Paul Crowley (
ciphergoth) wrote2005-08-05 01:49 pm
The real threat to the life of the nation
The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these. That is the true measure of what terrorism may achieve. It is for Parliament to decide whether to give the terrorists such a victory.
(thanks to
djm4)
(thanks to
no subject
no subject
Lord Hoffman's eloquent and above all completely correct, comments are from the case decided last December re imprisioning foreigners suspected of terrorist links, who can't be deported because their countries of origin aren't considered safe, without trial for indefinite periods of time.
no subject
no subject
I understand negotiating with countries to ensure safe deportation, but 'justifying terrorism' or visiting particular bookshops takes things too far.
Many of our own people could be seen as justifying terrorism in recent statements discussing the terrorist attacks whilst condemning the Iraq war (eg George Galloway).
Equally, if it's an offence to visit a bookshop, why is the bookshop open? Is that some kind of bizarre Orwellian test? (Maybe I'm misunderstanding this one.)
I'm actually fine with deporting foreign nationals who actively incite violence against the UK, its citizens or any particular ethnic or religious group, but as seems to be par for the course with this government, this is woolly legislation which leaves scope for abuse.
no subject
no subject
no subject
Leading to the following scenario:
Geezer: My government is torturing me: give me asylum!
His Govt: But...but...but...he's a terrorist! Yeah.
Our Govt: Fair enough. On yer bike, sunshine.
no subject
Govt: We have intelligence that says he's a terrorist.
Lawyer: No you don't! Show me!
Govt: Shan't.
no subject
no subject
no subject
1) Pick up litter
2) Be kind to puppies
3) Be considerate to old people
4) Give up your seat on the bus to pregnant ladies
5) Campaign for the suspension of the human rights act
6) Join a local voluntary organisation
And so on. Quite remarkable.
no subject
"But if you've got nothing to hide, what are you worried about?"
no subject
no subject
A few points:
* How is "extremist" going to be defined? Are they planning on just deporting foreigners involved or visiting in particular Muslim extremist centres and websites? Or will it include extremist Protestants and Jews or non-religious political extremism like neo-Nazis and the FARC?
* What is defined as justifying terrorism? Is understanding why Al-Queda, FARC or Etta exists and saying so justifying terrorism? Does advocating violence to further a person's belief for instance include people from Zimbabwe advocating violent revolution against Mugabe?
* In some countries, people (especially children) are kidnapped and forced into being part of what might be considered terrorist activities; would they be automatically denied asylum?
* Will the list of preachers include Christian fundamentalists like Pat Robertson or only Muslim Imams?
If all of that is true -- and it would only make sense for it to be rather than solely towards Islamic fundamentalism -- then on the face of it I could be deported. I shall not go into the specifics of why in a comment on a public LJ post but there are several points of which I might fall foul, which are at least currently just me exercising my right of freedom and liberty. I am not the only one.
no subject