Extremist clerics will be barred from Britain

Anthony Butcher · 15-07-2005, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Islamic extremists barred by the United States and other countries will be prevented from entering Britain under new anti-terrorist measures outlined to the Cabinet yesterday.

Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, has instigated an immediate review of his powers to exclude and deport people likely to incite terrorism.

The new powers are particularly aimed at Islamic clerics who have encouraged disaffected young British Muslims to become radicalised and potential suicide bombers.

Downing Street said that last year Mr Clarke excluded a radical Pakistani cleric on a visitor's visa who spoke at a mosque in Glasgow to encourage jihad.

In future anyone attempting to enter Britain who has been previously excluded from America or the European Union will have his or her case immediately referred to the Home Secretary for a decision. Downing Street made clear that exclusion would be automatic if it were considered that admission "would not be conductive to the public good".

The new powers could prevent radicals such as Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who has backed Palestinian suicide bombers, from entering the country. He caused controversy when he was invited to London by Ken Livingstone, the mayor of London, this year.

Asylum seekers and those granted "indefinite leave to remain" will also face tougher restrictions and deportation if they are found to be "inciting or fomenting terrorism".

The Cabinet authorised a redoubling of diplomatic efforts to reach agreement with a number of North African countries so that Britain could send troublemakers back to their countries of origin.

At present Britain cannot deport anyone to a country where he or she may be subject to inhuman or degrading treatment and attempts to send them back have been blocked by the courts.

But ministers believe that judges may be more ready to approve deportation orders if agreement can be reached that deportees will not be tortured or imprisoned when they are sent back.

Downing Street disclosed that the new Incitement to Racial Hatred Bill passing through Parliament would not only protect the Muslim community but would also allow the prosecution of anyone who sought to incite hatred against other faiths.

The urgency with which the Government is seeking to strengthen anti-terrorism laws was underlined by the announcement that Tony Blair and Mr Clarke will hold a series of summits aimed at securing the maximum consensus on new anti-terrorism laws.

The Prime Minister will hold talks in Downing Street next Thursday with senior members of the intelligence services and police officers to hear from them what additional powers they need.

Mr Clarke will meet his Conservative and Liberal Democrat opposite numbers on Monday, giving them details of the proposals the Government will seek to include in a new counter-terrorism Bill to be published in the autumn.

Mr Blair will also hold talks the week after next with Michael Howard, the Conservative leader, and Charles Kennedy, the Liberal Democrat leader, to try to reach agreement on the new laws.

Downing Street said there were no plans yet to recall Parliament from the three-month summer break that starts next week but said an emergency sitting in September to approve new laws had not been ruled out.

What about home-grown extremists?

Will that be stretched to include anyone inciting others to break the law? What about people encouraging others to refuse to carry ID cards, such as happens on this forum?

We are well INTO phpbb_thought-crime territory here.

C_steam · 15-07-2005, 07:52 PM

We need another government-led labelling system here.

Introducing the 'cleric mark' - perhaps a five point scale, starting at Green (1) for 'Gently exhorting' through amber (3) for 'mildly raving' through to red (5) for 'extreme fundamentalist'.

Any cleric with a 5 rating would carry a government health warning.

The scheme is to be introduced on a voluntary basis in a trial area, however it is expected to be rolled out across the country on a non-voluntary basis during the next three years, following consultation and effective consensus building with stakeholders and community leaders.

The exact cost of the scheme is not clear, however a spokesman said that a new PFI set up to gain sponsorship of the clerics robes would recoup sufficient money for the scheme to be effectively cost neutral.

The spokesman also hinted at future targets being introduced to ensure fair representation of clerics at all 5 levels.

In response, Dr Rowan Williams (a 2 - 'occasionally inspiring') warmly welcomed the initiative, particulalry its multi-faith applicability. In a statement to the press, he said "This is another great government idea - for too long we clerics of all faiths have had no means to measure ourselves against standards. I will be using this as an opportunity for improvement, I myself will aim to become a 4 ('irritatingly smug and patronising').

Chelsea football club later announced a multi million pound sponsorship deal to sponsor cassocks nationwide.

mkpdavies · 15-07-2005, 10:11 PM

Can you imagine what this could lead too?

Anti-EU hate crimes.

Anti ID card hate crimes.

Non-Labour party friendly activity = enemy of the state.

Can we have Blair up on this for ordering soldiers to go and attack Iraq on a pack of lies? Oh no, it doesn't count for him does it.

BritishPatriot · 15-07-2005, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anthony Butcher

What about home-grown extremists?

Firstly there is nothing wrong with extremism. Someone could be home-grown and an extremely kind person. I think this is different though, because it is merely controlling our borders which the nation has a right to. I think our borders should be closed to all Muslims.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anthony Butcher

Will that be stretched to include anyone inciting others to break the law? What about people encouraging others to refuse to carry ID cards, such as happens on this forum?

I am not sure someone who preaches murder of innocents should be allowed freedom of speech. Should someone who preaches murder of Blacks or Asians be allowed to? What do others think about this - what are the limits of freedom of speech? Not carrying ID cards and suicide bombing are different things. Murder of innocents should be illegal under any government.

mkpdavies · 15-07-2005, 11:37 PM

If someone asks others to kill, isn't that almost like taking out a contract, which is illegal?

Alex McKee · 15-07-2005, 11:37 PM

The limits of free speech are well defined - "The Right to Freedom of Expression (speech and otherwise) walks hand in hand with the responsibility to ensure that you do not Greviously Offend."

What is the true question is at what point to we declare offence to be Grevious.

Alex McKee · 15-07-2005, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

If someone asks others to kill, isn't that almost like taking out a contract, which is illegal?

yes, the Bliar government is yet again passing laws that are uneeded. All is covered in the Statute AND common Law already.

John Carter · 16-07-2005, 02:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex

The limits of free speech are well defined - "The Right to Freedom of Expression (speech and otherwise) walks hand in hand with the responsibility to ensure that you do not Greviously Offend."

What is the true question is at what point to we declare offence to be Grevious.

I like the yank "clear and present danger" version.

15-07-2005, 10:11 PM	#3 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 31,158 Party: Libertarian Party	Can you imagine what this could lead too? Anti-EU hate crimes. Anti ID card hate crimes. Non-Labour party friendly activity = enemy of the state. Can we have Blair up on this for ordering soldiers to go and attack Iraq on a pack of lies? Oh no, it doesn't count for him does it. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

15-07-2005, 11:37 PM	#5 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 31,158 Party: Libertarian Party	If someone asks others to kill, isn't that almost like taking out a contract, which is illegal? __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

15-07-2005, 07:52 PM	#2 (permalink)
C_steam Super Moderator Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Paddling up 5hit creek..... Posts: 7,802	We need another government-led labelling system here. Introducing the 'cleric mark' - perhaps a five point scale, starting at Green (1) for 'Gently exhorting' through amber (3) for 'mildly raving' through to red (5) for 'extreme fundamentalist'. Any cleric with a 5 rating would carry a government health warning. The scheme is to be introduced on a voluntary basis in a trial area, however it is expected to be rolled out across the country on a non-voluntary basis during the next three years, following consultation and effective consensus building with stakeholders and community leaders. The exact cost of the scheme is not clear, however a spokesman said that a new PFI set up to gain sponsorship of the clerics robes would recoup sufficient money for the scheme to be effectively cost neutral. The spokesman also hinted at future targets being introduced to ensure fair representation of clerics at all 5 levels. In response, Dr Rowan Williams (a 2 - 'occasionally inspiring') warmly welcomed the initiative, particulalry its multi-faith applicability. In a statement to the press, he said "This is another great government idea - for too long we clerics of all faiths have had no means to measure ourselves against standards. I will be using this as an opportunity for improvement, I myself will aim to become a 4 ('irritatingly smug and patronising'). Chelsea football club later announced a multi million pound sponsorship deal to sponsor cassocks nationwide.

15-07-2005, 11:37 PM	#6 (permalink)
Alex McKee Moderator Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Gloucester Posts: 6,666	The limits of free speech are well defined - "The Right to Freedom of Expression (speech and otherwise) walks hand in hand with the responsibility to ensure that you do not Greviously Offend." What is the true question is at what point to we declare offence to be Grevious.