether we want to admit it or not, and they would very much like us to refuse to admit it. It is a great convenience to them.

You know, I'd feel a lot better about all these "peaceful" Muslims that are supposed to be running around, if I heard them vocally speaking out against these extremist terrorist organizations. In my mind, silence on the issue equals approval, or at the very least sympathy, especially in light of some of the following verses from the Koran:

KORAN [3.28] Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah, but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully; and Allah makes you cautious of (retribution from) Himself; and to Allah is the eventual coming.

KORAN [4.34] Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.

KORAN [4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.

KORAN [9.28] O you who believe! the idolaters are nothing but unclean, so they shall not approach the Sacred Mosque [Mecca] after this year; and if you fear poverty then Allah will enrich you out of His grace if He please; surely Allah is Knowing Wise.

KORAN [9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

KORAN [9.30] And the Jews say: Uzair [Ezra] is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!

Totally different. Basically, the Patriot Act focuses on procedure. Primarily, it makes it easier to do searches, seizures, wiretaps, and overall makes the job of police easier. Blair's initiatives seem to be more substantive. They actually seek to criminalize or otherwise punish behaviors that currently aren't regulated.

Which just illustrates that your range of media is such that you don't hear the many muslims condemning these attacks. The U.S. media has been pretty bad at it, but if you read major international papers, you regularly see all the major muslim organizations speaking against violence.

I'd love some links...and I'd love to see some links to prominent individuals in Islam, not just low level clerics.

As a conservative, I am against crimes in which innocent people lose their lives - it doesn't matter to me if you want to qualify it as a "hate" crime or not. In my opinion, anyone who takes the life of someone else, except in war, should be considered guilty of a "hate" crime.

As for defending racists and holocaust deniers, I have never done either. However, I do recognize that we live in a free country, and as long as we remain a free country, we have to embrace the fact that we are all different. If someone wants to stand out on the street and rave about how their beliefs are correct - that is fine with me. I draw the line when they try to inflict their beliefs on me, or anyone else, and especially when someone gets hurt or loses their life because of their actions.

A crime is a crime. Period. A man who robs a store at gunpoint and murders the clerk on duty is guilty of the same crime that the KKK member who murdered a black family is guilty of as well as the "terrorist" who bombed a subway or flew a plane into a building. Murder itself is born out of hatred. You can dictate punishment based on whether or not a crime is premeditated, but not on the person's thoughts that drove that crime to occur.

I found a good editorial about this subject.

A War Defined

Islam And Terror: Tony Blair is doing what more Western leaders should—not only identifying the “evil ideology” bent on our destruction, but also asking Muslims to do something about it.


Ordinarily when we hear a president or prime minister call for an international conferenceon the evil of the day—be it hunger, terrorism, poverty or whatever — our first response is to say, call us when you have some real news. The last thing the planet needs is another gabfest, especially when the evil in question demands action, not more talk.

But Blair’s proposal last week for a meeting on Islamic extremism was different. This was not your typical subject for a global confab. In fact, it’s a topic that too many politicians in the West, including President Bush, prefer not to raise in public.

Led by a lazy spirit of tolerance and a certain amount of fashionable Christian-Euro-American guilt overpast wrongs, real or imagined, too few candidly answer the question of what exactly we’re fighting. Blair, to his credit, is not only naming the malignancy but noting its religious affiliation. Moreover, he’s been telling Muslims they must get their own house in order.


In the weeks since the 7-7 suicide bombings in London, Blair has repeatedly called on Islamic scholars and community leaders to combat the “evil ideology” — religious in externals, bloodsoaked and fascist at its heart — that has been flourishing on their watch. Last Tuesday, he made that point face-to-face in a meeting with two dozen British Muslim leaders.


He’s also taking the war of ideas abroad, pressuring Pakistan’s government to crack down on virulently anti-Western religious schools. Back home, his government is preparing measures to bar foreign nationals who encourage terrorism and to ban indirect incitement to terrorism, such as praise for suicide bombers by radical clerics.


Steps such as these may not be needed in the U.S., at least not yet. But our country could use more of the intellectual clarity that stands behind such steps.


Ideas do have consequences, and some ideas are too deadly to be ignored or tolerated. That goes for any destructive ideology, even when it wears religious garb.


That’s a hard truth for the traditionally tolerant West—especially in a nation, like the U.S., founded on religious tolerance—but it has to be faced and acted on.


Blair would clearly rather see British Muslims deal with the threat to his country through their own tools of teaching and discipline. We hope they rise to his challenge, but their record (and the record of the mainstream Muslim world generally) has not been promising.


Radical Islam should have been buried under a mountain of stern fatwas long ago. Its clerical cheerleaders should have been defunded and stripped of all rights to preach or teach in Islam’s name. But the moderates have clearly not made their point with sufficient force.


Now, especially in Britain, their failure to stand up decisively to the extremism in their midst puts them at risk of losing their religious freedom and facing reprisals from an increasingly angry and impatient British public. Blair is talking plainly to them for their own good.

Well I don't know of any article cites off-hand, but you can usually find them in the BBC.

I did turn up these cites after a quick google search:

http://www.unc.edu/%7Ekurzman/terror.htm

http://groups.colgate.edu/aarislam/response.htm

The next one is an article that actually made CNN about US muslims issuing a fatwa against muslim terrorists:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/07/28/american.muslims.ap/

And this last one is about the lack of media coverage of statements by muslims condemning violence:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/islfatwa.htm

Does Billy Graham speak out against abortion bombers? Does the pope? Oh, I'm sure Bishop so and so has, but who cares, they're low level people.

JG, interesting. In one of the first links, I noticed one of the members who signed on was Shaykh Ahmad Yassin, Founder, Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas). While agreeing with the statement that he was horrified by the destruction and attack on innocent lives on 9-11, I suppose he draws the line when it comes to Jews in Israel.

Interestingly enough, this is exactly what Blair's opponents are saying when criticising these new laws. There are already laws in place against crime, there need not be any new laws which also crack down on freedom of speech.

Also, the "seven-seven" bombers were home-grown.. they were born and raised in the United Kingdom.. they can't be deported. Wonder how many more of that kind are out there.

You can carry this to ridiculous extremes. Have athiests ever apologized for the atrocities of Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse-tung and Pol Pot? Atheism and anti-religious fervor were driving ideas in their lives and policy decisions.

Well, same as anti-hate crime legislation people here, too. I don't think a racial slur is any more of a crime than me calling a person an asshole, bitch, or any other number of choice words I could choose. They all show the same feel- dislike/hatred for one or more person be it because you hate all New York cab drivers, Democrats, guys named Ed who spill a drink on your best dress, black people, or Cardinals fans. But it's still not a crime.

Which is where hate crime legislation comes in- it attempts to determine why you did something because (we'll go with second degree, crime-of-passion types) "killing a person because you hate the color of their skin" is somehow worse than "killing your wife because you found her in bed with another man" or "killing your accountant because he lost you $50K on a stock he liked".

And, frankly, there are quite a few of us who think that's wrong- you killed a person, you get the penalty for killing a person and the "why" should be divorced from the penalty because what you say and think should not a crime, but what you do is.

SI

Are you kidding me, its the exact same thing you're asking? Do religious leaders have an obligation to denounce things that are done in the name of their religion. How is a direct comparison any kind of extreme?

Eh... Hitler was a Christian... Mein Kampf makes that very clear.


Amongst other things, the man said:

link: hxxp://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.html

The Internet is awash with many quotes from Hitler that could be used in support of the idea that he considered himself Christian, or thought he was acting in accord with God's will, or something like that. I have collected a number of such citations myself. But bear in mind that these are mostly public sayings, so you have to be careful about how much you trust them. A good one is this from Mein Kampf:

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

Another popular one is this, from a speech in 1922:

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter."

The idea of Jesus being greatest as a fighter rather than a sufferer is of course a long way from orthodox Christianity. To quote Kevin Davids, author of an excellent article on Hitler,

"When one looks at the atrocities committed under the Nazi regime of Adolf Hitler and compares them to the teacher of universal love, Jesus of Nazareth, one might come to the immediate conclusion that the notion that Hitler was a Christian is absurd".

An example that springs to mind of the contrast between Jesus and Hitler is that Christ said the meek shall inherit the earth. Hitler on the other hand called the Nazis "lords of the earth" because of "the genius and the courage with which they can conquer and defend it" (Mein Kampf, Vol 2, Ch 14).

Regardless of what Hitler published, his actions put himself outside the Church, in a similar manner to the way an outspoken atheist would not really be an atheist if at the same time he regularly attended church, studied the Bible, and prayed the rosary.

It is important to be able to identify the difference between Hitler's public speeches and writing and what he really thought. A devious politician leading a nominally Christian country like 1930s Germany will say lots of Christian-sounding stuff to maintain popularity. Mein Kampf illustrates Hitler's views on propaganda:

"To whom should propaganda be addressed? … It must be addressed always and exclusively to the masses… The function of propaganda does not lie in the scientific training of the individual, but in calling the masses' attention to certain facts, processes, necessities, etc., whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field of vision. The whole art consists in doing this so skilfully that everyone will be convinced that the fact is real, the process necessary, the necessity correct, etc. But since propaganda is not and cannot be the necessity in itself … its effect for the most part must be aimed at the emotions and only to a very limited degree at the so-called intellect… it's soundness is to be measured exclusively by its effective result". (Main Kampf, Vol 1, Ch 6 and Ch 12)

As an example of Hitler's honestly, consider the following from a letter by Hitler to the French fascist Hervé and published in the Nazi Völkischer Beobachter on October 26, 1930 [Heiden, Der Fuehrer, p. 414] :

"I think I can assure you that there is no one in Germany who will not with all his heart approve any honest attempt at an improvement of relations between Germany and France. My own feelings force me to take the same attitude... The German people has the solemn intention of living in peace and friendship with all civilized nations and powers... And I regard the maintenance of peace in Europe as especially desirable and at the same time secured, if France and Germany, on the basis of equal sharing of natural human rights, arrive at a real inner understanding... The young Germany, that is led by me and that finds its expression in the National Socialist Movement, has only the most heartfelt desire for an understanding with other European nations."

This is from the guy who started World War II.

In a similar vein, consider this, from a speech in the Reichstag on 30 Jan. 1939:

"Amongst the accusations which are directed against Germany in the so called democracies is the charge that the National Socialist State is hostile to religion. In answer to that charge I should like to make before the German people the following solemn declaration:
1. No one in Germany has in the past been persecuted because of his religious views, nor will anyone in the future be so persecuted..."

Hmm… would you trust this guy's public announcements?

Quotes Establishing Hitler's Non-Christianity

Hitler may in public have claimed to be doing the will of God, but records of his private conversations show otherwise. Many of these were recorded by his secretary and published in a book called Hitler's Table Talk (Adolf Hitler, London, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1953). I have lifted the text of these from the soc.religion.christian newsgroup's Hitler FAQ.
Night of 11th-12th July, 1941

"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together....
"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity....

"Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things." (p 6 & 7)

10th October, 1941, midday
"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure." (p 43)

14th October, 1941, midday
"The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity....
"Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse....
"...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little....
"Christianity the liar....
"We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State." (p 49-52)

19th October, 1941, night
"The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity."

21st October, 1941, midday
"Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer....
"The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation....
"Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the
instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea." (p 63-65)

13th December, 1941, midnight
"Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... transubstantiation>....
"When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease." (p 118-119)

14th December, 1941, midday
"Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself....

"Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism,
under a tinsel of metaphysics." (p 119 & 120)

9th April, 1942, dinner
"There is something very unhealthy about Christianity." (p 339)

27th February, 1942, midday
"It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie."

"Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ." (p 278)

Irrespective of the First Amendment? Are we a country that values free speech or are we not?


Exactly the point. A Muslim group that advocates a peaceful change in government of the Middle East has committed no crime, but mere is advocating change. There is no reason to clamp down on them. Crimes are already enforced against, there is no need to criminalize hate. I'm glad to see that some Conservatives still support the freedom of speech our founders set up to guard against tyranny (I'm aware that Britain doesn't have our founders, I'm speaking of the principle of the thing).


Bingo... though I did notice how he avoided your post here. How is comparing the exact same thing to another religion streaching it to extremes? It's perfectly valid to ask should Billy Graham and the Pope apologize for murders of abortion doctors and other abhorrances done in the name of Christ. If they are not required, why should some Imam totally unconnected issue an apology? Though a lot of people disclaim them and they have not been reported, as shown in this thread.

SFL Cat, you've just proven something by writing all those quotes, and that is that you cannot blame a religion or an ideology for an individual's interpretation of a text.

That's exactly what bloodthirsty radical muslim conservatives are doing.. they're interpreting a text the way they want to.

Hitler was a catholic. He wanted to become a priest when he was young. Later on, he used biblical qoutes to justify his actions when it suited him, just like Osama Bin Ladin's people do from the Koran. Just like abortion clinic bombers, just like people who hate homosexuals. They all find suitable quotes in a religious text and use them freely.

If you're saying that he was atheist just because he didn't follow your interpretation of the bible, then you might as well say that Al Qaeda aren't muslim.

I understand what you are saying. I do. But the question is not whether we think this is a green light or a red light for free speech. It's about where you draw the line.

Can we yell "Fire" in a movie theatre? Of course not.

I guess the point is that if the "line" puts me on one side and an organization, such as the KKK on the other, I don't see many people objecting to that.

There is no global ruleset that will account for all situations. (Just as the First Ammendment doesn't protect people from yelling "Fire" in the movie house)

At some point we have to make direct, pointed subsets of rules and laws to fit the issues at hand.

I think most everybody agree's that the KKK does us no good. I do not see an assault on the KKK as an assault on our First Amendment rights.

We should be allowed to ban illegal organizations and disident groups. If they feel that passionately about hating the laws and the people of a nation, they aren't going to care to much about our laws anyway.

So to the KKK and to the hate groups in England that support the overthrow of other nations, good riddance.

And in the case of these nutcases in London. How do you think the nations of the Middle East feel knowing that England is "harboring" groups that are plotting their overthrow?

The Hizb ut-Tahrir has no place in any peaceful society. While they are not pulling the tirggers themselves, they are fueling the fires of hatred and segregation.

So we should ban Republicans because they wanted to (and succeded in) overthrowing Iraq? But its for the better, right?

That's the difference, I'm talking about taking away the global blanket of interpretation and allowing us to make localized decisions based on the situation.

The British government threatens treason charges against some radicals. Link and story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4129502.stm

Radicals warned of treason risk

Islamist radicals who express support for terrorism may face treason charges, the Attorney General's Office has said.
Lord Goldsmith and the Director of Public Prosecutions Ken Macdonald have discussed action against three individuals, a spokeswoman said.

The Crown Prosecution Service's head of anti-terrorism will meet Scotland Yard officers in the next few days.

Omar Bakri Mohammed, Abu Izzadeen and Abu Uzair are all expected to come under scrutiny.

The spokeswoman for the Attorney-General's Office said it was not clear at this stage whether there was enough evidence to bring charges.

Officials will be looking at broadcast and published comments as well as speeches and sermons made by the trip to followers.

"No decision on charges has been made yet. The CPS will be looking at it to see if any offences have been committed," she said.

For Muslims there, they have a duty to fight occupiers, whether they are British soldiers or American soldiers

Possible charges which will be considered include the common law offences of treason and incitement to treason.

Omar Bakri Mohammed is a London-based cleric for the al-Muhajiroun group.

On Friday while announcing new measures to clamp down on extremism, Prime Minister Tony Blair said that this group's successor organisation, the Saviour Sect, would be outlawed.

Mr Bakri caused controversy when he said he would not inform police if he knew Muslims were planning a bomb attack in the UK.

He also expressed support for Muslims who attacked British troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"For Muslims there, they have a duty to fight occupiers, whether they are British soldiers or American soldiers," he told Channel 4 News.

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.

Doesn't take much for them to fold the "Let's live in peace" card, eh?

"Trample my civil rights???? I bomb you, now!!!"

Plenty do, it's kind of why the laws of this country support their right to exist as an organization. Their right to exist protects all of our rights to freedom of speech. We know that if the law protects a group that hated, it will protect us when we dissent.


Ban dissident groups?!! WTF? So any group that disagrees with the leadership of the country should be gone? That would mean Republicans under Clinton's Administration would be banned!


No, they are offering legitimate political positions without advocating violence. They should be allowed to articulate their views on how the world looks just like neo-conservatives should be allowed to articulate their views on the world. Frankly, I don't think you'd like it much if France or Germany banned neo-conservative groups because they believe that they fuel the fires of hatred and segregation by wanting to transform the world in to the American worldview.

It's just blatent hypocrisy, Blair's actions, really.