No freedom to protest for YUO!

[Cain]

Islam4UK, previously known as al-Muhajiroun, is now a proscribed organization thanks to UK terror laws

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8453560.stm

A radical Islamist group that planned a march through Wootton Bassett will be banned under counter-terrorism laws, Home Secretary Alan Johnson has said.

Islam4UK had planned the protest at the Wiltshire town to honour Muslims killed in the Afghanistan conflict.

The government had been considering outlawing the group - Islam4UK is also known as al-Muhajiroun.

A spokesman for Islam4UK told the BBC it was an "ideological and political organisation", and not a violent one.

Mr Johnson said: "I have today laid an order which will proscribe al-Muhajiroun, Islam4UK, and a number of the other names the organisation goes by.

"It is already proscribed under two other names - al-Ghurabaa and The Saved Sect.

"Proscription is a tough but necessary power to tackle terrorism and is not a course we take lightly.

"We are clear that an organisation should not be able to circumvent proscription by simply changing its name."

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

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

Islam4UK spokesman Anjem Choudary told BBC Radio 4: "What the people will see is if you don't agree with the government and you want to expose their foreign policy, then freedom quickly dissipates and turns into dictatorship."

He denied Islam4UK members were involved in violence: "I challenge anyone to authentically prove that any of our members have been involved in any violent activities or promoting violent activities or asking anyone to carry out any sort of military operations.

"We are always at pains to stress that we are an ideological and political organisation.

'Whatever price necessary'

"We won't be using those names and those platforms which have been proscribed, but I can't stop being a Muslim, I can't stop propagating Islam, I can't stop praying, I can't stop calling for the Sharia.

"That's something I must do, and ultimately I will pay whatever price I need to for my belief."

Speaking from Lebanon, Omar Bakri Muhammad, founder of al-Muhajiroun, told the BBC the decision to ban the group would "increase the popularity of al-Muhajiroun" and "force them underground".

On Sunday Islam4UK cancelled the march, saying it had "successfully highlighted the plight of Muslims in Afghanistan".

The group denied members had planned to carry 500 empty coffins through the town.

The banning order will come into effect on Thursday and make it a criminal offence to be a member, punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

Shadow home secretary Chris Grayling welcomed the decision to ban Islam4UK.

He said: "We cannot permit any group which propagates the views of banned international preachers of hate and organises hate-filled public protests to operate in Britain.

"Now ministers need to look at how they are going to ban other groups in the UK which are part of broader international networks of extremism."

Earlier this week, Prime Minister Gordon Brown said plans for the march were "disgusting".

The Tories talking about hate filled extremists is probably the height of hypocrisy, given their chums in Europe.  I seem to recall a march to remember the Lithuanian SS was done by some of your new allies.

Anyway, the point is terrorism legislation effectively means thoughtcrime legislation.  They are banned for the "glorification" of terrorism, not because their members have taken part in terrorist activities or are a terrorist organization themselves.  Sure their views are puerile and disgusting, but, hey, so is locking someone up for 10 years for having extremist (which doesn't necessarily mean violent) view points! 

[LMNO]

So, is this an example of the UK not having explicit freedom of speech rights, or could this fall under PATRIOT ACT rules?

[Cain]

Both.  The ECHR states:

Article 10 – Freedom of expression

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Which is pretty weak.

Plus, the government likes to throw its weight around and look all tough and shit.  I note the "libertarian" Tories didn't raise a fuss, either.

[Elder Iptuous]

Isn't that groups explicitly stated aim to transfer all power in the UK to Sharia law?

wouldn't that fall under conventional sedition laws?

[Cain]

No, because they don't promote insurrection.  Anjem Choundry, their leader, has said before that their idea is to use debate to convince the UK public of the superiority of sharia law, and to transfer power to implement it.

Which will never probably happen.

The real problem is they wanted to put on a march through the town where dead British soldiers are paraded, when their bodies are flown in from Afghanistan.  Since Islam4UK have a comparable platform and speak favourably of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, this is contentious.

Also, remember the government here is unpopular.  Meaning it is more unlikely to undertake ethically dubious yet otherwise popular moves, like smacking around mouthy religious extremists belonging to ethnic minorities.

[Payne]

Also, it seems to me that Labour in particular seems to be doing their level best to pre-empt BNP calls for 'Somthing to be done about this grave threat to the British people!'. Taking a popular(ish) stance before the BNP can take any credit for it.

If they want to cut support from under the BNP with this strategy, I fear they are making a terrible mistake. It just works to make the BNP look more reasonable and acceptable when the Big Boys walk the same walk and talk the same talk...

[Cain]

Yes, exactly.

I wish someone would explain this to politicians.  I've tried, but naturally, my "20,000 insulting emails to elected officials" get bought up whenever I do.  Actually, Gary Younge, at the Guardian, has pointed this out:

The issue of whether the BNP should be given this kind of airtime has been debated extensively elsewhere in these pages. But there is little doubt that once the BNP is on Question Time, Jack Straw – or indeed anyone in the New Labour hierarchy – is in no position to take the fight to it. The same is true for most of the rest of the British political establishment that will be represented on the panel – they have either actively colluded or passively acquiesced in the political trajectory of the past decade.

But it is no accident that this happened on New Labour's watch and no small irony that Jack Straw should set himself up as Griffin's opponent.

Economically, its neoliberal policies have resulted in growing insecurity, rising unemployment, child poverty and inequality that have alienated the poor and made the middle class feel vulnerable. Politically, its lies over the war, stewardship of the expenses scandal and internal bickering have produced widespread cynicism with our political culture. The ramifications of its role in the war on terror in general, and Iraq in particular, were to elevate fear of a racialised "other" to a matter of life and death at home. "Terror is first of all the terror of the next attack," explains Arjun Appadurai, in Fear of Small Numbers. "Terror ... opens the possibility that anyone may be a soldier in disguise, a sleeper among us, waiting to strike at the heart of our social slumber."

Meanwhile New Labour's race-baiting rhetoric gave the state's imprimatur to the notion that Britain's racial problems were not caused by racism but the existence of non-white, non-Christian and non-British people. This provided little material solace but plenty of vulnerable scapegoats.

Having inflated racism's political currency, New Labour vacated the electoral market so that others with a more ostentatious style might more freely spend it. Once they had made these ideas respectable it was only a matter of time before a party reached a position where it too would earn sufficient respectability to appear on prime time.

Unfortunately, Younge isn't exactly Nick Cohen, Polly Toynbee or Martin Kettle, ie someone Labour pay attention to.  So no doubt this fell on deaf ears.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

[/quote]

That's not a right.  That's a privilege with disclaimers.

[Cain]

Yes.

Not that it matters.  The ECHR is too dangerously liberal and subversive for the likes of the Tories and it will probably be scrapped once they win the election.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Cain, there's going to be a really fucking big war soon, isn't there?

[Cain]

I think there was one, for the last thirty years, and scum like the Tories and Labour won it.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I think there was one, for the last thirty years, and scum like the Tories and Labour won it.

No, I mean a real one.  Historically speaking, all the conditions are right for something truly vile to pop up, and every time that happens, we have a really big war.

Who knows, Cain?  Maybe America and Britain will be the bad guys, just to change things up.

Or maybe China will decide it needs lebensraum (sp?), and will decide to take a bite out of Vietnam and/or Siberia?

[Elder Iptuous]

I'll be very surprised if we make it out of this decade without another global war....

[Cain]

Oh.  Well, twenty or thirty years, maybe.  These things need time to properly boil up.

On the other hand, 4GW and 5GW groups might do in the entire state system first.  Everyone assumes a systemic war will be an intra-state affair, but the way things are going, transnational groups might be the ones to start changing the system.  From that point of view, the war started eight years ago, and this is just a switch to the second phase.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Oh.  Well, twenty or thirty years, maybe.  These things need time to properly boil up.

On the other hand, 4GW and 5GW groups might do in the entire state system first.  Everyone assumes a systemic war will be an intra-state affair, but the way things are going, transnational groups might be the ones to start changing the system.  From that point of view, the war started eight years ago, and this is just a switch to the second phase.

Actually, the first shot was fired in the 90s.  It missed, so nobody remembers it.