• RT @jester: Call for feminists to join Labour and vote for Diana Abbott: http://ow.ly/2bQ1U 3 hrs ago

  • Problems that Labour faces in responding to the Coalition: http://bit.ly/cWEnlT (my blog-post for @LabourUncut) 3 hrs ago

  • RT @swralmond: Under-publicised story on Tory misuse of statistics, again: http://is.gd/dscqk How many times does UKSA need to tell them? 3 hrs ago

  • Yup! RT @SwearySocialist: I fucking hate the "Thankyou Cows" ad campaign by Muller. Its Shit. They still overmilk and mistreat dairy cows. 17 hrs ago

  • ~Good. It's free speech RT @sophyridge: Facebook refuses to ban sick Raoul Moat tribute groups http://bit.ly/dz63yU 22 hrs ago

  • More updates...


  • Family

    • Earwicga
    • 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
    • Feministing
    • Freedom Charity
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • Indigo Jo
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Statesman blogs
    • Operation Black Vote
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Septicisle
    • 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
    • Ariane Sherine
    • Desi Pundit
    • Douglas Clark's saloon
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Isheeta
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Smalltown Scribbles
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head
    • Ultrabrown



  • Technorati: graph / links

    15 new terrorist organisations to be banned


    by Sunny on 10th October, 2005 at 7:36 pm    

    The government it seems has finally had enough of tolerating extremist organisations that coordinate their worldwide operations from London. About time too.

    Fifteen international groups believed to be terrorist organisations are set to be banned, the Home Office has said. These are on top of 25 international organisations already proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000, and a further 14 already banned in Northern Ireland.

    They include groups with links to Iraq, Uzbekistan, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Morocco. The government is also planning to change the law so that it can ban groups which glorify terrorism.

    Should they also ban Hizb ut-Tahrir? I’m still undecided on that one, even though they’re a bunch of pompous chimpanzees who think they know it all.


                  Post to del.icio.us


    Filed in: Current affairs,Religion






    9 Comments below   |  

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs


    1. David T — on 10th October, 2005 at 8:47 pm  

      Should they also ban Hizb ut-Tahrir? I’m still undecided on that one, even though they’re a bunch of pompous chimpanzees who think they know it all.

      Naah. Until 1996, there’d have been a good case for it. Check out this OBM era ruling which shows how unreserved they were about sanctioning terrorism in those days.

      But with the departure of OBM, I reckon most of the active promoters of terrorism moved over with him into Al Muhaj. The worst that can be said of Hizb is that they’re millenialist racist sectarians who teach their followers that they’re engaged in an eternal violent battle with non-Muslims. They reckon the final strugle will start just as soon as they’ve established the Caliphate: but are presently confining their activities to appearing on radio, putting stickers on lamp-posts and generally carrying out the ‘Second Stage’ of their “masterplan”:

      The stage of interaction with the Ummah, to let the Ummah embrace and carry Islam, so that the Ummah takes it up as its issue, and thus works to establish it in the affairs of life.

      They’re a nasty organisation with a vicious ideology which needs to be exposed rather than cosied up to. Guardian journalists who soft soap them should wise up rather than providing them with free PR.

      In Denmark, its clear that they’re closer to Al Muhaj in style; but unless they actively solicit terrorism, I can’t see what grounds there’d be for banning them.

    2. pompous — on 10th October, 2005 at 10:42 pm  

      “even though they’re a bunch of pompous chimpanzees who think they know it all.” …

      having read a lot of your “articles” i think this sounds a bit like you mr sunny..

    3. Eric — on 10th October, 2005 at 10:50 pm  

      Perhaps we should ban Madeleine Bunting instead? (only joking)

    4. douglas — on 10th October, 2005 at 11:34 pm  

      pompous,

      Oh deary me a flame war with someone with a TOP lighter. I think Sunny’s positions are well thought out, unlike those commentators who have an agenda here.. What do you have to say to that, TOP lighter man? Or is your light extinguished?

      douglas

    5. Sunny — on 11th October, 2005 at 12:50 am  

      David, that PDF is hilarious! Typical of HuT though.

      They’re a nasty organisation with a vicious ideology which needs to be exposed rather than cosied up to. Guardian journalists who soft soap them should wise up rather than providing them with free PR.

      I agree with you on this one. I’ve had enough bad experiences with HuT to see past the suit they put on. They’re very much like the BNP these days.

      The problem is this though. They keep regurgitating these stupid ideas, which can be destroyed with fair ease, but are attractive to some.

      Those kids may not be directly indocrinated by HuT to join the Al-Qaeda but I can be pretty sure they become more susceptible to brain-washing by the fanatics.

      On the conveyer belt to becoming a fully fledged suicide bomber, HuT may be playing a part. And that worries me.

    6. David T — on 11th October, 2005 at 9:58 am  

      While the “conveyor belt” argument is the best argument for banning them, frankly I don’t think that’s a decent basis for banning anything.

      Not unless you’re going to ban an awful lot of “nearly dangerous” groups too…

    7. leon — on 11th October, 2005 at 2:03 pm  

      Can’t we ban the Government? They’re far more dangerous than all those “extremist” groups combined; none of them have managed to enact an illegal war that killed 100 000 people…

    8. questor — on 11th October, 2005 at 8:05 pm  

      You can vote them out. Or not.

    9. leon — on 11th October, 2005 at 9:22 pm  

      And then what? The Tories? Who voted for the war?

    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.