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

Mark Croucher · 04-08-2005, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UKIP Press Office

For Immediate Release - 15:00hrs 4th August 2005

London UKIP MEP calls for new treason laws for terrorists and their supporters

The recent suicide bombings in London have shown the need for new treason laws to deal with British citizens directly or indirectly involved in terrorists attacks.

Britain’s current treason laws are archaic and the UK should look to the Constitution of the United States of America for a clear and concise definition of treason: ‘Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.’

Gerard Batten said: “Britain should redefine its treason laws along the lines of the USA. The British suicide bombers have declared war on their own country and its citizens. Terrorists and those who have assisted them in any way should be charged with treason, and a conviction should carry the maximum penalty possible.

"Personally I think the death penalty should to be available to the courts for those who carry out or conspire to carry out terrorist attacks. While this would not deter those prepared to die in an attack it may discourage those who help.

"We should expel any foreign nationals who voice support for terrorists, such as certain Muslim clerics who have promoted extremism while enjoying political asylum. We should remove British citizenship from any naturalised British citizen who voices support for terrorism or political and religious extremism and deport them.

"New treason laws would make it plain that we have a coherent and united front against those people who seek to destroy our liberal, democratic, tolerant society. We have been far too tolerant of those who hate our way of life and that misplaced tolerance has now endangered our very lives.

"I have written to the Home Secretary Charles Clarke today asking him to consider a number of proposals which I believe would meet with the approval of most British citizens". ENDS

For further information contact:
Gerard Batten MEP 0207 403 7174/5 or

WindupMerchant · 04-08-2005, 03:30 PM

Yes, I agree with that.

Anthony Butcher · 04-08-2005, 03:38 PM

Quote:

We should remove British citizenship from any naturalised British citizen who voices support for terrorism or political and religious extremism and deport them.

So we now support a two-tier citizenship of Britain? People born here have the right to free speech but "naturalised" citizens do not?

Doesn't sound very liberal to me.

I am not sure what treason laws would achieve that aren't covered by other laws already. We have conspiracy, preparation for terrorism, attempted murder and murder. Do these not cover it?

Quote:

"Personally I think the death penalty should to be available to the courts for those who carry out or conspire to carry out terrorist attacks. While this would not deter those prepared to die in an attack it may discourage those who help.

I disagree with the death penalty. It requires trust in the courts and the police to a degree that past experience does not justify.

Quote:

We should expel any foreign nationals who voice support for terrorists, such as certain Muslim clerics who have promoted extremism while enjoying political asylum.

Fine, although obviously the law would have to be far more explicit than "extremism".

Anthony Butcher · 04-08-2005, 03:52 PM

I believe that the two-tier citizenship may also breach the party constitution:

Quote:

2.3 The Party will be guided in its activities by the principle of non-discrimination, including non-racism and non-sectarianism, and will seek the support of all who Share Its aims. The Party's commitment to the principle of non-discrimination receives special protection in this constitution (see paragraph 18.2).

Discriminating against British citizens on the basis of whether they were born here or not does not accord with a principle of non-discrimination.

What we should be looking at is how and why people are being given citizenship if they are unsuitable in the first place. Why not provide a 5 year revokeable visa before citizenship is granted?

Paul Birch · 04-08-2005, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anthony Butcher

I believe that the two-tier citizenship may also breach the party constitution:

Quote:

2.3 The Party will be guided in its activities by the principle of non-discrimination, including non-racism and non-sectarianism, and will seek the support of all who Share Its aims. The Party's commitment to the principle of non-discrimination receives special protection in this constitution (see paragraph 18.2).

Discriminating against British citizens on the basis of whether they were born here or not does not accord with a principle of non-discrimination.

I agree. To deprive any citizen of citizenship also breaches the obligations of UN membership. That wouldn't worry me too much in itself, but in this instance I think the UN principle is right; if you accept someone as a citizen the responsibility of dealing with him is yours, not to be dumped onto some foreign country.

Quote:

What we should be looking at is how and why people are being given citizenship if they are unsuitable in the first place. Why not provide a 5 year revokeable visa before citizenship is granted?

Sounds reasonable. Though not strictly necessary - whatever laws are good enough for natives are good enough for migrants too.

I would also question whether the US-style definition of treason might not be too narrow. Interpreted strictly, it would seem not to include abetting or inciting a coup or revolution, or overthrowing a lawful government by means other than actual warfare. It certainly wouldn't cover all terrorist offences.

MarkR · 04-08-2005, 04:27 PM

Quote:

We should remove British citizenship from any naturalised British citizen who voices support for terrorism or political and religious extremism and deport them

My God, when did we become the BNP exactly?

When exactly did 'send them back' become UKIP policy for British Citizens we don't like? By all means be a bit more selective about whom you award citizenship too (i.e. not known criminals for example) but once given it cannot be taken back.

WindupMerchant · 04-08-2005, 04:36 PM

I say again I fully agree with Gerard Batten, and I'm sure a majority of UKIP members, and the majority of British citizens do too.
The ones who don't agree are usually socialists and people who are out of touch with the feelings of the British public.
This is why I joined UKIP

C_steam · 04-08-2005, 04:50 PM

Quote:

We should remove British citizenship from any naturalised British citizen who voices support for terrorism or political and religious extremism and deport them

UKIP PM, essentially this gives carte blanche to expel anyone who is british now, but not by birth, regardless of length of citizenship, once they cross the line decided by the law (whatever it may turn out to be).

However, if you happen to be british by birth, it would not apply. How daft is that?!

As AB says, first of all more stringent checks and control of our borders is required. second of all, have a 'propationary period' of citizenship. Once past that point, they have to be treated as british as you and I - that was the deal, thats what 'naturalisation' means - otherwise you have a more devisive two tier society.

Third of all, introduce some really stringent punishments for all 'britons' - naturalised or otherwise - who commit treason. Keelhauling, for example!

mkpdavies · 04-08-2005, 04:53 PM

Well, it aint about the EU which is splendid.

The British people will actually like this statement (if anyone bothers to print it). They are scared and want to be told something is being done.

Like my fellow libertarian thinkers, I have questions over the statement, but I'll be honest, I'm not quite in the same camp.

I'm not going to get too upset, as clearly the full detail can't be put across in a press release that UKIP want people to read.

Australia just deported a British paedophile back to Britain, who has lived in Australia for almost all his life. If you don't believe he was born a paedophile, but actually developed INTO phpbb_one,WHILE LIVING IN AUSTRALIA, then this seems unfair. However they did it, and he is no longer their problem. That is just about pushing the extremes of whether he should have been treated the same as a natural born Australian.

On this issue I have to say, while I want to see more details, I am not quite so quick to demand equality. If Britain could deport citizens born here, because they are inciting terror, killing, murder, then that would be great. It's not possible though. With people who come to make Britain home, it is an option though, as long as you make it a condition at the start of citizenship. If you are born here, then you have no choice of the laws you have to adhere to, unless you leave. Someone who CHOOSES to come here does, so in my opinion, it won't hurt to have this extra conition to balance things up. Those who CHOOSE to come and live here, should be happy to agree not to break laws (at least certain laws that hurt other people).

For that reason 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.

Simple way of not envoking this, don't commit terrorism, incite others to do so etc.

WindupMerchant · 04-08-2005, 04:56 PM

That sounds fair to me, two tier system, so what :?:
Anyway, as a UKIP party member I am agreeing with a UKIP MEP.

04-08-2005, 04:53 PM	#9 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 31,102 Party: Libertarian Party	Well, it aint about the EU which is splendid. The British people will actually like this statement (if anyone bothers to print it). They are scared and want to be told something is being done. Like my fellow libertarian thinkers, I have questions over the statement, but I'll be honest, I'm not quite in the same camp. I'm not going to get too upset, as clearly the full detail can't be put across in a press release that UKIP want people to read. Australia just deported a British paedophile back to Britain, who has lived in Australia for almost all his life. If you don't believe he was born a paedophile, but actually developed INTO phpbb_one,WHILE LIVING IN AUSTRALIA, then this seems unfair. However they did it, and he is no longer their problem. That is just about pushing the extremes of whether he should have been treated the same as a natural born Australian. On this issue I have to say, while I want to see more details, I am not quite so quick to demand equality. If Britain could deport citizens born here, because they are inciting terror, killing, murder, then that would be great. It's not possible though. With people who come to make Britain home, it is an option though, as long as you make it a condition at the start of citizenship. If you are born here, then you have no choice of the laws you have to adhere to, unless you leave. Someone who CHOOSES to come here does, so in my opinion, it won't hurt to have this extra conition to balance things up. Those who CHOOSE to come and live here, should be happy to agree not to break laws (at least certain laws that hurt other people). For that reason 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. Simple way of not envoking this, don't commit terrorism, incite others to do so etc. __________________ 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, 03:30 PM	#2 (permalink)
WindupMerchant Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 1,508	Yes, I agree with that.

04-08-2005, 04:36 PM	#7 (permalink)
WindupMerchant Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 1,508	I say again I fully agree with Gerard Batten, and I'm sure a majority of UKIP members, and the majority of British citizens do too. The ones who don't agree are usually socialists and people who are out of touch with the feelings of the British public. This is why I joined UKIP

04-08-2005, 04:56 PM	#10 (permalink)
WindupMerchant Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 1,508	That sounds fair to me, two tier system, so what :?: Anyway, as a UKIP party member I am agreeing with a UKIP MEP.