View Full Version : The government has done something right
Nick_69
12-01-10, 09:59 AM
Well done Labour for doing to right thing
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8453560.stm
beabert
12-01-10, 10:14 AM
Blimey, I never expected guttless labour to do that, trying to grab votes i bet, either way i welcome the decision.
blue curvy jester
12-01-10, 11:15 AM
in reality they were already banned just tried reforming under different names
maviczap
12-01-10, 11:17 AM
Watching the local news last night, even their own people don't support their radical views.
Well done Labour for doing to right thing
They have got it right belatedly. The had the intelligence (as in information ;-)) to have been able to ban the group before now.
Why they didn't is a matter for them to explain once someone asks the question in Parliament.
maviczap
12-01-10, 11:36 AM
It's about time IMO.
They've been too busy being politically correct and trying to please every minoritiy group, rather than joe public voter
Going to disagree.
Though I may not a agree with your views. Within the confines of the law I believe in your right to demonstrate them.
By "Confines of law" I suppose I could sum up as:
"Mr x Is a Tosser, He's responsible for Blah Blah Blah" Fine
"Rise up Campers, Mr X is a Tosser and we should string him up from a tree" Not fine.
But we already have laws that cover this without resorting to the coverall of Terror Legislation.
The right to protest needs all the protection it can get and banning whatever group without providing any evidence is counter-productive.
The right to protest needs all the protection it can get.
Within the bounds of the law.... yep, I agree. Should we have a march to let it be known what we think? ;-)
fastdruid
12-01-10, 12:20 PM
Going to disagree.
Though I may not a agree with your views. Within the confines of the law I believe in your right to demonstrate them.
+1
I disagree with this group, I disagree with their march and I would like it not to happen but despite that I still support them having a *PEACEFULL* march, even through I think it is disgusting.
If on the other hand it is just an excuse for violence then yes it should be stopped, there should be evidence for that rather than just "because the police fear it may happen"[1].
Druid
[1] See the events cancelled this summer due to the police "fearing" there "may" be trouble.
TheOnlyNemesis
12-01-10, 12:27 PM
They have been banned not because of the protest as such but because they praise terror attacks and speak about changing all of britian to their law thing and what they'd do, the whole group is out right provocative.
Tiger 55
12-01-10, 12:29 PM
speak about changing all of britian to their law thing and what they'd do
Isn't that what all poitical parties do in the run up to an election?
Going to disagree.
...
we already have laws that cover this without resorting to the coverall of Terror Legislation.
The right to protest needs all the protection it can get and banning whatever group without providing any evidence is counter-productive.
I'm afraid I'm siding with Sosha on this one.
With the caveat that as far as I know Islam4UK was a group of politically minded Muslims who wanted to stage very unpopular and quite insensitive protests for the people killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
If this was the extent of their disruption then banning them under terrorist laws seems an over-reaction, one that fuels the more extreme amongst them and gives them proof of their persecution. They will reform under a different name, and will gain more hardcore supporters.
I am, however, reminded of the orange marches in Belfast, the route of which went through as much opposing territory as possible. At the time my thoughts were to allow the march but force the route to be altered to try and keep fighting to a minimum. So I appreciate how difficult this is to handle.
Yours,
one of those liberal lefties
fastdruid
12-01-10, 12:37 PM
They have been banned not because of the protest as such but because they praise terror attacks and speak about changing all of britian to their law thing and what they'd do, the whole group is out right provocative.
No, the only reason they were banned is because of the march/protest, had they not gone public with this idea no one would have heard of them and there would be no need for the govenment to be seen to do something.
Again I disagree with them but if they have not supported/funded/organised any violence then they should be free to *talk* no matter how much you (or I) may not like it.
As someone else put on another list
Being a bunch of obnoxious cnuts with offensive views isn't a good enough excuse to ban a group.
Druid
barwel1992
12-01-10, 12:47 PM
they should have just moved the venue... to the very tip of scotland, then see how may of them turn up
TheOnlyNemesis
12-01-10, 01:02 PM
Isn't that what all poitical parties do in the run up to an election?
y u planning to vote for islam4uk as a political party
Ok, here's another angle that on it...
What if the group where Christians in an Islamic or Muslim dominated country? Do you really think Joe Public would allow the march to happen, accept it being moved to another location etc? And surely such a march couldn't happen without some kind of retrobution being taken against those involed? This is not a suggestion BTW
It's easy to say that's the difference between them and us, but seriously - why should we (under the guise of human rights etc) allow this type of thing to happen?
Granted Labour are probably trying to use it for their own gain...
barwel1992
12-01-10, 01:09 PM
^ goop point that is, its just like if we went to lets say a eastern contry would we get a free house and free helth care ? NO so why should we give it to imigrants? when we (indirectly) pay for it? they should at least have to pay tax for a few years first
Tiger 55
12-01-10, 01:12 PM
y u planning to vote for islam4uk as a political party
I think they'd lose their deposit in East Renfrewshire, but whoever gets my vote will be promising to change the law so you can't ban a group for wanting to do that.
yorkie_chris
12-01-10, 01:21 PM
Labour are a bigger threat to democratic freedom than any bunch of miliant muslims.
Going to disagree.
Though I may not a agree with your views. Within the confines of the law I believe in your right to demonstrate them.
By "Confines of law" I suppose I could sum up as:
"Mr x Is a Tosser, He's responsible for Blah Blah Blah" Fine
"Rise up Campers, Mr X is a Tosser and we should string him up from a tree" Not fine.
But we already have laws that cover this without resorting to the coverall of Terror Legislation.
The right to protest needs all the protection it can get and banning whatever group without providing any evidence is counter-productive.
Part of labours anti-freedom "terror" legislation has been found to be against human rights by Euro courts recently. Says it all really.
rather than just "because the police fear it may happen"[1].
Druid
[1] See the events cancelled this summer due to the police "fearing" there "may" be trouble.
Yeah exactly, that was just a case of ACAB and the police extorting money out of a decent event, the slags! Since when does a rally need a police presence, I've never had the urge to cause any trouble at one!
fastdruid
12-01-10, 01:21 PM
It's easy to say that's the difference between them and us, but seriously - why should we (under the guise of human rights etc) allow this type of thing to happen?
Because we are better and more tolerant than them?
Druid
yorkie_chris
12-01-10, 01:26 PM
Case in point:
"What the people will see is if you don't agree with the government and you want to expose their foreign policy, then freedom quickly dissipates and turns into dictatorship."
Well I guess every nutter has at least one good point to make.
Labour are a bigger threat to democratic freedom than any bunch of miliant muslims.
:cheers::cheers::cheers: wooohooo someone with a bit of sense....
yorkie_chris
12-01-10, 01:35 PM
Well look at all these terror laws, I'm no lawyer but I'm fairly sure that causing explosions was a bit illegal before that!
It's reactive b*llocks designed to make it so anyone can be arrested for anything. I'd rather go to Moscow, at least you know where you stand there :smt030
fastdruid
12-01-10, 01:35 PM
Labour are a bigger threat to democratic freedom than any bunch of miliant muslims.
+1
Druid
With the Human Rights Act, freedom of expression is not an absolute.
It will be subject to such restrictions that are necessary in the interests of national security or public safety or for the prevention of disorder or crime.
So the decision to ban the march or group must have been made based upon this. The Government are perfectly within their rights to do this if they feel it would incite violence or crime...which you know full well it would have
just like the right to roam act when they brought it out in scotland... ermmm we already had that thanks.. but now we have one which gives restrictions. talk about back doors.
Because we are better and more tolerant than them?
Druid
That we are Druid and I am all for democracy etc etc.
The thing that boils my **** is that more often than not this type of thing is allowed to happen.
Let them have their march, when it becomes violent, they'll complain about being hit by Mr Plod and his big stick. Oh, here comes the free health service and compensation, please accept our apologies for what happened to you, do have a jolly time on your next march.
Still maintain this particular action is trying to stir up votes... Agree with YC's statement about democratic freedom too.
Spiderman
12-01-10, 04:23 PM
I'm with all those who think this is a stupid move. Terrorist laws are already overused and simply cos one group disagrees with a countries foreign policy does not make them terrorists.
It's easy to say that's the difference between them and us, but seriously - why should we (under the guise of human rights etc) allow this type of thing to happen?
Its not about "human rights" my friend. Dont let the red tops fool you. You, me and every other citizen of this country by law has the right to free speech and freedom of expression. If we dont like something the Govt is doing in our name its our basic legal right to voice our views about it.
That seems to be all this lot wan to do too. Like i've said many times before i'm not a fan of this group in any way but as the article also says by making the proscribed all they will do is make them more secretive and underground and attract the wrong types to stand up for them.
Milky Bar Kid
12-01-10, 04:59 PM
Part of labours anti-freedom "terror" legislation has been found to be against human rights by Euro courts recently. Says it all really.
Do you honestly believe that ECHR will make a blind bit of difference in any European countrys terror laws? There will be a clause in there regarding national security.
yorkie_chris
12-01-10, 05:20 PM
I admit I didn't think of that, the bit they were argueing about was the being able to search people without grounds. But that completely misses out the fact that you could just make up some grounds for a stop and search anyway.
MattCollins
12-01-10, 07:07 PM
I'm with all those who think this is a stupid move. Terrorist laws are already overused and simply cos one group disagrees with a countries foreign policy does not make them terrorists.
Its not about "human rights" my friend. Dont let the red tops fool you. You, me and every other citizen of this country by law has the right to free speech and freedom of expression. If we dont like something the Govt is doing in our name its our basic legal right to voice our views about it.
That seems to be all this lot wan to do too. Like i've said many times before i'm not a fan of this group in any way but as the article also says by making the proscribed all they will do is make them more secretive and underground and attract the wrong types to stand up for them.
I agree with that. Similar sort of stuff is happening here.
There is already enough legislation in place for police to be able to deal with disturbances and criminal activity. The danger with this sort of legislation is that it may be too liberally applied in the future. Banning groups that are opposed to the government of the day is a slippery slope and is just one step closer to the total control regimes of the old Soviet Union, Chinese, North Korea, or tin pot regimes such as the one run by Sadam Hussein.
While I may be opposed to some of the more extremist views of some of these groups, I would encourage people people to stand up for their freedom to be heard because it could be us next.
Sid Squid
12-01-10, 07:15 PM
Not well done Labour - the wrong decision and at the wrong time. Another hasty and hopefully populist measure further demonstrating the desperation of our present 'government'.
Going to disagree.
Though I may not a agree with your views. Within the confines of the law I believe in your right to demonstrate them.
By "Confines of law" I suppose I could sum up as:
"Mr x Is a Tosser, He's responsible for Blah Blah Blah" Fine
"Rise up Campers, Mr X is a Tosser and we should string him up from a tree" Not fine.
But we already have laws that cover this without resorting to the coverall of Terror Legislation.
The right to protest needs all the protection it can get and banning whatever group without providing any evidence is counter-productive.
Oh look, some sense.
Red Herring
12-01-10, 08:26 PM
I'm with Sosha on this one, I didn't agree with anything this group said or did but unless it can be shown that they were involved in or organizing terrorist activity (and if that could be done there would have been a few arrest in the headlines) then they shouldn't have been banned.
Sid Squid
12-01-10, 11:46 PM
On a related note, freedom of speech means just that - however offensive the message.
So this is a mistake too: Clickety-click
(http://www.spectator.co.uk/rodliddle/5700498/our-deepening-double-standards.thtml)
Spiderman
12-01-10, 11:50 PM
On a related note, freedom of speech means just that - however offensive the message.
So this is a mistake too: Clickety-click
(http://www.spectator.co.uk/rodliddle/5700498/our-deepening-double-standards.thtml)
Good article.
On a similar note i;m watching a documentary on More4 at the moment about anti-semitics and how some are using that catch all phrase to cover every crime against jewish people, from mugging to having their cars stolen.
Its all about semantics sometimes it seems...but if you stiffle the free speech you are no better than those screaming stupid things.
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.