London UKIP MEP calls for new treason law.....

komerad · 04-08-2005, 07:46 PM

Well Done Gerard Batten :!: -about time somebody stood up and said something from UKIP re: the present terrorist situation.
I always understood that the penalty for treason was shooting. I cannot see any reason to change that, seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Hartlepool · 04-08-2005, 07:55 PM

Perhaps some Patriotic Solidarity should be shown by all of UKIPs MEPs positioning themselves alongside Gerard Batten before another opportunity passes us by. Let them speak for us all. That's what we elected them for,isn't it?

mkpdavies · 04-08-2005, 07:58 PM

It would nice to see the party leader make some sort of follow up statement.

Paul Birch · 04-08-2005, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

I see no problem in saying to people, you are welcome to come to Britain, make it your home and enjoy the full rights of a British Citizen. HOWEVER, you must agree not to break the laws of this land and if you do then you have broken your citizenship contract. In that case a judge will have the right to deport you, because of that broken promise.

You miss the point. If you place such a condition on incomers you are not granting them citizenship, only a revocable residency. They will then remain citizens of their former country. The rights of true citizenship cannot be revoked, except where they are deliberately surrendered by change of citizenship. And only a citizen can be guilty of treason.

Furthermore, even if we have such a class of resident non-citizens there seems no sound reason why they should be treated more harshly than native citizens. As far as practicable we should stick to the rule of law - the same laws for everyone.

Anthony Butcher · 04-08-2005, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Gough

I said, "............for treason, however that may be defined" I stand by that.

OK, but that is very different to what Mr Batten said

Anthony Butcher · 04-08-2005, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by komerad

Well Done Gerard Batten :!: -about time somebody stood up and said something from UKIP re: the present terrorist situation.
I always understood that the penalty for treason was shooting. I cannot see any reason to change that, seems perfectly reasonable to me.

I agree. Well done for tackling something other than the EU. I didn't like most of what he said, but liked the fact that he said something.

I presume that this is the party line, given that it was posted here by Mark Croucher. I find that worrying.

mkpdavies · 04-08-2005, 08:45 PM

Quote:

You miss the point. If you place such a condition on incomers you are not granting them citizenship, only a revocable residency.

Well, if that's what you want to call it fine. As I said before though, personally if I was moving to another country, I would be more than happy to accept they can boot me out, if I start telling people to commit murder.

Aardvark · 04-08-2005, 08:55 PM

I don't recall a party line on this one in the manifesto, but it is right for MEPs, being in prominent positions, to float ideas. The effect has at least been to get healthy debate on this forum; that in itself is no bad thing.

The Israelis take citizenship away from native born Israeli Arabs who don't toe the line (there is a proposal to remove Israeli citizenship from all 1 million Arab citizens and expel the lot of them at the same time that the Palestinians are expelled from Judaea and Samaria). Any Israeli who acts contrary to the interests of Israel can have their citizenship revoked. This rule was not applied to the Israeli immigrant citizen who shot the Prime minister Rabin as this was not considered to be against Israel's interests.

Personally I think that the gift of citizenship should be taken away in the extreme case of actively committing terrorist acts against the host nation. Remember though that we didn't do it to the IRA lot who preferred Irish citizenship to their British identity.

I think, however, that the freedom to speak in favour of terrorism/freedom fighting is precious and that we have to balance our reactions to what might be very offensive words. I'm one of a minority who believe that suicide bombing of Israeli settlers (illegal occupiers contrary to international law - Fourth Protocol to the Geneva Convention and several UN resolutions) is perfectly justified; it is on a par with the French and Polish Resistance who fought to drive the illegal German occupiers from their lands.

Paul Birch · 04-08-2005, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

Quote:

You miss the point. If you place such a condition on incomers you are not granting them citizenship, only a revocable residency.

Well, if that's what you want to call it fine. As I said before though, personally if I was moving to another country, I would be more than happy to accept they can boot me out, if I start telling people to commit murder.

You're still missing the point, I think. It's not merely a matter of what you call it - citizenship and revocable residency are two fundamentally different things. As different as marriage and cohabitation.

Look at it from another angle: you cannot legitimately deport someone without having somewhere to deport him to - somewhere that has an obligation to accept him - somewhere he has a right to go - somewhere he is a citizen. Otherwise it's a fancy name for enslavement or outlawry or capital punishment. But a naturalised subject - especially one who arrived as an asylum seeker - no longer has his former citizenship, as a rule.

mkpdavies · 04-08-2005, 09:24 PM

Quote:

especially one who arrived as an asylum seeker - no longer has his former citizenship, as a rule.

I don't agree with this. I don't see that you give up the citizenship of one country because you choose to go and live in another. If it is an asylum seeker, then they are ******* stupid if they start preaching murder in the country they have sought sanctuary in. You basically deserve all you get if you do that.

Let me make myself more clear.

I don't actually give a toss if it is a different kind of citizenship we are talking about. The fact is, the only time the difference will be invoked, is if that person throws back the generosity of the nation, by commiting or inciting others to commit murder and mass murder on it's people. IE when they choose to be criminals.

With crime I do tend to lose all my liberal values and start thinking more of the victims.

Note that I don't mind people criticisng policies, governments, people or anything else. I draw the line when they start demanding deaths.

I understand this probably doesn't fit in with true libertarian values, but then I never pretend to be an out and out libertarian.

04-08-2005, 07:58 PM	#23 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 31,102 Party: Libertarian Party	It would nice to see the party leader make some sort of follow up statement. __________________ 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

04-08-2005, 07:46 PM	#21 (permalink)
komerad Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Cardiff. S.Wales Posts: 611	Well Done Gerard Batten :!: -about time somebody stood up and said something from UKIP re: the present terrorist situation. I always understood that the penalty for treason was shooting. I cannot see any reason to change that, seems perfectly reasonable to me.

04-08-2005, 07:55 PM	#22 (permalink)
Hartlepool Uber Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: North East England Posts: 6,814 Party: Popular Democrats	Perhaps some Patriotic Solidarity should be shown by all of UKIPs MEPs positioning themselves alongside Gerard Batten before another opportunity passes us by. Let them speak for us all. That's what we elected them for,isn't it?

04-08-2005, 08:55 PM	#28 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 3,976	I don't recall a party line on this one in the manifesto, but it is right for MEPs, being in prominent positions, to float ideas. The effect has at least been to get healthy debate on this forum; that in itself is no bad thing. The Israelis take citizenship away from native born Israeli Arabs who don't toe the line (there is a proposal to remove Israeli citizenship from all 1 million Arab citizens and expel the lot of them at the same time that the Palestinians are expelled from Judaea and Samaria). Any Israeli who acts contrary to the interests of Israel can have their citizenship revoked. This rule was not applied to the Israeli immigrant citizen who shot the Prime minister Rabin as this was not considered to be against Israel's interests. Personally I think that the gift of citizenship should be taken away in the extreme case of actively committing terrorist acts against the host nation. Remember though that we didn't do it to the IRA lot who preferred Irish citizenship to their British identity. I think, however, that the freedom to speak in favour of terrorism/freedom fighting is precious and that we have to balance our reactions to what might be very offensive words. I'm one of a minority who believe that suicide bombing of Israeli settlers (illegal occupiers contrary to international law - Fourth Protocol to the Geneva Convention and several UN resolutions) is perfectly justified; it is on a par with the French and Polish Resistance who fought to drive the illegal German occupiers from their lands.