Is it right to prohibit Extremist Islamic Organisations?

[mrmod]

BBC News Report

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.

---

Activities of Islam4UK (wiki)

On 16 October 2009, members of the organization protested against the visit to Britain by Dutch MP Geert Wilders. They carried banners with slogans such as "Shariah is the solution, freedom go to hell" and "Geert Wilders deserves Islamic punishment".

In January 2010 the group gained widespread media attention by announcing plans to hold a protest march through Wootton Bassett, a town where informal public mourning takes place to honour the corteges of service personnel killed on active service, as they make their way from RAF Lyneham to Oxford. Reports that the group planned to carry empty coffins to "represent the thousands of Muslims who have died" were denied by the group.Choudary said that the event would be peaceful, and that it was not timed to coincide with any mourning processions. The announcement was condemned by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who said that plans for the march were "disgusting" and that "to offend the families of dead or wounded troops would be completely inappropriate". The Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, indicated he would agree to any request from the Wiltshire Police or local government to ban the march under Section 13 of the Public Order Act 1986.

Choudary said he chose Wootton Bassett to attract maximum attention and, he asserted, 500 members of Islam4UK would carry 'symbolic coffins' in memory of the Muslim civilians 'murdered by merciless' coalition forces. By 5 January 2010, over 400,000 people had joined a Facebook group opposing the march.

The Muslim Council of Britain stated that it "condemns the call by...Islam4UK for their proposed march in Wootton Bassett", and continues, "Like other Britons, Muslims are not opposed to Britain’s Armed Forces.". The Wiltshire Islamic Cultural Centre stated "We, along with all other Muslim community groups in Wiltshire and the surrounding area, including Bath Islamic Society and Swindon Thamesdown Islamic Association, unreservedly condemn this march," adding, "Therefore we are putting the record straight and letting the media and general public know that the vast majority of Muslims have nothing to do with this group", and asking that Wiltshire Police ban the march. They stated that they, along with Call to Islam Centre and Masjid Al-Ghurabah, would counter-demonstrate against "Islam4UK/Al-Muhajiroon".

On 10 January 2010 Islam4UK said it was cancelling its planned march in Wootton Bassett; however, the police had not actually received a request for permission for the march

---

Anjem Choudary(wiki)


Choudary is a vocal critic of the UK's involvement in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and has praised the terrorists involved in the attacks of 11 September 2001, and 7 July 2005. He believes in the implementation of Sharia Law throughout the UK, and marched in protest at the Jyllands-Posten cartoons controversy, following which he was prosecuted for organising an unlawful demonstration. He was also investigated, but not charged, for his 2006 comments regarding Pope Benedict XVI. Choudary has received little support from the mainstream UK Muslim population, and has been largely criticised in the media.

Three different sources and I cut snippets from each. Click on them to read the full articles.

A Fundamental Islamist Organisation (Islam4UK) has been proscribed through the Terrorism Act of 2000. This means it is unlawful to be part of such a group and you could face time in jail.

The question I'm posing is, "Is it right to shut down organisations like this?"

They did not actually do anything and we all condone the right to free speech. But, they had agressive connotations (especially about imposing the Shariah through out Britain , as opposed to normal laws) and planned to demonstrate unlawfully.

So, tell me your opinions on the subject .

[Benny2guns]

Under freedom of speech ( the way I see it ) if one supports it and expects to be able to state what he or she wants to in public or to the public then that same person or person's has to accept that they will have no choice but to hear things they don't like and really do not want to listen to. So I stand behind the right of every person to be able to speak their mind in public without fear of reprisal.
The way I see things world wide tho, this is not the case anywhere on earth. There is no such thing as freedom of speech or anything else for that matter. Altho I do not agree with the act, as long as the authorities enforce it, thats just tough. Remember that it is an act and not a law.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_di..._and_a_law

[mrmod]

The question ought to be: "Is it right to prohibit extremist organizations?"
The Islamic part is not a crime, but any extremist organizations, that advocate violence against identifiable groups, such as for example the Nazi party, or the Ku Klux Klan, deserve to have their freedom to operate curtailed.

There was no actual violence per se. Just a goal of introducing the Shariah and complaining about treatment of Muslims..

What they intended to do was parade around a place that was known for honouring the bodies of soldiers who died in action. This was seen as wrong, but not violent. You can argue that the ideals were a bit violent, but the group didn't engange in any violence.

Under freedom of speech ( the way I see it ) if one supports it and expects to be able to state what he or she wants to in public or to the public then that same person or person's has to accept that they will have no choice but to hear things they don't like and really do not want to listen to. So I stand behind the right of every person to be able to speak their mind in public without fear of reprisal.
The way I see things world wide tho, this is not the case anywhere on earth. There is no such thing as freedom of speech or anything else for that matter. Altho I do not agree with the act, as long as the authorities enforce it, thats just tough. Remember that it is an act and not a law.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_di..._and_a_law

Even (as vf said) for the KKK? Would you not ban such an organisation?

You say there is no such thing as freedom of speech. What do we have in its' place then?

The Act may not be a law, but it gives alot of power to the government. DORA during WWI was not a law but it allowed the government to take almost unrestricted control over the nation, so the morale and supplies would be kept high.

This Act gives the government power to shut down any organisation on pretences of terrorism. Which can be taken in many different ways and gives the government alot of "ground to cover"...

[Benny2guns]

The question ought to be: "Is it right to prohibit extremist organizations?"
The Islamic part is not a crime, but any extremist organizations, that advocate violence against identifiable groups, such as for example the Nazi party, or the Ku Klux Klan, deserve to have their freedom to operate curtailed.

There was no actual violence per se. Just a goal of introducing the Shariah and complaining about treatment of Muslims..

What they intended to do was parade around a place that was known for honouring the bodies of soldiers who died in action. This was seen as wrong, but not violent. You can argue that the ideals were a bit violent, but the group didn't engange in any violence.

Under freedom of speech ( the way I see it ) if one supports it and expects to be able to state what he or she wants to in public or to the public then that same person or person's has to accept that they will have no choice but to hear things they don't like and really do not want to listen to. So I stand behind the right of every person to be able to speak their mind in public without fear of reprisal.
The way I see things world wide tho, this is not the case anywhere on earth. There is no such thing as freedom of speech or anything else for that matter. Altho I do not agree with the act, as long as the authorities enforce it, thats just tough. Remember that it is an act and not a law.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_di..._and_a_law

Even (as vf said) for the KKK? Would you not ban such an organisation?

You say there is no such thing as freedom of speech. What do we have in its' place then?

The Act may not be a law, but it gives alot of power to the government. DORA during WWI was not a law but it allowed the government to take almost unrestricted control over the nation, so the morale and supplies would be kept high.

This Act gives the government power to shut down any organisation on pretences of terrorism. Which can be taken in many different ways and gives the government alot of "ground to cover"...

It is an act that allows for laws to be written but still needs to be enforced to carry any wieght Dan.
I would not ban anyone from speaking their mind on any topic.
Thats freedom of speech.
Show me one place on earth that this is the way it is.
Because I believe in freedom of speech and that may allow outfits like the KKK to speak their mind this turns you off and may well lend you to call me names for it.
As far as I am concerned under freedom of speech you have every right to do so. Thats the thing Dan, with my freedom to say what I want to also comes yours. To say that a certain thing is not allowed to be talked of by a group that supports that thing is not free at all Dan.
Thats my take.

[mrmod]

The question ought to be: "Is it right to prohibit extremist organizations?"
The Islamic part is not a crime, but any extremist organizations, that advocate violence against identifiable groups, such as for example the Nazi party, or the Ku Klux Klan, deserve to have their freedom to operate curtailed.

There was no actual violence per se. Just a goal of introducing the Shariah and complaining about treatment of Muslims..

What they intended to do was parade around a place that was known for honouring the bodies of soldiers who died in action. This was seen as wrong, but not violent. You can argue that the ideals were a bit violent, but the group didn't engange in any violence.

Under freedom of speech ( the way I see it ) if one supports it and expects to be able to state what he or she wants to in public or to the public then that same person or person's has to accept that they will have no choice but to hear things they don't like and really do not want to listen to. So I stand behind the right of every person to be able to speak their mind in public without fear of reprisal.
The way I see things world wide tho, this is not the case anywhere on earth. There is no such thing as freedom of speech or anything else for that matter. Altho I do not agree with the act, as long as the authorities enforce it, thats just tough. Remember that it is an act and not a law.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_di..._and_a_law

Even (as vf said) for the KKK? Would you not ban such an organisation?

You say there is no such thing as freedom of speech. What do we have in its' place then?

The Act may not be a law, but it gives alot of power to the government. DORA during WWI was not a law but it allowed the government to take almost unrestricted control over the nation, so the morale and supplies would be kept high.

This Act gives the government power to shut down any organisation on pretences of terrorism. Which can be taken in many different ways and gives the government alot of "ground to cover"...

It is an act that allows for laws to be written but still needs to be enforced to carry any wieght Dan.
I would not ban anyone from speaking their mind on any topic.
Thats freedom of speech.
Show me one place on earth that this is the way it is.
Because I believe in freedom of speech and that may allow outfits like the KKK to speak their mind this turns you off and may well lend you to call me names for it.
As far as I am concerned under freedom of speech you have every right to do so. Thats the thing Dan, with my freedom to say what I want to also comes yours. To say that a certain thing is not allowed to be talked of by a group that supports that thing is not free at all Dan.
Thats my take.

You get my idea about the act. Just because it's not a law does not mean it doesn't hold power .

I'm mentioning the KKK for a reason. In their speeches they talk of hurting other people (jews,black, catholics) and superiority of the Arian race (Wasp). These speeches could influence and lead to violence (as has happened in the past).Now you have conflicting rights - the right to free speech and the right of the equality. In this situation, if you have one you can't have the other. It's point I'm trying to make - where do you draw the line?

Thanks for playing a part though, it's good to get everyone's opinion. It may seem off-topic but it's the whole idea of the article condensed...

[Benny2guns]

I see your point as I am sure you see mine.
Freedom of speech versus equality....interesting you bring that up Dan.
Freedom for me to say the KKK is a group that supports hate crime and violence is accepted as free speech.
Freedom for the KKK to speek it's mind and explain it's views is however not allowed.
Where is the equality or the freedom of speech in that?

[mrmod]

But if they do have free speech, it encourages violence and inequality (which obviously goes against the right that all should be treated equally). A bit of a paradox

So I'll ask again (for everyone this time); where do you draw the line? Do you say it's either fully free-speech, full right to equality or a compromise of both?

[billy]

in the uk where the march was to be held it is against the laws of the land to use do or use anything that incites racial hatred. this march would have done that and in doing so have broken the laws of the land.

an act of parliament for those who aren't sure is in fact a law. only parliament can create or break laws and making them is called an act.

The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom (citation 2006 c. 1) which creates an offence in England and Wales of inciting hatred against a person on the grounds of their religion. The Act was the Labour Government's third attempt to bring in this offence: provisions were originally included as part of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill in 2001, but were dropped after objections from the House of Lords. The measure was again brought forward as part of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill in 2004-5, but was again dropped in order to get the body of that Bill passed before the 2005 general election.

The Act is notable because two amendments made in the House of Lords failed to be overturned by the Government in the House of Commons.

Most of the act came into force on 1 October 2007.

this isn't about freedom of speech btw. anyone of these people can voice their individual opinions. what they can't do is voice it in a way as to incite hatred towards anyone who isn't an islamist.

this is what the marchers said the march was intending to do;

Choudary said he chose Wootton Bassett to attract maximum attention and, he asserted, 500 members of Islam4UK would carry 'symbolic coffins' in memory of the Muslim civilians 'murdered by merciless' coalition forces. By 5 January 2010, over 400,000 people had joined a Facebook group opposing the march.

the main islamic groups of the uk said they didn't agree with the extremist.

freedom of speech is a fallacy when it's used as a tool to allow the spread of hate.

if they marched for the reason given it would have broken the LAWS of the land. not sharia laws but ENGLISH LAWS. the laws which count when you live in the uk. i'd love to see the english march down downtown shariville protesting about all the english soldiers killed. they'd be blown up before they turned the first corner. in the uk we'd sooner just say no.

[srijantje]

I read the above posts, and I see a lot of hair splitting going on.

My views are simple:

1. Everyone should have the right to speak their mind.

2. Anyone who advocates discrimination or violence against an identifiable group is engaged in a hate crime, and needs to be constrained.

My logic is based on the basic idea that your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins.
There is no freedom beyond that point.

as the saying goes,words don't hurt.you can listen to them or not.how many times do governments insite violence or threaten it?all the time.

---

I read the above posts, and I see a lot of hair splitting going on.

My views are simple:

1. Everyone should have the right to speak their mind.

2. Anyone who advocates discrimination or violence against an identifiable group is engaged in a hate crime, and needs to be constrained.

My logic is based on the basic idea that your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins.
There is no freedom beyond that point.

as the saying goes,words don't hurt.you can listen to them or not.how many times do governments propagate violence or threaten it?all the time.

[billy]

actually SJ;

it's often words which incite the most violence.

words hurt.

you only have to look at the dutch cartoonist etc to see how they can inflame.
you only have to look at salmon rushdie to see how words can hurt.

if someone says death to west. and does so in a march in a western country they incite hatred.
if westerners did the same thing shouting death to islamics it would be the same.

a british party has already been taken to court for inciting racial hatred. (they lost and had to change their policy on who can join their party now.

besides all that its the law of the land.

[srijantje]

look how governments built up tension through rhetoric,scaremongering to con their citizens into supporting the next war,how many people get slaughtered in conflicts started on false pretext.These are our governments for god sake let alone some hatemongering dickheads,you can't turn anywhere anymore to get a right assesment or answer on anything anymore,everything is bent and spun out of recognition,by right wing idiots like what's his name and our so called own politicians.
sorry for the ranting.

[billy]

no need to be sorry sj lol

as for the war. the west wentinto first and them tried to vindicate their actions.

i actually agreed with the war in iraq, and to some extent afghanistan

it isn' about what you say but how you say it. anyof the islamist can go on the net or on the tv and say they think the west was wrong etc.
but when you have hundreds of them marching and shouting death to all who oppose alla, death to the west. death to brown etc, etc, then i'd say it's a bit much

and as i said it's against the law of the land.

if i were with you and someone here in the uk (do you have an asian partner) called your partner a racist name i'd either tell them to shut the fuck up or give them a slap. if someone said it to my partner i would ask myself about freedom of speech, i'd break their fuckin nose.

some words incite hatred, in the uk those words are against the law. i agree with the law in this instance. others don't don't and thats fine as well.

and just because a gov or any other body doesn't mean it should be allowed.
hate marches should be banned.

[Benny2guns]

Hate marches should be banned. Seems logical to me as I am sure it does to most folks.
Here is the problem that I can see with that...Any protest or march can be said to contain hatred, whether that be against a people or a political party or a law or an idea or what have you. It can also be said that just about any protest march can result in the spread of hatred about anything.
It is a very dangerous box to open, that one that restricts freedom of speech.
Most people would not make remarks about your partner out loud to your face Bill and if they did they would deserve a punch in the face. That thought of force keeps most civil people's free speech in check.
We can not in my opinion gag our free speech because of a criminal element.

[billy]

Hate marches should be banned. Seems logical to me as I am sure it does to most folks.
Here is the problem that I can see with that...Any protest or march can be said to contain hatred, whether that be against a people or a political party or a law or an idea or what have you. It can also be said that just about any protest march can result in the spread of hatred about anything.
It is a very dangerous box to open, that one that restricts freedom of speech.
Most people would not make remarks about your partner out loud to your face Bill and if they did they would deserve a punch in the face. That thought of force keeps most civil people's free speech in check.
We can not in my opinion gag our free speech because of a criminal element.

not in instances like the one in this thread.
which is being discussed. if they said they wanted to march in order to praise allah or to solidify and bring together the british islamic community they'd have been allowed to march.

ilsamic communties in the uk have marches all the time like anyone else does,

the national front party can also have marches but if they say the march is to stop blacks having a vote or to kick them out of the country they don't get permission. if they say it's for a peaceful march and it ends up not to be they then the march orginisers get taken to court and fined as the british nationalist party has been on more than one occasion.

while there is a small grey area it' isn't that bad because manily it depends on what reason the march is far when you apply you do need a permit to march for safety reasons. generally the march will be allowed but the time or place may be altered to suit said safety needs.

often marches may disrupt traffic and other peoples right to use the streets to get to work etc. these are the times you may be asked to have the march on a weekend. you must have a planned route etc again for safty.

the uk is pretty fair when it comes to allowing marches. especially marches and protests against the government.

[srijantje]

i f somebody calls my wife names,he'll get a reaction,if people march and shout hate,they'll get a reaction.
i got arrested for shouting Johnson murderer[vietnam demo]the law said you can't call a "friendly" head of state a murderer.
the guy was obviously a murderer and who decides who's friendly?

[billy]

i f somebody calls my wife names,he'll get a reaction,if people march and shout hate,they'll get a reaction.
i got arrested for shouting Johnson murderer[vietnam demo]the law said you can't call a "friendly" head of state a murderer.
the guy was obviously a murderer and who decides who's friendly?

the law lmao
in the uk that would prob have been allowed. (now)
though you could be taken to court for slander.
if you said it about chruchil in his period you'd have prob been hund where you stood but i consider churchil to have been a murderer to some extent.

plus the 60's and 70's were diff to what the times are like now.
in the uk almost everyone was anti black. anti gay, anti everything

now it's different in the main more people are more tolerant. more people are allowed to march in anti gov parades etc.

[srijantje]

That's exactly the feeling I'm getting,now that people in general are getting more tolerant and relaxed about things,the governments seem to tighten the screws,they feel they can get away with it easier

[srijantje]

no,why block it?do as the mayor did,walk away,have a comment on it.what good would it do to block something like that?

[billy]

What about this parade in British Columbia?

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbi...arade.html

Should that have been blocked?

therein lies the problem.

if people say nothing of an offensive nature will be present they should be allowed to march. next time they should have to show photographic content of what the floats will be dressed in.

as long as they're not shouting for the death of anyone, or being hateful it wouldn't bother me. sadly the islamic extremist shout for those thing all the time in the uk, and do so with hate