First they came for the extremist groups…


by guest
13th January, 2010 at 4:29 pm    

A guest post by Yo Zushi

The BBC website’s profile of the recently proscribed extremist group Islam4UK (also known as al-Muhajiroun) ominously states: “What is clear is that there are . . . men who have attended al-Muhajiroun events who have gone further than words.”

Omar Khyam, a Crawley resident who masterminded a plot to bomb targets in south-east England, had attended the group’s meetings; another supporter, Abu Izzadeen, was jailed for attempting to raise funds for the Iraqi mujahideen. But do such vague connections warrant the banning of the organisation, under new legislation that outlaws the “glorification” of terrorism?

From tomorrow, it will be a criminal offence to support the group, which courted public outrage earlier this month by planning a deliberately inappropriate anti-war protest in Wootton Bassett [http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/10/islam4uk-cancels-wootton-bassett-march] — a Wiltshire town famous for honouring Britain’s fallen soldiers. Prior to Alan Johnson’s move to ban the organisation, Gordon Brown condemned the proposed march:

I don’t think there is anybody I know in this country who wishes to turn Wootton Bassett and what happens there into an undignified political event led by one or two people who’ve got malicious reasons for doing so . . . I think we should be very clear that it’s not acceptable and it would be disgusting and offensive and I don’t think there is any public support for any means by which Wootton Bassett should be abused in this way.

As much as I disagree with Islam4UK’s core beliefs, I found Brown’s play on populism to be cynical and distasteful at the time. Now, I find it worrying.

Islam4UK is not a major force in the day-to-day lives of Muslims in the UK. Despite the misleading headlines of certain tabloids, it does not speak for the UK’s Islamic community at large and the Prime Minister himself acknowledges this (“one or two people . . .”). Its leaders, according to the BBC, “have a track record of planning events that never actually happen”. The group’s main activity seems to be to generate press, almost for its own sake.

After the Home Secretary announced its proscription, Anjem Choudary, its spokesman, insisted on the Today programme that he belongs to “an ideological and political organisation”. He accused the government of allowing “freedom” to “dissipate . . . into dictatorship”, and said: “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.”

As I see it, he’s right. Did Islam4UK help Omar Khyam plan acts of terror? No. Was Abu Izzadeen following its orders when he tried to raise funds for militants in Iraq? No. The BBC’s sparse role-call of the organisation’s alumni mentions two men who attended “a rally over the global Danish Muhammad cartoons row” and “were also convicted of soliciting to murder”. Did this have anything directly to do with Islam4UK? No.

Alan Johnson’s decision to ban, which he believes is a “necessary power to tackle terrorism”, will make it illegal to be a member of the organisation. The maximum sentence for the “crime” is ten years in prison. Isn’t this a little steep? Brown may call its activities “disgusting and offensive”, but the fact that its actions lack “public support”, or that it voices opinions that are unpalatable to many, shouldn’t be justification enough to criminalise it.

When the Wootton Bassett controversy was at its most hysterical, Hugh Orde, the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, rightly argued: “People have a right to march. People might not like it, but that’s it.” Surely all Britons should also have the right to affiliate themselves with clubs, organisations, gangs, even, so long as the groups refrain from committing any real crimes (like murder)?

And like much of the terror legislation that has been normalised already, I predict we’ll see a whole host of abuses relating to the power to proscribe organisations over the next decade. Don’t forget: climate change protesters, keen photographers and the nation of Iceland are all ‘terrorists’.

——————
Yo Zushi is a musician on Pointy Records, who sometimes writes for the New Statesman.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Islamists,Terrorism






65 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. pickles

    Blog post:: First they came for the extremist groups… http://bit.ly/8VOCkn


  2. Leon Green

    RT @pickledpolitics: Blog post:: First they came for the extremist groups… http://bit.ly/8VOCkn


  3. Nicholas Stewart

    First they came for the extremist groups… http://bit.ly/6BpDHV #heresycorner


  4. Timothy Pendry

    At last Sunny is back on track! Good one! RT @pickledpolitics: Blog post:: First they came for the extremist groups… http://bit.ly/8VOCkn


  5. yugo katayama

    Pickled Politics » First they came for the extremist groups… – http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/7182


  6. Kazumasa Kuwada

    ?????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????RT @_yugo Pickled Politics » http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/7182




  1. Marcus — on 13th January, 2010 at 5:46 pm  

    Freedom of speech is one thing, and I fully support it.

    However the stated aims of this group was to establish an Islamic state in the UK. This would have meant full sharia law for everyone. This would entail beatings, punishments and possibly death for UK subjects who didn’t subscribe to these barbaric laws.

    Therefore the group should not have been banned, but its members incarcerated for treason.

    If I went to North Korea, Saudia Arabia or even China and started calling for the overthrow of the government, I think I would be dealt with severely.

  2. soru — on 13th January, 2010 at 5:54 pm  

    Everyone, I assume, agrees that there is a unarguable case for prosecuting Marcus for treason for wanting to turn the UK into North Korea?

    As for the OP, I was agreeing thoroughly until the last sentence: you had to go blow it.

    You can’t define the legal meaning of a word as the sum of the set of things anyone ever used it for. If someone somewhere says ‘meat is murder’, that doesn’t make a cheeseburger punishable by 15 to life.

    There are various cases at the edges, but trying to deny that 9/11 or 7/7 were terrorism is pointless sophistry. If you accept that kind of bullshit as an argument, you pretty much give up on language as a means of settling disputes and go back to hitting people with tree branches.

  3. Kulvinder — on 13th January, 2010 at 6:13 pm  

    If I went to North Korea, Saudia Arabia or even China and started calling for the overthrow of the government, I think I would be dealt with severely.

    People keep saying this and its amongst the most irritating truisms anyone can make. So what exactly is your point? You’re comparing a theocracy, a dictatorship and a communist regime to Britain!?!

    Thats your point of comparison?

    You don’t want to compare the freedom of speech found in say, the US, to what we have?

    For what its worth its far from a shock to have it pointed out that in North Korea you can’t criticise the government; we had more or less figured it out ourselves.

    The banning of Islam4UK and the prosecution of men who called soldiers ‘baby killers’ shows just how shallow, just how ultimately pointless the whole ‘war on terror’ is.

    There is no greater good ‘we’re’ fighting for; we do not lead by example but obfuscate with our hypocrisy. The prosecution in particular was based on little more than spitefullness.

    The ‘great’ british soldier can’t be called a ‘baby killer’ in case it hurts his feelings. One wonders how, exactly, he can fight with such a thin skin.

  4. Steve Wilson — on 13th January, 2010 at 7:18 pm  

    they’re fascists and need to be stopped. there’s no room for people on my streets who would execute homosexuals and all the rest of the retarded crap that goes along with living under religious governments where people can’t get their head around evolution.

    Don’t ban them but by all means fuck em up good when they walk down the street – just as we would the BNP

  5. Marcus — on 13th January, 2010 at 7:30 pm  

    Ok maybe a bad comparison North Korea, Saudia Arabia or China.

    But I do think there is a serious problem when subversive elements such as the members of Islam4UK can use our own laws to try and destroy them.

    Islamic immigration is changing this country and not for the better. Terrorist attacks and fear of them have allowed the police to gain powers without enough public opposition. These powers always end up being abused e.g councils spying on bins, photographers criminalised etc.

    I think it is about time that the people causing the trouble are targeted and not the general public. Maybe some people would find a charge of treason over the top. But I doubt many people would object to all of Anjem Choudary £25,000 a year benefits being stopped.

  6. Ravi Naik — on 13th January, 2010 at 8:12 pm  

    The ‘great’ british soldier can’t be called a ‘baby killer’ in case it hurts his feelings. One wonders how, exactly, he can fight with such a thin skin.

    I disagree with your assessment. It is about families of those that died and who are still in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is as disgusting as that anti-gay Christian group that goes to funerals to shout that “God hates fags” and that the deceased is rotting in hell. I draw the line there.

    But I doubt many people would object to all of Anjem Choudary £25,000 a year benefits being stopped.

    Are you proposing to stop benefits for all racists and extremists, or just the brown ones?

  7. Kulvinder — on 13th January, 2010 at 8:27 pm  

    But I do think there is a serious problem when subversive elements such as the members of Islam4UK can use our own laws to try and destroy them.

    If there was a serious problem the government wouldn’t hesitate to prosecute. The reason for the spiteful prosecutions for calling the fragile soldiers ‘baby killers’ and the reason for the banning is because they haven’t actually done anything thats that extreme.

    Still your responce on ‘islamic immigration’ and the governments actions hopefully underline the fact islamophobia isn’t this magical madeup phrase that doesn’t exist, and those of us who try to point it out aren’t brandishing our ‘race cards’.

    A bunch of nutters have been prosecuted and banned for little more than trolling, and please, please, any of you who respond ‘but they promoted terrorism etcetera; if there was anything on these people they’d have been put in prison by now.

    This was little more than society saying ‘shut up or we’ll imprison you’. Oh what values to be proud of.

    Unlike the rest of the hysterical, cowardly rent-a-mobs trying mental gymnastics about why the likes of the BNP and the EDL shouldn’t be banned whereas these people should be; ill be consistent with those that hate me even if you can’t.

    I wouldn’t wish this on the BNP, a party whose policies if enacted would be far more destructive to the country than any single suicide attack, and a party with hundreds of thousands of supporters anymore than id wish it on a bunch of trollish morons who the press found to be convenient front-page fodder.

  8. douglas clark — on 13th January, 2010 at 8:30 pm  

    I’d have thought that democracy in the UK was strong enough to see off Islam4UK without this rather draconian use of legislation.

    As Anjem Choudary has been floating around unemployed(?) for quite a while, is it not about time to apply the get back to work rules to him? Christians might say that the devil makes work for idle hands….

  9. Kulvinder — on 13th January, 2010 at 8:35 pm  

    It is about families of those that died and who are still in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Its bizarre that the freedom they choose to fight for in another country makes them so thin skinned to those that disagree.

    Regardless.

    The police were apparently consulted throughout; it was only after all the headlines that it was decided they had ‘crossed the line’; this little more than a political prosecution to keep the tabloids at bay.

    The police knew it, the CPS knew it and the judge knew it; which is why they got conditional discharges.

    Its for show.

  10. Kulvinder — on 13th January, 2010 at 8:37 pm  

    Strangely enough there doesn’t seem to be much hysteria about these ‘benefit scroungers’

  11. douglas clark — on 13th January, 2010 at 8:40 pm  

    Kulvinder,

    Show by whom?

    You don’t need to answer that but I think it’s a two way street….

    Never underestimate the propaganda aspects of Anjem Choudarys’ actions. He is incredibly effective, whatever one might think of his politics.

  12. Kulvinder — on 13th January, 2010 at 8:43 pm  

    Show by whom?

    The government for the public, theres an election coming.

    Anjem Choudary is a gadfly.

  13. douglas clark — on 13th January, 2010 at 8:48 pm  

    Kulvinder,

    Show by both. Don’t disagree with you about the governments actions. Think Anjem Choudary has aided and abetted their actions, for his own ends.

    He may be a gadfly, but he sure as hell has managed to dominate three news cycles now. Which is pretty impressive.

  14. Marcus — on 13th January, 2010 at 8:50 pm  

    @Ravi Naik

    No I am not just after the brown ones! The country is in a financial mess with serious cuts now being made to University Education. I object to the fact that a qualified lawyer Anjem Choudary is receiving £25,000 of taxpayers money. He would of received a grant and had his fees paid while at university and now although qualified he leaches off the state while preaching hatred of the very hand that feeds him.

    @Kulvinder

    As far as Islamaphobia, this really is a nonsense term designed as a catch all for anyone criticizing Islam. A phobia is an irrational fear, but my fears of Islam are wholly rational since I have seen the actions taken by many individual in the name of Islam.

  15. Kulvinder — on 13th January, 2010 at 8:54 pm  

    Oh i don’t doubt hes a media whore, but tarting himself to the media for his own ego isn’t something unique to him.

    When history looks back on all this who will look the more foolish, us or him?

  16. Kulvinder — on 13th January, 2010 at 8:59 pm  

    A phobia is an irrational fear, but my fears of Islam are wholly rational since I have seen the actions taken by many individual in the name of Islam.

    Your rationality shines through.

  17. douglas clark — on 13th January, 2010 at 9:09 pm  

    Kulvinder,

    but tarting himself to the media for his own ego isn’t something unique to him

    Of course there are many other media tarts around. But he is very good at it. How many other unemployed tatterdemalions do you know that get an oblique reference from the PM and action from the Home Secretary?

    To answer your question:

    When history looks back on all this who will look the more foolish, us or him?

    Dunno. Right now I have no time for either.

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

    Marcus @ 14,

    Are you basing your judgement on what Anjem Choudary has to say, or some wider knowledge?

  19. KB Player — on 13th January, 2010 at 9:24 pm  

    But I do think there is a serious problem when subversive elements such as the members of Islam4UK can use our own laws to try and destroy them

    Oh yeah? What odd would Ladbrokes give you that Islam4UK or its facsimiles would be able to take over the UK? 1000 to 1? 20000 to 1? This ban thing is nonsense, and it’s opportunistic as well.

    Chowderhead is a fantasist who for some reason some of the newspapers and the BBC have allowed to indulge his fantasies.

  20. Boyo — on 13th January, 2010 at 9:32 pm  

    “If I went to North Korea, Saudia Arabia or even China and started calling for the overthrow of the government, I think I would be dealt with severely.”

    Oh dear.

    I think there is, however, a strong case for reforming the benefit system to reduce abuse and dependency – many of our social ills result from the boredom, low self-esteem/ victim-culture the social “safety net” engenders. And this applies to the white “underclass” every much as Islamist leeches.

    Reform this, and I suspect many issues would become less pressing.

  21. KB Player — on 13th January, 2010 at 9:43 pm  

    I used to work in the Civil Service and one of my colleagues was a chap dedicated to the revolutionary overthrow of the state. The state evidently didn’t take this dedication very seriously. I thought the state showed a confidence in its own strength not to be anxious about two-bit Leninist vanguards.

  22. douglas clark — on 13th January, 2010 at 9:45 pm  

    KB Player,

    I think you are right to express it the way you did. I put it at 1,000,000 to one. And that is based on a high end estimate that he has 65 supporters.

  23. Marcus — on 13th January, 2010 at 10:46 pm  

    @douglas clark

    He has 65 supporter who are willing to take to the streets and really show the most demented side of Islam. How many other muslims support this viewpoint but are not willing to take to the streets? Based on surveys in recent year, such as the ones that showed nearly a quarter approved of the July 7 bombings, I would say quite a few!

    There are by latest estimates 2.4million muslims in Great Britain, using 23% from the survey means half a million people in support of the 7/7 bombings. That is innocent Britains on the way to work being massacred. Maybe the survey was not accurate so lets reduce the result to say 1%, that would still be 50,000 people. I would say this is rather worrying, unfortunately most people prefer to bury their heads in the sand and pretend that it isn’t true.

    Oh one other thing the Muslim population has increased 10x in comparison to the rest of society over the last 4 years, if Turkey joins the EU the writing the writing will be on the wall. So KB player maybe get down to ladbrokes and place the bet, unfortunately you won’t be able to collect it, as Sharia will make gambling illegal.

    I await cries of racism, islamaphobia etc.

  24. MiriamBinder — on 13th January, 2010 at 11:07 pm  

    Marcus, why bother crying racism, islamophobia etcetera and so forth. You evidently have access to the thought processes of each and every Muslim; you have read each and every Muslim mind and they are all but open books for your perusal.

    I’m only surprised that you are posting on here and not filling vast auditoriums to dazzle us all with your amazing mind reading skills.

    I’d tell you what I am thinking now but shan’t bother as you have probably read my mind already ;)

  25. douglas clark — on 13th January, 2010 at 11:27 pm  

    Marcus,

    What is this? Talk me down Marcus day or summat?

    OK.

    I was being a bit polemic.

    I doubt Anjem Choudary could actually get enough people on the street to share a Colonel Saunders Happy Meal. The evidence so far is around the 24 or so. I have seen some of the video about these people and it is a bit sad to admit I actually recognise faces. That is how few they are.

    How many other muslims support this viewpoint but are not willing to take to the streets? Based on surveys in recent year, such as the ones that showed nearly a quarter approved of the July 7 bombings, I would say quite a few!

    You really need to be a bit more selective in your sources. A quarter of Muslims may, or may not, have thought it was a government plot.

    I have no idea who you are, but let us assume you were an innocent person, a member of a group, and your group was accused of something you would never countenance. What would your reaction be?

    It would, almost certainly include complete utter denial. And that would be natural. You would do no such thing, and you’d assume no-one would do it in your name. What are you left with? Denial seems to me to be a logical option.

    Clearly, it didn’t work.

    But it doesn’t make anyone that thought that an apologist for terrorism, does it? It means that they couldn’t believe anyone from their own community could be that evil. The parents of the 7/7 bombers are a case in point.

    I’d imagine I’d feel the same way.

    That is innocent Britains on the way to work being massacred

    I think you’ll find, I’ve misplaced my copy of ‘In the Tunnel’ that the people killed were not exclusively white and Christian. I seem to recall Muslims were also the victims of this atrocity.

    Quite how you get to the idea that a shower of lunatics represent anyone at all is completely beyond me.

    Oh one other thing the Muslim population has increased 10x in comparison to the rest of society over the last 4 years, if Turkey joins the EU the writing the writing will be on the wall.

    Not really. The more controversial version of the future is that few people are ideologues. I’d expect most Muslims to go the same way as most Jews. It is something they pay respect to, but it does not influence their commitment to a democratic state. In other words they are not the enemy at the gate that you obviously have nightmares over. Most already are, and the rest will become model citizens.

    (OK, Jews are always controversial, what about Catholics, or the Irish or the Scots even? Who remembers the Huguenots, not me)

  26. Kulvinder — on 13th January, 2010 at 11:27 pm  

    tangentially, but assuming Yo Zushi is reading, this was a very good article and i also despair at the nut job puritanism in england today.

  27. The Common Humanist — on 13th January, 2010 at 11:35 pm  

    Now am not in favour of banning things or groups or ideas.

    Extreme ridicule and piss taking is much better.

    BUT

    Govt has been burned during the 90s and 00s as thats what was directed at Bakri et al but they were responsible for mass murder – and missed my sister by 120 seconds on 7/7 – so am pretty relaxed with Andy Beared of Hate being inconvenienced as much as possible.

    Why the fuck does a traitor get benefits BTW???

  28. douglas clark — on 13th January, 2010 at 11:52 pm  

    The Common Humanist @ 27,

    My friend, I think?

    But that is not the point, is it?

    We, you and I, should not say something that is apparently deniable.

    Anjem Choudary would allege that he has said nothing of the sort.

    I would much prefer Anjem Choudary to be prosecuted for something he has said or actually done rather than not. That is not restricted to actions, it would include incitement.

    I believe in due process, which makes me a minority of one, apparently.

    Find the evidence, prosecute and damn him. But don’t pretend you have an overarching bureaucratic right to suppress him. Evidence, kills,

  29. Roger — on 14th January, 2010 at 12:27 am  

    It would be worth checking whether Choudary and his friends are actually available for employed work, given the amount of time they spend working for jihadRus, whatever name it goes under at any particular time, and depriving them of their benefits if they do not fulfil the relevant conditions.

  30. douglas clark — on 14th January, 2010 at 12:36 am  

    Roger,

    I hate to agree with you, but you are right, Choudary is surely in need of work and should be encouraged, perhaps at the end of a stick, to find it. It would certainly stop him being a voice for Shaitan…

    Which perhaps explains how he has been able to claim welfare from his enemies for so long. Shaitan is strong and Choudary is only a weak human vessel acting on his behalf.

    It would explain a lot.

  31. MiriamBinder — on 14th January, 2010 at 1:12 am  

    I seem to recall reading that Choudary is employed by a Muslim organisation on a minimal wage which in turn entitles him to receive benefits in the form of tax credit and so forth …

  32. Shatterface — on 14th January, 2010 at 2:07 am  

    Much as I deplore the ban I think the title of this article – an allusion to the ‘First they came for the Jews’ speach concerning the Holocaust – is in exceptionally bad taste and yet again draws a disgusting parallel between the treatment of Jews under Hitler and Muslims under New Labour.

    Choudary himself couldn’t have drawn a more offensive comparison.

  33. douglas clark — on 14th January, 2010 at 4:57 am  

    Shatterface,

    Och, come off it!

    As far as I know you are an atheist. What is the punishment for that in Anjem Choudarys brave new world? You’d be lucky to get off with an instant execution. There is no calumny that reasonably equates to the godless shite that arsehole spouts. He is a genuinely evil person and deserves everything that befalls him. He is willing to introduce hell on earth for you and me, and for what? A warped and twisted notion of his own salvation.

    Fuck that for a game of soldiers.

  34. douglas clark — on 14th January, 2010 at 5:18 am  

    He is a clerical fascist of the worst sort, Shatterface, and the sooner you realise he is for real, the better.

    Everyone should figure out what seems obvious to me. He has more sympathy for the devil than any god….

    There have been many in the past that claimed sanctity and who should have had no legitimacy. You can find a few in the Bible if you care to look. King David comes to mind.

  35. douglas clark — on 14th January, 2010 at 6:22 am  

    Shatterface,

    You, and I, might agree with this:

    http://tinyurl.com/yeqeaxl

  36. Sarah AB — on 14th January, 2010 at 7:27 am  

    @Marcus – I don’t suppose I like Islam4UK any more than you do but I also strongly dislike the BNP (and various far left parties) who want to transform this country in objectionable ways. In so far as *some* Muslims do have unsettling views (though I think polls have to be scrutinised carefully to check how questions were framed and how results are being interpreted) hearing people grumble about ‘Islamic immigration’ probably isn’t going to help shift those views in a more welcome direction.

  37. Daria — on 14th January, 2010 at 8:21 am  

    I just don’t get it – the author insists that banning such purely fascist organisations like Islam4UK – it’s the beginning of facism? Could anybody (or preferably the author)put his position in two words?

    how disgusting and cynical it is to compare hate-preachers to climate change protestors…

    |||When the Wootton Bassett controversy was at its most hysterical, Hugh Orde, the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, rightly argued: “People have a right to march. People might not like it, but that’s it.”|||

    people have right to march against islamism, islamisation and even islam… deal?

    I think every muslim struggling for islam’s good image should support Islam4UK. Otherwise there is no ohter option but to regard muslims as suppotive of Choudary ideas (but scared to express it freely today)

    and don’t even try to hide behind “I don’t like them but they have right to exist”

    yes it’s like “I don’t like paedophilia but the paedophil’s party has right to exist”?

  38. Daria — on 14th January, 2010 at 8:24 am  

    “peaceful” muslims just like to give cause for islamophobia

  39. Daria — on 14th January, 2010 at 8:26 am  

    |||“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.”|||

    what about his justification for killing of infidels (“because infidels aren’t innocent”) during BBC “Hard Talk”? can be found on youtube

  40. Kulvinder — on 14th January, 2010 at 8:41 am  

    “I don’t like paedophilia but the paedophil’s party has right to exist”?

    You’re banning political parties now? Islam4UK is an ad-hoc organisation not a registered political party, but no obviously a ‘paedophile party’ shouldn’t be banned, what exactly are you afraid of, that people would vote for it?

  41. Daria — on 14th January, 2010 at 9:09 am  

    I don’t know about any peadophilic party in UK, but it exists in Denmark, as fas as I remember… perhaps a party, perhaps ad-hoc organosation, I don’t remember…

    but let’s imagine it’s in UK
    every sobber-minded person, as I see it, should support it’s ban, it’s not a issue for liberties debates. The same way with islam4UK

    It was just an example, Kulvinder, to show that muslims can’t speak out against Islam4uk ban and scream about islamophobia. You are either idiot or doing your best to stimulate islamophobia

    I’m not afraid, there is no reason for that, but why are you so afraid that it can be banned? It looks like muslims managed to imitate their indifference of even contemp to Islam4UK for along time (oh Choudary? lunatic, ignore him… do you really think we support him? how ridiculous!), but now then the question has been put point-blank – they show their sincere attitude
    to it

  42. MiriamBinder — on 14th January, 2010 at 9:15 am  

    I think that banning Islam4UK is wrong! I’d call it a kneejerk reaction except that I think that this was something that was planned very carefully and then put on the backburner to pull out at the right time.

    Banning Islam4UK is a shameful instance of populist political gameplaying.

  43. douglas clark — on 14th January, 2010 at 9:37 am  

    Daria @ 37,

    Are you sure you thought your post through before you hit ‘send’?

    “people have right to march against islamism, islamisation and even islam… deal?”

    Well, that would constitute freedom of speech and expression.

    “I think every muslim struggling for islam’s good image should support Islam4UK. Otherwise there is no ohter option but to regard muslims as suppotive of Choudary ideas (but scared to express it freely today)”

    How does that work, exactly? Choudary, up until today led Islam4UK. Asking all muslims to support his organisation seems a bit counter-productive. If you meant condemn, then you should say so. And I wouldn’t disagree.

    I think I’ve made it as clear as day that I detest Islam4UK. On the grounds that I am an atheist and they really don’t approve of people like me. However freedom of speech is a bedrock of a liberal democracy, and unless and until Islam4UK can be proven to be engaged in criminal activities I will continue to see this as the thin end of a wedge….

    Which is where I disagree with Shatterface. I think the strapline for this opinion piece is on the button.

    Prosecute them to the full extent of the criminal law. Ban their marches if you think it is inimical to public safety, but banning an organisation? I don’t think we have grounds.

  44. MiriamBinder — on 14th January, 2010 at 9:47 am  

    The PNVD (Partij voor Naastenliefde, Vrijheid & Diversiteit (trans: Brotherly Love, Freedom and Diversity Party)) is Dutch not Danish. About the only thing the two cases have in common is that both Islam4UK and the PNVD have agendas that are abhorrent to the majority of reasonable people of whatever creed, political or otherwise.

    In the case of the PNVD a ban was sought by the party’s opponents on the grounds that children should not have to be exposed to the party’s platform. (I think it was back in 2006 just before Dutch elections) Anyhoo … the ban was denied on ‘Freedom of Expression’ grounds.

    The banning of Islam4UK was enforced by political game-playing supported by a purported apolitical judiciary despite the concept of ‘Freedom of Expression.

    The former presupposes that the average individual can be trusted to exercise discernment and reason.
    The latter assumes that the average individual can be manipulated by fear provided you crank it up.
    The former assumes that the average individual has sense. The latter sees the average individual as someone that needs to be led by the hand and spoon-fed; or if necessary a ring through the nose and drip-fed to avoid dribbling ;)

  45. douglas clark — on 14th January, 2010 at 10:11 am  

    MiriamBinder @ 44,

    Good points. I am particularly exercised with your idea that we are all being treated as children. That seems to me to be completely correct.

    It is a lack of respect for our intelligence.

  46. Jai — on 14th January, 2010 at 11:03 am  

    the BNP, a party whose policies if enacted would be far more destructive to the country than any single suicide attack, and a party with hundreds of thousands of supporters

    Following on from that very good point by Kulvinder…..

    He has 65 supporter who are willing to take to the streets and really show the most demented side of Islam. How many other muslims support this viewpoint but are not willing to take to the streets?

    If someone is going to follow that particular dangerous line of logic, it could also be applied to the BNP. How many of Britain’s 50-million-strong white population basically support the BNP’s racist viewpoint [and the BNP's intended policies & actions if in power] but are “not willing to take to the streets” or necessarily vote for them ?

    I’m playing Devil’s Advocate, but hopefully my point is clear.

  47. Marcus — on 14th January, 2010 at 11:40 am  

    Forget the surveys, some people just don’t like to believe the results. Instead lets look at solid facts.

    The history of Muslims living in the UK is extremely short, prior to the 1950s the numbers were negligible. So a period of 60 years we have witnessed the following actions from a population of 2.5 million Muslims.

    Richard Reid (shoe bomber) born in Bromley, London. Attempted to blow up a jet airliner.

    Isa Ibrahim, a 20-year-old doctor’s son and convert to Islam, tried to blow up a shopping centre in Bristol.

    Two attempted suicide bombings by British Muslims inside Israel.

    July 7th bombings again another 4 British Muslims killing innocents.

    21 July attempted London bombings 6 muslims attempt to kill more innocent Britains.

    The glasgow airport attack, carried by doctors after failing to blow up a night club in London.

    Reports of foreign fighters in Afganistan with Yorkshire accents.

    I am recalling these from memory and so have no doubt missed many others. The point is we don’t have Polish people doing this, we don’t have Siiks, Hindus, Buddhists involved in terrorism. The problem is Islam, sure many muslims don’t engage in terrorism and are model citizens. These don’t worry me, it is the percentage who follow the Koran literally and hence view the conversion or killing of infidels as their religious duty.

    In my view the logical thing to do would be to make it a lot harder for new Muslims to arrive in Britain. Stopping the arrivals of family members, and new brides,husbands would be a good start.

    It should also be made clear to the ones who are here that they are welcome to stay if they respect British laws and culture, if they don’t provision should be made for them to move to a Muslim country.

  48. MiriamBinder — on 14th January, 2010 at 12:19 pm  

    Yeah! That’s the ticket! … nothing like a bit of indiscriminate mass punishment to restore a sense of justice.

    Oh, and for those unable to recognise irony when it hits them on the nose … the above is an example.

  49. damon — on 14th January, 2010 at 12:31 pm  

    As much as I actually support the points that Kulvinder and several others have made, I do also find my self shrugging my shoulders in a populist way to the banning of this offensive group in a ”so what?” kind of way.
    It’s not liberal and correct, but sometimes people don’t care about the niceties of progresive arguments.
    Where I am right now the general public supported the former Prime minister who gave the green light for the execttion of hundreds of drug dealers in 2003 (600 in three weeks).
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2793763.stm

    Totally barbaric and unacceptable, but people will not tolerate bad behavior here. I haven’t seen one surly youth in six weeks. Any youths being anti-social to adults would be chastised by the society.
    It’s ”normal” for it to be that way here, and sometimes things here feel so nice and laid back … that you feel a sense of freedom for it not being like the UK – you can wear a motorcycle helmet if you want, you can park where you want, if you have an accident you are in serious trouble if you are poor. But everyone is free to do what they want.
    Islam4UK (or anything like it) would be chased from the streets.

    My housemate back in England (who is from Amritsar) says he also feels a sense of freedom and escape when he goes ‘home’ to India on family visits.

    As a good liberal I know these are bad thoughts and I should try not to have them.

  50. Marcus — on 14th January, 2010 at 12:48 pm  

    @MiriamBinder

    My proposal is simply taking away rights that have caused all these problems in the first place. You may see this as a collective punishment, but I see it as necessary to protect British Culture, this is after all Britain we are living in.

    The current situation amongst many British Muslims is a man has an arranged marriage with a cousin from the Indian sub continent, she does not speak English or know anything about Britain, her rights under British law or British Culture. She lives in a house, does not work and basically produces lots of children. Over the course of her life she will not learn much English as it is not necessary. She can listen to radio in her mother tongue and there are also now plenty of cable tv in foreign language.

    I am a firm believer in when in Rome do as the Romans do. If this import of foreign wives/husbands was stopped now. Muslim men and women would marry people who have been brought up in Britain, instantly we would have a greater chance of long term integration. Both partners would speak English and having been brought up in the education system, also the wife may just have wider aspirations than being a baby machine. The massive increase in the Muslim population would be reduced, thus creating a better chance of harmonious existence amongst the residents of this land.

    If not expect further Ghettoization, no go areas for the none indigenous population, in such areas English would be a foreign language. This is already happening and it has to be addressed urgently.

  51. MiriamBinder — on 14th January, 2010 at 1:22 pm  

    @ Marcus … please do not suppose for one moment that I have failed to see what you propose; and I agree that you do so simply.

  52. damon — on 14th January, 2010 at 2:20 pm  

    Marcus, when I read what you’ve writen I’m imagining that you are pretty much the same as all these Daily Mail readers who commented on the story about African migrant workers rioting in Italy last week.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1241843/Racial-violence-worsens-Italy-37-wounded-immigrants-riot-response-shooting.html

    There are no ”no go areas” in Britain for anyone as far as I know. Though I have read some people claim that there was, in a place like Oldham for example …where a white window cleaner wouldn’t seek work in ”Asian” streets, and maybe vice versa.
    But maybe this is an urban myth (I have no idea).

  53. Shatterface — on 14th January, 2010 at 3:08 pm  

    ‘Which is where I disagree with Shatterface. I think the strapline for this opinion piece is on the button.’

    I think you may have read the heading differently than me.

    The headline is making a spurious parallel between censoring Islam4UK and the Holocaust.

    It’s a parody of Pastor Niemoller’s speech:

    ‘First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
    Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out.

    Irrespective of whether we approve of the ban or not this comparison is gross – particularly since Choudary would approve of the extermination of those other groups himself.

  54. Shatterface — on 14th January, 2010 at 3:28 pm  

    Just to clarify further, Douglas:

    I DON’T support the ban.

    I DO think this is the thin end of the wedge.

    I DON’T think comparisons with Nazi Germany are appropriate.

    Delusions of persecution fuel these sick fucks: let’s not add to that by comparing them to those exterminated by Hitler.

  55. persephone — on 14th January, 2010 at 4:04 pm  

    “they are welcome to stay if they respect British laws and culture, if they don’t provision should be made for them to move to a Muslim country.”

    I agree, starting with the BNP…

    http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/the-real-bnp/BNP-a-party-of-convictions.php

  56. douglas clark — on 14th January, 2010 at 10:57 pm  

    Shatterface @ 53 / 54,

    On the substantive issues around this affair, I am in complete agreement with you. You are another person who posts both here and on Liberal Conspiracy that I read, perhaps because you almost always not only talk sense but also add a bit to the discussion.

    I knew the source of the headline. I thought of it more as a wake up call than an insult. For what Niemoller was pointing out was a slippery slope, was it not? My concern about this is not I4UK as such, it is because a principle is being established, and it is a fundamentally undemocratic principle. It is a bit like the dangerous dogs legislation, is it not?

    Much as I detest I4UK, unless and until they break the criminal law there are no grounds for prescribing them.

  57. Yo Zushi — on 15th January, 2010 at 1:55 am  

    Sunny’s subsequent posts provide an interesting counterpoint to my (and others’) argument, but as things stand, unless Islam4UK are proven to have had direct involvement in terror acts, I still think they shouldn’t have been banned. If intelligence services have evidence enough to legitimately label them as terror suspects or terrorists, they should just arrest and charge them though ordinary legal procedures.

    Meanwhile, the strapline was indeed a reference to the famous Niemoller thing. But I wasn’t equating the plight of the Jews in the Holocaust with what faces Islam4UK, as Shatterface seems to have understood it. My point was that inaction – failing to speak out when a group of people who don’t necessarily represent your interests are on the receiving end of any kind of injustice – can be a dangerous thing. Also, my last paragraph was about how terror legislation seems quickly to spill over into more mainstream quarters of society. What seems to apply to others now could affect us all eventually.

  58. Dariа — on 15th January, 2010 at 10:22 am  

    43 – douglas clark

    Of course I was meaning “they should support Islam4UK BAN”! I just missed out the word,

  59. Dariа — on 15th January, 2010 at 10:59 am  

    44 and 45 – Douglas Clark and MiriamBinder

    |||The former presupposes that the average individual can be trusted to exercise discernment and reason.
    The latter assumes that the average individual can be manipulated by fear provided you crank it up.
    The former assumes that the average individual has sense. The latter sees the average individual as someone that needs to be led by the hand and spoon-fed; or if necessary a ring through the nose and drip-fed to avoid dribbling ;) |||

    and by banning such people as Geirt Wilders from coming to UK and showing his film – wasn’t the society “led by hand and spoon-fed”? And that was mulim community which fervently insisted on that – put a ring through the nose of non-muslims and lead them away from this movie and Wilder’s views. Didn’t you feel offended then? being treated like kids or mentally-retarded? that decision was made for you

    the principle “freedom of expression is above all” seems quite immoral to me, but what is even more immoral is to combine it with double standards

    and once again – what about Choudary’s advocating of infidels’ killings? advocating violence is not promoting it?

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.