Blair declares war on Muslims and liberal society.
Blair vows to root out extremism:
It looks what I've feared for a long time is coming to pass. Despite all the rhetoric on keeping a consensus between the parties and with the Muslim community, Blair has decided to once again appease the likes of the Sun, the Daily Mail and the Express.
To come to the proposals, the first and most ridiculous is clearly the idea of deporting foreign nationals or those with joint citizenship back to their country of origin. This will predictably be challenged in the courts and probably struck down. Why can we not prosecute these men in this country instead of deporting them? What is stopping us from doing this? This is one of the major reasons why wiretap evidence must be made admissible in the UK court system, which is stubbornly being refused by the security services for the fear of revealing their methods. The promises of not torturing such deported individuals will not be worth the paper they are written on.
The second stupid move is the banning of Hizb ut-Tahir and the successor organisations of Al-Mujahiroun, which disbanded last year. Hizb ut-Tahir is a horrid grouping which advocates the establishment of a caliphate, sharia law and all the connotations of "Islamic" states. However, it certainly isn't worse than the BNP or the National Front, and is also strictly non-violent and against the authoritarian dictatorships in the middle east. The successors to Al-Mujahiroun, whom a spokesman at a convention of which called September the 11th a "momentous day", are even more marginalised. Banning these organisations will just do more to bring vulnerable and curious individuals towards their paths. Banning something always gives it an air of mystique and subversion. I've always been against banning such fascist groups and extremist organisations, simply for the reason that we should we appear against them in public and show their arguments for what they really are, as a mess and implausible. There is also always the possibility that introducing legislation which outlaws "glorifying terrorism" could be used both against environmental activists and animal rights groups.
The creation of lists of "unacceptable behaviour" is also outrageous, especially in the vagueness of its criteria. Will "justifying" terrorism even narrow down to saying that we can understand why it happens when the British government was involved in an illegal war in Iraq? Will fostering hatred of this illiberal government come under unacceptable behaviour? That's how vague this proposal is at the moment. Also of concern is the new notion that "anyone who has anything to do with terrorism will automatically be refused asylum". As has already been pointed out, such a law in the 1980s could have stopped anyone fighting against apartheid in South Africa from fleeing persecution there. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Stripping citizenship for acting against the "interests" of the country is another terrifying prospect. Does that involve economic interests? Would those campaigning against road-building which destroys natural habitats fall under that?
Most importantly of all, would these proposals have stopped the July the 7th bombing, if we accept the current official story? They almost certainly would have not. We are once again told we have to give up our freedoms in response to attacks which could not have been stopped. The climate of fear and enemies in our midst is further being built up. We should not cast complete judgment on these laws and proposals, as they are yet to be fully published and debated. However, if they remain true to what Tony Blair said yesterday, parliament must stop such draconian and polarising measures from entering the statute books. Britain must not go down the American Patriot Act path.
Tony Blair last night signalled a turning point in British postwar liberalism when he announced plans to deport extremist foreign Muslim clerics without appeal, close down mosques preaching hate, proscribe extremist Muslim groups and extend the use of control orders to British nationals advocating terrorism.
The prime minister also promised to wage a battle with the British and European courts, warning that he would amend the Human Rights Act if necessary to override likely judicial objections to the proposed deportation regime.
His startling package of measures sparked alarm among many Muslim groups and lawyers and led Charles Kennedy, the Liberal Democrat leader, to say Mr Blair was endangering the cross-party consensus developed since the July 7 bombings. The civil rights group Liberty said: "The fundamental values of a democracy cannot be changed because we are provoked by terrorists."
But the promise to end Britain's reputation as a sanctuary for extremism won broad backing from the police and the Conservatives.
The Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, said people had already been selected for targeting with the new measures. He told BBC2's Newsnight he was "very pleased" with the proposals.
Deportations of extremist clerics will start after finalising memoranda of understandings with as many as 10 countries including Jordan, Algeria and Lebanon to try to ensure anyone deported there would not be subject to torture.
Mr Blair said foreign nationals would be deported if they were found to be actively engaged in extremist websites, bookshops, centres, networks and organisations of concern. A database will list individuals who pose a threat to British society. Anyone on it will be barred from the UK, with appeals happening abroad.
Mr Blair pleased some Labour Muslim MPs by announcing he was proscribing two Islamist organisations, Hizb ut-Tahrir and al-Mujahiroun. Hizb ut-Tahrir said: "This exposes the fundamentalism of the government ... Our organisation has a record of 50 years of non-violent political activity ... We will resist the ban through what legal means are available."
It looks what I've feared for a long time is coming to pass. Despite all the rhetoric on keeping a consensus between the parties and with the Muslim community, Blair has decided to once again appease the likes of the Sun, the Daily Mail and the Express.
To come to the proposals, the first and most ridiculous is clearly the idea of deporting foreign nationals or those with joint citizenship back to their country of origin. This will predictably be challenged in the courts and probably struck down. Why can we not prosecute these men in this country instead of deporting them? What is stopping us from doing this? This is one of the major reasons why wiretap evidence must be made admissible in the UK court system, which is stubbornly being refused by the security services for the fear of revealing their methods. The promises of not torturing such deported individuals will not be worth the paper they are written on.
The second stupid move is the banning of Hizb ut-Tahir and the successor organisations of Al-Mujahiroun, which disbanded last year. Hizb ut-Tahir is a horrid grouping which advocates the establishment of a caliphate, sharia law and all the connotations of "Islamic" states. However, it certainly isn't worse than the BNP or the National Front, and is also strictly non-violent and against the authoritarian dictatorships in the middle east. The successors to Al-Mujahiroun, whom a spokesman at a convention of which called September the 11th a "momentous day", are even more marginalised. Banning these organisations will just do more to bring vulnerable and curious individuals towards their paths. Banning something always gives it an air of mystique and subversion. I've always been against banning such fascist groups and extremist organisations, simply for the reason that we should we appear against them in public and show their arguments for what they really are, as a mess and implausible. There is also always the possibility that introducing legislation which outlaws "glorifying terrorism" could be used both against environmental activists and animal rights groups.
The creation of lists of "unacceptable behaviour" is also outrageous, especially in the vagueness of its criteria. Will "justifying" terrorism even narrow down to saying that we can understand why it happens when the British government was involved in an illegal war in Iraq? Will fostering hatred of this illiberal government come under unacceptable behaviour? That's how vague this proposal is at the moment. Also of concern is the new notion that "anyone who has anything to do with terrorism will automatically be refused asylum". As has already been pointed out, such a law in the 1980s could have stopped anyone fighting against apartheid in South Africa from fleeing persecution there. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Stripping citizenship for acting against the "interests" of the country is another terrifying prospect. Does that involve economic interests? Would those campaigning against road-building which destroys natural habitats fall under that?
Most importantly of all, would these proposals have stopped the July the 7th bombing, if we accept the current official story? They almost certainly would have not. We are once again told we have to give up our freedoms in response to attacks which could not have been stopped. The climate of fear and enemies in our midst is further being built up. We should not cast complete judgment on these laws and proposals, as they are yet to be fully published and debated. However, if they remain true to what Tony Blair said yesterday, parliament must stop such draconian and polarising measures from entering the statute books. Britain must not go down the American Patriot Act path.
| Permalink
Post a Comment