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
QuoteA 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!
So, is this an example of the UK not having explicit freedom of speech rights, or could this fall under PATRIOT ACT rules?
Both. The ECHR states:
QuoteArticle 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.
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?
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.
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...
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 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/21/jack-straw-bnp-griffin-hain), at the Guardian, has pointed this out:
QuoteThe 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.
Quote from: Cain on January 12, 2010, 04:18:27 PM
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.
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.
Cain, there's going to be a really fucking big war soon, isn't there?
I think there was one, for the last thirty years, and scum like the Tories and Labour won it.
Quote from: Cain on January 13, 2010, 04:56:47 PM
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?
I'll be very surprised if we make it out of this decade without another global war....
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.
Quote from: Cain on January 13, 2010, 06:02:34 PM
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.
Quote from: Cain on January 13, 2010, 06:02:34 PM
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.
i don't know about that.
if the nation-state as a model starts failing, they will do what is in their power to maintain themselves, and that means using force. if they start failing en masse, they will start using force en masse...
that can happen sooner rather than later.
i don't know that we need any more wind-up than we already have...
Quote from: Iptuous on January 13, 2010, 06:13:01 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 13, 2010, 06:02:34 PM
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.
i don't know about that.
if the nation-state as a model starts failing, they will do what is in their power to maintain themselves, and that means using force. if they start failing en masse, they will start using force en masse...
that can happen sooner rather than later.
i don't know that we need any more wind-up than we already have...
Fact: If monkeys didn't need the nation-state mentality, they'd have done away with the state and gone over to corporate rule in the early 20th century, when the idea became practical.
Since when have people done away with obsolete things swiftly, cleanly, efficiently? I'd expect the timing to depend on corporate leaderships' willingness to run state-sized bits of territory.
Quote from: yhnmzw on January 13, 2010, 06:38:28 PM
Since when have people done away with obsolete things swiftly, cleanly, efficiently? I'd expect the timing to depend on corporate leaderships' willingness to run state-sized bits of territory.
They already do that. They have since Standard Oil and United Fruit. But why raise your own army when you can use the US Marines?
Don't BE the government, BUY the government.
i think current technology allows monkeyspheres to operate without the nation-state more easily now than in the last century. it's different.
things are stickier and smaller.
besides, why do you think monkeys need the nationstate mentality? they just need some form of tribe...
we also have groups with global reach that are neither working under the assumption that the nation-state has a monopoly on sovereignty, nor do they feel the need to clothe themselves in the legitimacy that purchasing the states' sponsorship affords.
Iptuous: If you turn out to be right on this I *will* shoot you.
Then myself.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 13, 2010, 07:37:01 PM
Iptuous: If you turn out to be right on this I *will* shoot you.
Then myself.
Oh, c'mon...
it'll be fun.
a real scream.
Traditionally there's a war in the teen period of a century. WWI, The napoleanic wars, I'm not sure what was going on in the 17 teens but I am sure there were some big fights.
There was that war about the fucked up, inbred Spanish prince, right?
wasn't that pretty big? like a good amount of Europe?
wow, according to Wikipedia nothing happened in Europe at all between 1709 and 1720.
That's why Wikipedia should not be your only source.
http://www.worldstatesmen.org/WARS.html
First and Second Northern Wars (Aug 1700 - 30 Aug 1721)
Sweden
vs.
Russia
Denmark-Norway
Poland
War of the Spanish Succession, ( 7 Sep 1701 - 7 Mar 1714)
(in North America called Queen Anne's War)
War of the Quadruple Alliance (2 Aug 1718 - 17 Feb 1720)
Spain
vs.
United Kingdom
France
Netherlands
Holy Roman Empire
Savoy
Sicily
Since when did every third politics thread of mine turn into "hey, lets discuss systemic war (based on shallow datasets)" thread, anyway? I must've missed that memo.
Fuck this, I'm going to bed.
Whoops. Sorry about that, Cain.
I blame Iptuous
OK, that was a little pissy, even by my standards.
But seriously. Look, there was a massive project about, oh, 20 years ago now, to systematically study war in its entirety. It was pretty big, had lots of money behind it and lots of smart people working on it. They studied every war of the past 500 years in Europe (hardly a small sample), collected every piece of data possible, every single available metric, and analysed it to hell and back. The analysis alone took nearly a decade to do, and the conclusions had to be written up in a book. A heavy book. You know what those conclusions were?
There were none.
The study showed that war was essentially impossible to predict. And we're talking things like economic interdependence, population booms, depopulation, disease, famine, refugees, religious conflict, alliance systems, technological imbalances and a whole host of other factors. Every single possible rule had several counterexamples, none of which matched the other in terms of what factor differed. This was the most rigorous study of the causes of war to date, and the only firm conclusion they came to was that you can't come to a firm conclusion about war.
They couldn't figure anything out, so I wouldn't expect anyone here to do any better.
What about using Quantum?
Oh, and you might like to know that there was a Facebook group (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=info&ref=search&gid=228021139869) that opposed the march, that was quite popular. Only, one of the people running the group is a BNP activist (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=234640234510&ref=nf). The founder of the group has been told, yet does not have a problem with this.
Some forms of extremism are bad. Other forms of extremism, however, are (http://bnp.org.uk/) perfectly (http://www.englishdefenceleague.org/) acceptable (http://sioe.wordpress.com/). Funny how so few of those marches get banned, despite their glorification of Nazism, which is responsible for far worse crimes than the current crop of Islamists.
Quote from: Cain on January 14, 2010, 08:40:36 PM
OK, that was a little pissy, even by my standards.
But seriously. Look, there was a massive project about, oh, 20 years ago now, to systematically study war in its entirety. It was pretty big, had lots of money behind it and lots of smart people working on it. They studied every war of the past 500 years in Europe (hardly a small sample), collected every piece of data possible, every single available metric, and analysed it to hell and back. The analysis alone took nearly a decade to do, and the conclusions had to be written up in a book. A heavy book. You know what those conclusions were?
There were none.
The study showed that war was essentially impossible to predict. And we're talking things like economic interdependence, population booms, depopulation, disease, famine, refugees, religious conflict, alliance systems, technological imbalances and a whole host of other factors. Every single possible rule had several counterexamples, none of which matched the other in terms of what factor differed. This was the most rigorous study of the causes of war to date, and the only firm conclusion they came to was that you can't come to a firm conclusion about war.
They couldn't figure anything out, so I wouldn't expect anyone here to do any better.
:mittens:
That's awesome. I will use it to annoy people with nihilism, if an appropriate topic comes up.