Alan Johnson was once touted as a potential Labour leader. His awful performance as home secretary has shown what an utter disaster he’d be.

Entirely agree with this. Legislation is almost invariably too blunt a tool to deal with this sort of thing, and you give a perfect example of it above. The ANC (or, at the least Umkhonto weSizwe) were a terrorist organisation. They were also right in their aims, and the suggestion that the people with ANC flags in Trafalgar Square should have been arrested for glorifying terrorism is absurd.

Another piece of legislation for the bonfire…

Not much to add apart from that it’s all pretty self-evident. Islam4UK = hateful group. Banning them = criminalisation of legitimate political activity, which sets a precedent for the use of anti-terror legislation.

Unless I’ve understood this wrong, praising those who commit/have committed acts of terrorism hasn’t been outlawed in itself, it’s just that one particular group who do this has been outlawed. There is a distinction there – it may not seem particularly important to you, but it does mean that no-one is going to be arrested tomorrow for waving an ANC flag.

Realise this isn’t going to be a popular point to make, but it’s important we’re clear about exactly what this means.

Nice to see some sensible thinking on this from the socialist-inclined sites. Have to say I’ve yet to see anyone think this is a good idea (might have to head over to Harry’s Place and see their take on it).

It takes a certain amount of genius to turn Mr Choudary into a icon for free speech, but by God Alan Johnson may have just done it. The only problem is the support Islam4UK campaign would need a better name to avoid confusion.

I don’t agree with this actually, and I’ve written an article for Guardian CIF explaining why. Though I agree about the broader issue – I think Islam4UK is a bad example to make the case.

tim,

A group has been outlawed for praising those who commit acts of terrorism. So in this case it has been made illegal.

How often in history has one such action been the thin end of the wedge? Unless the group is engaged in or funding terrorism (not alleged) there is no justification for banning them, however irritating and publicity-grabbing they are.

#7

No, this group has been made illegal. There is a difference, however technical it seems. It doesn’t even seem as if members will be prevented from airing their views in a private capacity, just that membership of the group will be illegal.

Of course I’m incredibly wary about banning political activity because of the possibility of precedents being used against the left, which is not just a theoretical possibility but actually happens. Nonetheless the effective prevention of the BA strikes by twisting arcane laws was of much more concern to me than this is. I hope that none of those who supported the court verdict then will start complaining about banning political activity in this case.

Though I agree about the broader issue – I think Islam4UK is a bad example to make the case.

Pastor Niemoller springs to mind.

Entirely agree with this….I reckon well-over 90% of anti-terror legislation should be junked because its ramifications or actual application and intent violate civil liberties totally unnecessarily….

This is by no means a new development or an initiative of Alan Johnson. In July 2006 the Home Office under John Reid banned two similar groups – and for the same reason. The Times report said:

Mr Reid said: “Proscribing these groups — which are either engaged in terrorism or which glorify terrorist acts — sends a strong signal that the United Kingdom is not prepared to tolerate those who support terrorism here or anywhere in the world.

“I am also committed to ensuring that those organisations that change their name do not avoid the consequences of proscription.”

the effective prevention of the BA strikes by twisting arcane laws

They were hardly arcane. They were the statutes that govern Trade Union activity, and are at most 20 years old. It’s not like BA were invoking the Taff Vale judgement.

tim,

As someone of a liberal right bent, I agree with you on the BA strikes (so long as the proportion of inelligible voters would not effect the outcome, which it could not have done, how the judge could consider the ruling she did was unaccountable to me, although I am not a lawyer). Big business and big government working together effectively there. My concern however is not just for left or right, but for all of us. I doubt any of us (other than Sunny, who seems to buy the divide and conquer line favoured by dictators, although I await his CiF article for justification before I condemn) would be considered ideal in a totalitarian state. Fellow travellers suffer as much as foes, so we all have an interest in freedom of speech.

And if the group has been made illegal, why? To be illegal it must have engaged in illegal activities surely, and if it has, then why have the perpetrators not been charged? It was banned for convenience by a lazy and out-of-his-depth politician looking for a good headline (although why he’d want a good headline alienating his own more moral voters is beyond me). Hate to see what happens if this goes to the ECHR though, as I suspect being judged guilty without trial would be a problem and what is Mr Johnson to do if Mr Choudary and friends refuse to stop being Islam4UK. Charge them with being members of an illegal group despite no crime having been committed?

There is also one mild democratic point here. I have an excellent member of parliament (not of the party you might expect) who would I guess oppose this move. But parliament has not had a chance to agree this ban, which was announced by one man. Why can Mr Johnson ban whichever group he likes for reasons of their beliefs, without at least getting the assent of our representatives?

I can’t believe anyone would take these clowns seriously.

Surely Islam4UK epitomise all that is worse when extreme forms of religion and politics collide?

Perhaps we actually BENEFIT from having guys like these around to remind the rest of us of our relative tolerance and dare I say decency.

I’m sure there are other equally preposterous fringe groups that can give us all a bit of laugh in the current gloomy political climate.

They were arcane when they were introduced. The application of them did not in the slightest affect the result of the ballot, so it was a case of the courts being used to overturn democratically agreed political activity. That has to be of more concern to people who are worried about liberties around political expression than banning a small group that can muster a handful of people for most demos.* You can be against both, as I imagine Dave is, but it’s inconsistent to be against this and not the BA thing.

* Speaking as someone who has been a part of many groups that can muster only a handful of people for most demos, I don’t want to suggest this is a reason in itself for banning it, just that the BA strikes had much greater democratic legitimacy.

that aimed at #12 in case it wasn’t obvious.

#13 makes good points and I agree there are problems with the process – democratic assent would be an improvement, and as I’ve already stated I’m wary of the process at all, but don’t know enough about the group at hand to be absolutely categorical in my judgement.

Nonetheless the effective prevention of the BA strikes by twisting arcane laws was of much more concern to me than this is. I hope that none of those who supported the court verdict then will start complaining about banning political activity in this case.

I don’t recall anyone in the Liberal Conspiracy discussion about the BA winter strikes being able to show that the the law was “twisted” in any way. And I’m not sure how it can be described as arcane. The most that could be said was that Unite were caught by a technicality. Nevertheless the law is the law; had Unite organised the ballot according to the law it could have had its strike. Jebus, we even had someone on Unite’s side accepting that the letter of the law was followed but that the judge should have gone with “the spirit”. I think the judgement was satisfactorily explained by EmpLawyer here.

Instead of legislation perhaps we could utilise laughter or ridicule, a far more effective weapon sometimes.

Imagine this type of response toward any group of insular, earnest extremists;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SAbJjktk7E

Just a thought.

But parliament has not had a chance to agree this ban, which was announced by one man. Why can Mr Johnson ban whichever group he likes for reasons of their beliefs, without at least getting the assent of our representatives?

Why should any politicians be involved at all in the outcome? Surely Johnson should have to apply to a court (a neutral and informed decision-maker), which hears both sides of the case and makes the appropriate decision.

it was a case of the courts being used to overturn democratically agreed political activity.

It really wasn’t. It was a case of a Union failing to comply with the statutory requirements for a strike ballot, and a court upholding the law of the land.

Johnson is probably terrified that if Islam4Uk parade in Wootton Basset , Labour will lose even more of the white working class vote. As many appear to be be on benefits perhaps they should be prosecuted for benefit fraud. If they can march , they can work.

ukliberty,

Because banning a group is a political decision, not a legal one (where is the crime – who is being prosecuted?), so should be made by people appointed by us to make such decisions, not by people who do not answer to us. Judges can be tryrants as much as anyone else. Courts should not have the power to ban, only to judge criminal and civil cases.

Tim J,

Technically correct, but the irregularity does not appear to have been enough to effect the outcome, which makes the decision peverse if correct.

Don’t the BNP glorify acts of racist terrorism and violence?

“A Home Office spokesperson said: “Proscription is a tough but necessary power to tackle terrorism. Decisions on proscription must be proportionate and based on evidence that a group is concerned in terrorism as defined in the Terrorism Act 2000.”

Islam4UK? No: this was a quote that was given last year, when they claimed they’d assess the fascist Blood And Honour group. If they ban them – rightly or wrongly – we’ll at least see whether they’re being consistent.

‘I don’t agree with this actually, and I’ve written an article for Guardian CIF explaining why. Though I agree about the broader issue – I think Islam4UK is a bad example to make the case.’

Bollocks: if you *genuinely* agreed with the ‘broader issue’ you’d recognise that it’s in the face of extreme provocation that you test your commitment to free speech.

‘Free speech’ isn’t just for opinions you find palatable.

The ban is shameful.

Tatchell’s take on it:

‘The best way to respond to these fanatics is expose and refute their hateful, bigoted opinions. Rational argument is more effective and ethical than using an authoritarian law to censor and suppress them.’

That’s pretty much the attitude of the entire liberal left and the libertarian right

Sorry Dave, I disagree with you.

‘commit or participate in acts of terrorism, prepare for, promote or encourage terrorism or are otherwise concerned in terrorism’, says the Terrorism Act.

Choudary and pals are clearly guilty of promoting and encouraging terrorism.

Here I explain why and the examples are numerous.

A sample would include:

“Democracy does not mean that you can demonstrate in central London waving banners such as “Massacre those who insult Islam”, “Be prepared for the real holocaust” and “the Fantastic 4 are on their way”. You can’t call a press conference and call for the “stoning of all homosexuals” without facing the consequences.

Anjem Choudary, current leader of Islam4UK, is the same man who went on BBC Hardtalk (and shame on those who invited him) and said that the victims of the 7/7 atrocity were fair game because “only the Muslims are innocent” and if you don’t accept Islam “that is a crime against God”. He refused to condemn the London bombings, called the 9/11 attack “magnificent”, publicly remarked that “Islam is not a religion of peace” and said that “the Pope should face capital punishment”.

A year ago, his mentor Omar Bakri, now in Lebanon, said at a public meeting “Do not obey the British law” and “we must fight and die for Islam”.”

And that’s without taking into account their posionous activity as regards community relations- here we’re talking about glorifying terrorism and inciting to hatred.

If Shatterface’s quote is to correct @28 isn’t then Peter Tatchell contradicting himself? In recent years he’s actively campaigned for gigs by openly homophobic reggae artists to be banned on the grounds of “incitement to hatred” and “incitement to violence”.

So when Islam4UK calls for the stoning of all homosexuals…how does that differ?

Dave your an apologist for someone who could clearly be prosecuted under the terrorist act.
http://hermeneuticals.blog.co.uk/2010/01/13/dave-osler-an-apologist-for-supporters-of-terrorists-7749855/

Hermeneuticals -

Sorry, where did Dave act as an apologist?

[30] “So when Islam4UK calls for the stoning of all homosexuals…how does that differ?”

Pardon my ignorance but I assume there is some sort of religious text underpinning call for acts of violence against homosexuals, whereas certain reggae artists are simply afraid of ‘batty boys’ or their own sublimated sexual feelings, perhaps?

Anyway,it seems you can get away with a lot more with some decrepit old tome backing your bullshit up?

When are they going to ban the BNP, the EDL, SIOE, and all those other twunts?

Another incredible moment. A couple of days after Islam4UK “back down” on their march in Wootton Basset, another senior Labour politician chooses to make a fool of himself. I put “back down” in quotes because there was never any intention to march. But Choudary gets two convenient publicity slots for doing nothing more than he was doing six months ago.

When he sets up a new organisation apologising for Islamist terrorism, how many non-events will he need to non-organise before he gets his name in the news?

Choudary is a nasty individual who has the knack for publicity. Is it too much to expect that the next Home Secretary will call his bluff? Chris Grayling — oh dear.

Indeed Shatterface was right.

From Tatchell’s own website, the civil right campaigner wrote: ““But I defend their right to express their opinions, even though they are offensive and distressing to many people”, he said about Islam4UK – which I maintain is in open contradiction with his previous campaigns to ban reggae artists for incitement to hatred.

Like the a&e charge nurse wrote, back @33:
“it seems you can get away with a lot more with some decrepit old tome backing your bullshit up?

In which case, I’m afraid good old Peter got it wrong this time.

I still believe banning Islam4UK was the right thing to do. Freedom of speech cannot be seen as some context-free abstract notion.

@24, 34 John:
As much as I despise the BNP (and my record on LC stands as evidence), I’m afraid their rhetoric, dubious though it may be, has not been as openly pro-violence and pro-terrorism as Islam4UK’s or al-Mujaheroon’s.

@31
That’s a bit harsh.

Watchman,

Because banning a group is a political decision, not a legal one (where is the crime – who is being prosecuted?), so should be made by people appointed by us to make such decisions, not by people who do not answer to us. Judges can be tryrants as much as anyone else. Courts should not have the power to ban, only to judge criminal and civil cases.

But courts do have the power to ban people from doing things – e.g. civil orders such as ASBOs or control orders, carrying various obligations including “don’t do this or that” on pain of committing a criminal offence, which someone has to apply to them to make.

It seems to me quite right that a court, which hears the evidence from both sides, should be the decision-maker – indeed, that is natural justice / due process. I’d much rather politicians had to justify such things to a court. Courts would in any case pay due deference to a Home Secretary’s evidence about terrorism.

In the case of Islam4UK here, it becomes a proscribed organisation and the organisation must appeal after the fact.

“the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others” – John Stuart Mill.

Your point about “where is the crime?” is apposite.

The Secretary of State may exercise his [banning organisations] power under subsection (3)(a) in respect of an organisation only if he believes that it is concerned in terrorism.
(5)For the purposes of subsection (4) an organisation is concerned in terrorism if it—
(a)commits or participates in acts of terrorism,
(b)prepares for terrorism,
(c)promotes or encourages terrorism, or
(d)is otherwise concerned in terrorism.

a-c are criminal offences. Why aren’t members of the proscribed organisation charged with those criminal offences?

37. ukliberty, as often happens, shares my view. I echo his sentiments.

claude @ 36,

You said:

From Tatchell’s own website, the civil right campaigner wrote: ““But I defend their right to express their opinions, even though they are offensive and distressing to many people”, he said about Islam4UK – which I maintain is in open contradiction with his previous campaigns to ban reggae artists for incitement to hatred.

Could you discuss the latter part of that a bit further? It seems to me that reggae artists, from what I remember, were inciting violence. Much as I detest Islam4UK I don’t think they have. At least not officially.

Amjem Choudary deliberately avoided the direct question on Newsnight about execution of apostates. We may all draw our own conclusions about what that meant, but he didn’t say it.

Thought crimes, it seems to me are crimes too far.

I’d far rather Amjem Choudary was challenged directly rather than we pretended that it will all just go away if we ban it.

claude @ 36

Freedom of speech cannot be seen as some context-free abstract notion.

Sorry, claude, but you could not be more wrong.

You can argue that the “freedom” in freedom of speech is not an absolute, but once you accept the legitimacy of that idea you no longer have freedom of speech at all.

Because as soon as you constrain what may be said according to “context”, those who set the parameters of the context control the agenda.

Russians had freedom of speech in the 1950′s- in the context of the Communist state.

Russians had freedom of speech in the 1950’s- in the context of the Communist state.

Indeed!

ARTICLE 125. In conformity with the interests of the working people, and in order to strengthen the socialist system, the citizens of the U.S.S.R. are guaranteed by law:

freedom of speech;… – 1936 Constitution of the USSR

You’ve got to have free speech…how else do you know who to kidnap and “re-educate”?

@39 douglas clark
“Much as I detest Islam4UK I don’t think they have. At least not officially.”
Erm…the press conference last March in which Choudary called for the stoning of all homosexuals, anyone???
How do you call that, a love declaration?

Have a look here for more examples.

pagar @40 and others:

Incitement to hatred and violence is where I draw the line at freedom of speech.
Whether it’s combat 18, homophobic inciting violence or clowns calling mass murderers “the fantastic 4″, thats where the line should be drawn.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t most of the commenters on this thread (those who have so far stood up for Choudary’s right to speak up his mind) go spare if the current definition of “racist crime” was to be scrapped so as to defend the abstract notion of ” freedom of speech”?

There’s a difference, claude, between free speech and it’s application. Once you start to use free speech to encourage other people to deprive someone or some people of other freedoms then it that in itself is a crime, but the free speech part remains. The crime is not what you say, it’s why you’re saying it and what its effect will be that matters.

45. Lee Griffin – “Once you start to use free speech to encourage other people to deprive someone or some people of other freedoms then it that in itself is a crime, but the free speech part remains.”

I am afraid I don’t agree with this. Using free speech to deprive someone or some people of other freedoms is not a crime. Or the entire Cabinet would be locked up. I can call, for instance, giving the vote to women a mistake and demand its repeal if I like. It is not a crime.

As much as I despise the BNP (and my record on LC stands as evidence), I’m afraid their rhetoric, dubious though it may be, has not been as openly pro-violence and pro-terrorism as Islam4UK’s or al-Mujaheroon’s.

To be honest I’m not particularly familiar with the latter’s record, so I don’t know if it has or hasn’t been ‘as’ pro violence, but the bnp certainly endorse violence (in the words of griffin – “defending rights for whites with well placed boots and fists”) and it’s members have been prosecuted for violence/terrorism related offences- robert cottage, tony leocomber, david tovey, lambertus nieuwhof (nice anglo saxon name, there), terence gavan and mark bulman amongst many others, griffin himself has ties to roberto fiore.

In the US the bnp would probably fall under RICO laws.

Not that any of it matters, even c18 were never proscribed, either the state don’t want to move against white violence in any meaningful way for fear of being branded ‘politically correct’ or ‘anti white working class’ and/or these groups are full of informants.

[47] Saying, “(BNP) members have been prosecuted for violence/terrorism related offenses”, followed by, “the state don’t want to move against white violence in any meaningful way for fear of being branded ‘politically correct’ or ‘anti white working class’, seems to be a contradictory?

Do you mean MORE thugs, like Robert Cottage, Tony Leocomber, David Tovey, Lambertus Nieuwhof, Terence Gavan, Mark Bulman, et al, should be prosecuted?

As a matter of interest how many were done for incitement rather than physical violence?

@39 douglas clark
“Much as I detest Islam4UK I don’t think they have. At least not officially.”
Erm…the press conference last March in which Choudary called for the stoning of all homosexuals, anyone???
How do you call that, a love declaration?

It seems to me he didn’t do that – or at least, there is no quote on your article or the linked article that supports this claim. There is no direct incitement of crime.

@48

Not really, the clue is ‘meaningful way’ if you were familiar with what goes on at demonstrations under police supervision you’d know these prosecutions are a drop in the ocean, if the state wanted to stop the violence they’d move against the conspiracy itself rather than picking off atomised elements whilst wittering on about how the conspiracy has ‘legitimate concerns’.

As a matter of interest how many were done for incitement rather than physical violence?

The names I mentioned are by no means a complete list, you could come up with a few far right sorts who were charged with either – Anthony Bamber for example, who was charged with incitement to commit religious hatred after distributing bnp leaflets that claimed Muslims are responsible for Heroin.

Robert Cottage – Found with what was described by police as “the largest haul ever discovered in someone’s home in England” charged under Explosive Substances Act 1883, after the judge dismissed the jury was prosecuted with some pithy bollocks and sentenced to two and half years.

Tony Lecomber – Convicted for criminal damage in 1982, offences under the Explosives Act in 1985, sentenced to three years’ imprisonment in 1991 for an attack on a Jewish teacher. In 1985, he was injured by a firework that he was carrying to the offices of the Workers Revolutionary Party. Police found 10 grenades, seven petrol bombs and two detonators at his home. In 1991, when he was Propaganda Director of the BNP, Lecomber saw a Jewish teacher removing a BNP sticker at a London Underground station and attacked him.

David Tovey – Caught with military plastic explosive, and remote control devices to set it off, sentenced to 11 years.

Lambertus Nieuwhof – Former member of the Afrikaaner resistance movement, attempted and failed to set off a bomb at the mixed race calvary church school in Nelspruit in 1992, now a fairly major figure in the bnp along with other apartheid era sorts (Arthur Kemp, for instance).

Terence Gavan – Made and stockpiled 54 nail and ball-bearing bombs amongst other things, admitted to 22 charges, including six under the Terrorism Act, when he appeared at Woolwich Crown Court on 26 November 2009.

Mark Bulman – Firebombed a mosque using a bnp leaflet as the fuse, after being certified sane as the result of a court ordered psychiatric assessment he was described by the judge as a ‘racial bigot’ and sentenced to five years.

One I didn’t mention, who’s my personal favourite because the judge was so absurd, is John Laidlaw who was sentenced to life after a shooting spree on the tube, despite only aiming at black people and proclaiming he wanted to ‘kill all black people’ the judge said “Although both people you aimed at were black I make no finding that your crimes were racially motivated”.

Claude @ 44

Incitement to hatred and violence is where I draw the line at freedom of speech.

Incitement to hatred should not be a crime.

I’m sure, Claude, you hate racists. Why should you be criminalised for inciting others to hate them too? How would you feel if your freedom to polemicise against racism were proscribed?

Incitement to violence should be a crime.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t most of the commenters on this thread (those who have so far stood up for Choudary’s right to speak up his mind) go spare if the current definition of “racist crime” was to be scrapped so as to defend the abstract notion of ” freedom of speech”

You’re wrong, at least in my case.

If someone commits a crime, I want a criminal justice system that will fairly resolve the consequences of that crime. The motivation of the criminal is, for me, irrelevant.

@49 uk liberty

“It seems to me he didn’t do that – or at least, there is no quote on your article or the linked article that supports this claim. There is no direct incitement of crime”.

It’s not true. He said that under sharia law gays should be stoned to death and he even went on to explain the exact procedure. Take a look here.

I don’t know why you’re trying to be so selective the way you’re reading Islam4Uk and their sister groups. There are dozens of images on google of those people’s demos in London holding banners saying ‘Behead this and behad that’, ‘murder this and murder that’, ‘holocaust’, etc…, images, right in front of you but you’re still saying that they were not inciting violence or crime or hatred…

Interesting however, that all those defending the right of Islam4UK to do what they’ve been doing so far, have not answered what I said @44. So I’ll re-ask:

Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t most of the commenters on this thread (those who have so far stood up for Choudary’s right to speak up his mind) go spare if the current definition of “racist crime” was to be scrapped so as to defend the abstract notion of ” freedom of speech”?

claude @ 43,

I checked out the link you provided. Unless I am missing something obvious there is no direct quote that supports your position.

If Anjem Choudary did call for the stoning of all homosexuals then that would be, at first blush, an incitement to violence and thus a criminal offence. As there doesn’t appear to be any evidence that he did, well, it would explain why he wasn’t prosecuted.

claude @ 52,

Fair enough. But what you have there is an account of what took place. The article is dated March last year. The Police said they would investigate if a complaint was made. What happened next?

Serious question.

@49 uk liberty

“It seems to me he didn’t do that – or at least, there is no quote on your article or the linked article that supports this claim. There is no direct incitement of crime”.

It’s not true. He said that under sharia law gays should be stoned to death and he even went on to explain the exact procedure. Take a look here.

It’s Pink News that claims Choudary said gays should be stoned to death – they do not quote him saying “gays should be stoned to death” or “you must stone gays to death”. They claim that he says under sharia law “If a man likes another man, it can happen, but if you go on to fulfil your desire, if it is proved, then there is a punishment to follow. You don’t stone to death unless there are four eyewitnesses. It is a very stringent procedure. There are some people who are attracted to donkeys but that does not mean it is right.”

For the record, I’m not defending his views, I am suggesting that he seems careful about staying the right side of the law. That is why I claimed there seems to be no direct incitement of violence – implying that there is indirect incitement of violence but this might not be enough to constitute a criminal offence (I do not know – and that is why I am careful about saying “it seems…”). In other words he says “under sharia law…” and his followers are left to infer what must be done about gays.

I don’t know why you’re trying to be so selective the way you’re reading Islam4Uk and their sister groups.

I think you are allowing your (rightful) anger about what he says to cloud your view of what I have written in this thread. I’m not selecting the evidence; I read your article and the articles you linked to.

There are dozens of images on google of those people’s demos in London holding banners saying ‘Behead this and behad that’, ‘murder this and murder that’, ‘holocaust’, etc…, images, right in front of you but you’re still saying that they were not inciting violence or crime or hatred…

Wrong: I made no claims about those banners. Indeed I would say that banners saying “behead the gays” or whatever seem to constitute incitement of violence. And if Choudary carried such a banner or said “you must stone gays to death” I would say that seems to constitute incitement of violence.

Interesting however, that all those defending the right of Islam4UK to do what they’ve been doing so far, have not answered what I said @44.

I think our posts overlapped but I did answer this @51

And I have to say I’ve never really understood this racist crime nonsense.

Clearly racists are stupid and ignorant people but why is a murder or a rape that is wholly or partially motivated by such stupidity more heinous than it would otherwise be?

If someone is punched on the nose are the consequences different if the motivation of his attacker related to his race rather than his football allegience?

The London demo of March (or Feb, I cant remember) 2006 where they held banners glorifying violence and terrorism (“fantastic 4″, “9/11″ etc) is well documented. It contained threatening, abusive, inflammatory and hate-soaked language for all to see. Interesting how you all keep glossing over it!

As for Pink News “only quoting Choudary”, like uk liberty implies @55, to be honest even if there was a direct quote you’d probably say “where’s the video of that?”.

You’re splitting hairs here. To me, the quote is direct enough and what Choudary said at that press conference is absolutely obvious to everyone. What else do you think he was talking about ?

As for pagar @51 re: incitement to hatred.

I really can’t see why you keep favouring abstract notions of liberty vs reality. The idea, for instance, behind including inciting homophobic hatred in the the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act (blocked by Tory Lords, for the record) would be to protect vulnerable defenseless people.

It’s to try and tackle growing bullying in schools against LGB kids. People who are subjected to continuous taunting on the grounds of their sexuality. It’s to help the criminal justice system take homophobic crime more seriously than it is at actually securing convictions, as this means that police officers, CPS staff etc might get training, or follow new standards – on a par with racial and religious hatred.

Let me ask you a direct question. Do you honestly believe the notion of “racial hatred” (as in under the Public Order Act 1986 and subsequent acts) should be scrapped, then?

Yes pagar, they overlapped. You just answered it. Apologies then if my last comment above looks pointless.

“I am afraid I don’t agree with this. Using free speech to deprive someone or some people of other freedoms is not a crime. Or the entire Cabinet would be locked up. I can call, for instance, giving the vote to women a mistake and demand its repeal if I like. It is not a crime.”

That isn’t quite on the level that incitement to hatred exists on though, is it? If you were actively getting people to act in a violent manner towards women to try and support your campaign then it’d be different. This is kind of my point, opinions are one thing, using them to orchestrate evil acts while keeping your hands clean are another.

claude,

The London demo of March (or Feb, I cant remember) 2006 where they held banners glorifying violence and terrorism (”fantastic 4?, “9/11? etc) is well documented. It contained threatening, abusive, inflammatory and hate-soaked language for all to see. Interesting how you all keep glossing over it!

As for Pink News “only quoting Choudary”, like uk liberty implies @55, to be honest even if there was a direct quote you’d probably say “where’s the video of that?”

Um no, I wouldn’t.

You’re splitting hairs here. To me, the quote is direct enough and what Choudary said at that press conference is absolutely obvious to everyone. What else do you think he was talking about ?

Jebus, this is hard work. I’m not arguing about the topic of his press conference but whether what he said constitutes a criminal offence. I can’t put it more simply than that.

It seems to me there is a (legal) difference between “you must stone gays” and “under sharia law gays are stoned”. Of course the undercurrent, the subtext, the meaning, is that “gays ought to be stoned”, but Choudary didn’t actually say that, did he?

Perhaps you are struggling with this because you think Choudary “called for the stoning of all homosexuals” when that is actually what Pink News claimed Choudary did at his press conference, not what Choudary said himself.

It is hard work, you’re right. Probably I’m being overly convoluted.

So I’ll put it simply. Choudary and his group base their existence on forcing Sharia law down the country’s throat. Choudary and his group call press conference to say that under Sharia law, which is what they are “fighting for”, gays should be stoned. He then goes on explaining exactly how to do it.

Look, the analogy is clear. It’s like denying the NF are calling for a “white-only” country because they only say that they would do that if there was an NF government.

Would you nitpick a legal difference between “the country must be white only” and “under an NF government the country should be white only”?

[59] ‘This is kind of my point, opinions are one thing, using them to orchestrate evil acts while keeping your hands clean are another’.

The problem with this assumption is that implies that the listener lacks an internal locus of control?
Perhaps a corollary is that recruits are only WILLING recruits?

Let me ask you a direct question. Do you honestly believe the notion of “racial hatred” (as in under the Public Order Act 1986 and subsequent acts) should be scrapped, then?

Yes of course.

Legislation should be used to tackle crime- the situation when somebody does something that adversely affects another.

Not to try to control thoughts and not to control words.

Law exists to deter and punish the detrimental actions of one to another no matter whether the victim is white, black, ginger, male, female, gay, old, young or disabled.

To try to use it for the purposes of social engineering is wrong.

@64pagar

At least you’re coherent, I give you that.

And yet under what you call “social engineering” bananas thrown on football pitches and similar disgusting displays of hatred have been cut down significantly. I’m not saying “stopped”, but certainly reduced. And there’s been a cultural change for the better.

Unless, of course, you think that a society in which people are free to shout various racial insults at a black or asian person in the street on the basis of freedom of speech (they aren’t physically attacking, just verbally taunting them) is the one we should prefer -lest social engineering?

So, I assume that either no complaint was made re the ‘stoning gays’ quote, or the Police did investigate and found there was no case to answer.

It seems a bit odd to me….

claude,

Choudary and his group base their existence on forcing Sharia law down the country’s throat. Choudary and his group call press conference to say that under Sharia law, which is what they are “fighting for”, gays should be stoned. He then goes on explaining exactly how to do it.

But (again) he does not explicitly say “gays should be stoned” or “you ought to stone gays, you know”. His audience is left to infer that’s what they should do.

Here is the guidance for the CPS on incitement. Do you see why it might be hard for the CPS to prosecute Choudary based on what he actually said at the press conference?

Would you nitpick a legal difference between “the country must be white only” and “under an NF government the country should be white only”?

I have no idea whether what criminal offence either of those could possibly constitute.

Again, I’m not nitpicking. I genuinely see a (legal) difference between “You ought to stone gays” and “We support sharia…. sharia says this about gays.”

If the NF said “you ought to kill non-whites” that would be an offence, I think. If the NF said “when we get into power we will kill non-whites” that would not constitute an offence.

@66 douglas clark

I don’t know and I’m not going to pretend that I do.

But a case can be dropped for a thousand different reasons, as you know.

There are endless examples of police allowing events to take place or the CPR dropping cases for the sake of public order, realistic prospect of conviction, loopholes or other…
—
Also…on a more abstract note: if we believe in a society where people have rights and responsibilities, my view is that the moment any group is established with the aim of subverting freedom of speech and democracy, like Islam4uk openly did, I guess they breach that social contract and they should be banned.

‘And yet under what you call “social engineering” bananas thrown on football pitches and similar disgusting displays of hatred have been cut down significantly. I’m not saying “stopped”, but certainly reduced. And there’s been a cultural change for the better.’

That’s an ‘ends justifying means’ argument that could be extended to all kinds of censorship.

@67 uk liberty,
“Do you see why it might be hard for the CPS to prosecute Choudary based on what he actually said at the press conference?”

There’s google out there, take a look, it’s a matter of will.

To be honest each minute I’m finding more and more quotes and interviews in which Choudary says gems such as this “Although [homosexuals] can do their immoral acts in their own home, if there are witnesses they would be tried by the Qadi [judges] and judged accordingly. They would be executed, thrown off the highest building or a wall thrown over them”.

Like Watchman argued earlier, the decision to ban a political group is political. So the CPS only counts here to a certain degree.

Islam4Uk and sister groups breached Britain’s social contract. They have openly said they have no interest in community cohesion, democracy and free speech. Their aim is openly to subvert free speech, “overthrow” democratic governments and “impose” their own views and faith upon the country.

Groups that base their own existence and work to subvert freedom of speech should be banned, I’m afraid- they automatically forfeit their own right to exist .

@ 65

there’s been a cultural change for the better

Says who?

And that’s the point. How can you be so absolutely certain that you are correct- that the social engineering you undertake does make things better. Better for everyone?

Your arrogance in making that assumption smacks of liberal fundamentalism and that is what your cronies in government try to achieve through ever more intrusive legislation.

Racists and homophobes are not cured by banning expression of their views. They need to be educated and debated with.

Groups that base their own existence and work to subvert freedom of speech should be banned, I’m afraid- they automatically forfeit their own right to exist

That’ll be the Labour Party then……….

@71 pagar
“Says who?”
yeah alright. relativism at its most fundamentalist.

Let’s all taunt one another with slur such as paki, coon, queer, slag, battyboy, nigger, muzza, muffdiver, raghead, dirty jew and the rest at one another.

That’s freedom of speech preserved, right?

“Racists and homophobes are not cured by banning expression of their views”
No, but you make life a bit easier for the most vulnerable people and targets of hatred.

claude,

My reading is that you are advocating banning groups as a political decision. But is that not tyranny – giving the government the legitimate right to ban all dissenting voices as dangerous to society. Remember the decision here was made by one man, and that is a dangerous power for one man to have.

Incidentally, arguing that Amjem Choudary supports the death penalty for homosexuals (which he does) does not mean his group should be banned. He has not to my knowledge said to his followers they should stone homosexuals now, but rather that they should execute homosexuals under some warped form of religious law he would like introduced. That is a political point of view, albeit an unattractive one which could not actually be implemented. But that doesn’t stop this being a political viewpoint: otherwise, by your logic, those encouraging the killing of criminals through the death penalty should also be banned from forming groups, as they are spreading hate by advocating killing. Choudary is just an extreme form of idiot, not a criminal. A relic of a faded and now misrepresented belief system of the past, not a threat to society. And above all, previously a joke, now a maytr without having to suffer.

@ John Booth

There is no reason to ban the human rights group SIOE which lawfully campaigns against the fascist, totalitarian doctrine masquerading as a religion and called Islam.

For example, SIOE is the only non-Coptic group that constantly campaigns for the rights of Copts. It is noticeable that BMSD has now sited a blog as a “media source” that published the murder of seven Copts in Egypt recently. No mainstream media outlet has mentioned anything about it, just as none has published what is going on in Indonesia where Muslim plantations in non-Muslim Papua are happening (of the kind that happened in Ireland centuries ago, alluded to in Paddy rebel songs of the kind mentioned in the article above).

BMSD sheds crocodile tears for the plight of non-Muslims enduring Islamic rule because it is Muslims like those in BMSD that permit atrocities against non-Muslims in Muslim countries. The evidence is indisputable.

Maajid Nawaz of the Quilliam Foundation went to great lengths to say, on Newsnight, that Muslims are of many races, so profiling Muslims at airports to prevent terrorism is a mistake. As we at SIOE repeatedly say, “Racism is the lowest form of stupidity! Islamophobia is the height of common sense!” and it is good to see a former Muslim “extemist” mostly agreeing with us.

To answer your question, non-Muslim groups will be banned in a tit-for-tat measure fairly soon because that is the kind of thing control-freaks like the commies in the Cabinet do.

SIOE won’t be banned though because we are openly non-violent, eschew terrorism and campaign for human rights. Islam is the antithesis of human rights which is why all 57 Muslim countries never signed the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, instead signing their own Cairo Declaration which enshrines sharia law.

It is Islam that should be banned as it flouts every piece of human rights legislation brought in by the EU to bedevil our lives. Those who campaign against SIOE, such as UAF which is funded and backed by trade unions like UNISON, are by default campaigning for sharia law. If they oppose sharia law, then they oppose freedom of religion, just as SIOE does. “Freedom of religion” does not mean a free-for-all, but that is what the faulty human rights legislation more or less says.

So, before resorting to the tiresome name-calling do a bit of research or you end up looking (in your parlance) a bit of a twurd.