.... The difference is that Amjem Choudary’s outfit firstly does not have any noticeable degree of popular support among Muslims, and secondly has never planted a bomb. To outlaw them is manifestly unjust. Organisations can fall foul of the Terrorism Act if they ‘commit or participate in acts of terrorism, prepare for, promote or encourage terrorism or are otherwise concerned in terrorism’.
It has not been shown conclusively that Islam4UK has done any of these things, within the legal meaning of these terms. If there is evidence of direct terrorist involvement, then those suspected of it should rightly stand trial. [Liberal Conspiracy] Read more
No free speech for those who would destroy it Peter Tatchell is dead wrong here, where he writes opposing the conviction under the Public Order Act of five al-Muhajiroun Islamists who insulted British troops in Luton.
Tatchell acknowledges that these scum ‘want to destroy our democracy and freedoms’ but then argues for their ‘right’ to do so. Wrong, wrong, wrong! That is precisely why they should have no ‘right’ to ‘free speech’. To claim they do is to invite our own destruction. It’s a kind of high principled masochism and is fundamentally irrational. [Edmund Standing] Read more
Islam4UK: free speech is never absolute Alan Johnson's decision to ban Islam4UK has led to many predictable and intelligent responses of derision from the left, notably at Index on Censorship and Our Kingdom.
I've criticised various organisations, including Muslim ones, for not embracing free speech enough in the past. But here are the reasons why I believe it's right for Islam4UK to be banned. [Guardian Cif] Read more
Anjem Choudary: Freedom for the thought we hate I have no problem with banning groups that participate in or incite acts of terrorism, but that is where my tolerance for anti-free speech laws ends.
There is absolutely no justification, in a liberal democracy, for outlawing the glorification of terrorism - none whatsoever. I reserve the right to revel in the dead bodies of 9/11 and to dance, metaphorically at least, on the graves of the dead of Bali, Beslan or Belfast - or, for that matter, Belsen. This is freedom of thought at its most basic, and should in my view be curtailed only if, in supporting terrorism, I directly cause others to go out and try to emulate those grisly deeds. [Mr Eugenides] Read more
Those waging war on society shouldn't have access to its law But those who seek to wage war against a society should not have recourse to the civil laws of that society. Their activities should be examined by a tribunal, where the sifting of all evidence has primacy and the distractions and dissembling of a public trial have no audience and thus no point.
We have the capacity to create such a system, but not yet the will. It would be anathema to the human rights industry, and a winner with the electorate.
[Comment]"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself" - Thomas Paine [Sydney Morning Herald] Read more [via Political Correctness Watch]
