• Family

    • Liberal Conspiracy
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Cath Elliott
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr. Mitu Khurana
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feminism for non-lefties
    • Feministing
    • Gender Bytes
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Statesman blogs
    • Operation Black Vote
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Ta-Nehisi Coates
    • The F Word
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Douglas Clark's saloon
    • Earwicga
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Rita Banerji
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • Southall Black Sisters
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head

  • Islam4UK to be banned; Sky News discussion


    by Sunny
    12th January, 2010 at 4:00 pm    

    It seems Alan Johnson is reading my mind or this blog. Anyway, I’ll be on Sky News at 7pm discussing this, with Padraig Reidy, who is opposed. I support the ban for reasons I outlined earlier.


                  Post to del.icio.us


    Filed in: Islamists,Terrorism






    13 Comments below   |  

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs


    1. cjcjc — on 12th January, 2010 at 4:40 pm  

      Good luck, though I agree with your opponent on this.

    2. Capote — on 12th January, 2010 at 4:42 pm  

      I hope they regroup as the “ALAN JOHNSON FOR PRIME MINISTER CAMPAIGN” and behave as outrageously as they possibly can.

    3. Satwant — on 12th January, 2010 at 7:25 pm  

      So, you want them banned because they want Sikhs girls converted to Islam?

    4. Don — on 12th January, 2010 at 7:38 pm  

      http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/war/islam4uk-changes-name-to-brian-thompson-201001122371/

    5. dave bones — on 12th January, 2010 at 9:56 pm  

      Do stick a link up to the sky piece when you can as I missed it.

      I totally respect your opinion and your reasons for holding this opinion Sunny, but I’d have to respectfully disagree. I don’t see freedom of speech as a shaky thing just because a very small number of people engage in terrorism. Freedom of speech is, and should be freedom of speech, just as incitement is incitement and terrorism is terrorism.

      I don’t think it is a good idea to drive groups who express views which are dodgy but not illegal underground as I am sure MI-5 keep a careful eye on those who pass through looking for something more hardcore, like the Crevice guys for example. Surely just in terms of resources spreading groups who worry those who try to prevent terrorism and driving them underground is a bad idea.

      I also think it is a largely wasted opportunity to engage with people who are at risk, and choose to risk their freedom to articulate a public front to what is called “Islamic Fundamentalism” as we have a problem in that area. I still don’t understand for the life of me why people on the previous post have loud, angry, detailed fantasies about these people without meeting them, but no one seems to want to explain that to me so I will have to leave it.

      Also I can’t see what difference banning these groups will make. Lets see what happens.

    6. Shatterface — on 13th January, 2010 at 2:03 am  

      So because a handfull of fuckwits say things you disagree with, fuck free speech.

      Now you’ve conceded this fundamental principle what are you going to do if a future government bans YOU from speaking?

      The government have played right into Choudhary’s hands by granting the victimhood that gives his life meaning.

      Well done.

    7. Sunny — on 13th January, 2010 at 2:20 am  

      I don’t see freedom of speech as a shaky thing just because a very small number of people engage in terrorism. Freedom of speech is, and should be freedom of speech, just as incitement is incitement and terrorism is terrorism.

      I don’t either see free speech as shaky thing either.

      But here is the point I made. Freedom of speech assumes a certain amount of knowledge on behalf of the people involved. This is why we punish people who shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre even though they’re not hurting anyone directly: they are saying something others have no knowledge of and it causes them to panic and do things.

      Similarly, Al Muhajiroun et al are the people who keep screaming fire in crowded theatres. They keep claiming to do marches, keep inciting people (calling soldiers ‘baby killers’ and actively work to create tension between Muslims and the rest.

      Now, another angle to imperfect knowledge comes here because the population doesn’t know enough about Muslims (and many think Anjem Choudhary represents the majority) and the media give him a big platform, further distorting the actual influence he has.

      In this context, they are continually shouting fire in crowded places. That is the limit you have to free speech and sooner or later you have to prosecute people who do that.

      Lastly - Choudhary plays the victim card continuously anyway, so that makes no difference. From the reaction I’ve seen from Muslims most support it.

    8. Jai — on 13th January, 2010 at 12:14 pm  

      Now, another angle to imperfect knowledge comes here because the population doesn’t know enough about Muslims (and many think Anjem Choudhary represents the majority) and the media give him a big platform, further distorting the actual influence he has.

      Exactly.

      ********************************************

      Maajid Nawaaz was absolutely superb on “Newsnight” last night when pitted against Anjem Choudary, who ended up making himself look even worse than he usually does — especially when he stubbornly refused to answer Maajid’s two simple questions, regardless of how many times Maajid asked them :

      1. Would Choudary’s intended Caliphate have people like Maajid killed ?

      2. How much is Choudary receiving in welfare benefits ?

      Two very simple and straightforward questions which Choudary desperately did everything he could to avoid answering.

    9. douglas clark — on 13th January, 2010 at 12:54 pm  

      Jai,

      You and I may have thought that. God knows what the general public made of it! Too many names, too much shouting.

    10. nobodys hero — on 13th January, 2010 at 2:04 pm  

      So, you want them banned because they want Sikhs girls converted to Islam?

      Dont they want to convert all the uk to islam and sharia law

    11. nobodys hero — on 13th January, 2010 at 2:08 pm  

      Can Alan johnson bann swine flu , eathquakes snow ice
      and stop the sea tide coming in

    12. damon — on 13th January, 2010 at 3:23 pm  

      It’s a bit like banning the Official Monster Raving Loony Party because we (the wider public) were thought too thick to get the ‘joke’.

      It’s a pity that that might have to be the case. It means that the Sun/Daily Mail/Fox Network have us over a barrel when it comes to discussing anything like this.

      I suppose you could justify the ‘broadcast ban’ on Sinn Féin spokespeople in the early 90′s in much the same way.

      I think circumscribing Sinn Féin was justifiable though, as they were part of a murder machine. But Islam4UK?
      I don’t think they are really worthy of banning.

      But how do you stick it to these Daily Express type hacks who just feed on this stuff and generate this situation?

    13. dave bones — on 13th January, 2010 at 4:05 pm  

      As I say Sunny I understand and respect your arguments, and maybe you are right. I am thinking of the future of free speech in the same terms as Shatterface. A bit of background- I have heard that the home secretary made this decision after MI-5 interviewed Mr Choudhary and maybe twenty others over a period of months, not as a reaction to this Wooton Basset thing. I don’t know if anyone has said this anywhere yet. What do you think about the other point I made, and I heard Mr Choudhary making yesterday- that driving this all underground is more dangerous?

    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.