quote:LONDON, England (CNN) -- British Prime Minister Tony Blair has announced new measures to deport and exclude from UK for those advocating hatred and violence.
Blair, speaking nearly a month after deadly bombings on London's transit system, said Friday the UK's human rights act would be amended if necessary to counter Islamic extremists.
The government also plans to draw up a list of extremist Web sites, book shops and organizations that promote these extremists, he said.
How many times in the history of politics have governments attempted to punish bad speech, and how many times has it turned out to be a very bad idea? Is there any doubt that this will (1) result in the deportation of innocent people, (2) fail to significantly diminish the terrorist threat to britain, and (3) be used as a tool to stifle political dissent if those in power believe it could be? For a nation that claims to be one of the most advanced in the world, and even invades other nations supposedly in the name of "freedom", this is disappointing. And for the world it is a disturbing reminder of just how quickly freedom can dissipate when people are afraid.
It should be noted that THIS is happening to Muslims in Britain too:
quote:LONDON, England -- Crimes motivated by religious hatred have jumped by nearly 600 percent in London since the July 7 bombings, according to police records.
They include verbal and physical attacks and criminal damage to property, including mosques.
Scotland Yard figures showed there were 269 such incidents reported since the bombings, compared to only 40 in the same three-and-a-half week period last year.
In the immediate three-day aftermath of the attacks there were 68 faith hate crimes in the capital. There were none in the same period 12 months ago.
Scotland Yard Assistant Commissioner Tarique Ghaffur said: "There is no doubt that incidents impacting on the Muslim community have increased."
How quickly do liberties, and the rationality behind them, go out the window when people fear for their lives?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
yes... damn those conservatives who do nothing but try to run everyone's lives and beat up on poor innocent Muslims the world around... :yawn:
edit to explain: do you really expect someone to take you seriously when you simultaneously complain that the government is trying to do something about increased levels of violence and then complain that there are increased levels of violence without offering a single viable alternative?
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: and even invades other nations supposedly in the name of "freedom",
edit to add:
I'm sorry if it seems personal, Tres. I just realized that you have been getting the brunt of my ire lately and I really actually enjoy hearing much of what you have to say...
It's just that the whole pacifist response to terrorism reminds me of Ford's completely ineffective appeal to the Vogon guard throwing them out of the airlock in H^2 G^2:
Vogon: So... what's the alternative? Ford: well, stop doing it, of course! Vogon: gee, that doesn't sound so good to me...
All my life, I have personally and politically heard the advice "just ignore them and they will go away" and I have never seen it work, once.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So what, we admit it's a lose lose situation and move on? If the government does nothing to protect native Muslims they will be harshly criticized. I believe Blair honestly wants to help victims of hate crimes, and wants to stop them from happening again, so he's trying to take measures to stifle the spread of hatred.
It's not new to target advocates of subersive language. "Free Speech" has never meant that you can say ANYTHING. Now it's being tweaked a little again. Is there a high potential for danger here? Yes, it could easily be used for purposes outside it's originally intended purpose. But the media in Britain is far more critical and independent of the government than in America, and the political climate is very different as well.
Blair wouldn't get away with (nor do I think he would ever attempt) using the new law for his own purposes. Regardless, there is still a system of law. If a citizen of Britain were arrested in relation to this new law, they will have their day in court, and it may even prove to be unconstitutional. We'll see.
Edit to add: Originall the thread title struck me as odd, I didn't see it so much as a crack down on religion. Your contention is that this new law is a crack down on Muslims, whereas Blair says the new law is in direct response to anti-Muslim hate crimes.
I agree it restricts freedom of speech, to a degree, but I don't think it's a "crackdown" on Islam. If there's a Muslim group in Britain funneling money to hate groups, or advocating hate related violence, I'd think we could all agree that they should be stopped. I also think that Muslims especially would want something like that stopped.
Also, this is being enacted to stop Christians and other groups from spreading anti-Muslim hatred around the country. Blair doesn't want Muslim hate crimes to spiral out of control, so he's trying to do something about it. If he does nothing, then you or someone else would say that he isn't doing enough to protect Muslims.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:who, in the context of "the War on Terror" is always considered "Bush's lackey"
In the context of the War on Iraq. In the context of this, I think he should be considered head of the British Government and of the Labour Party... especially given that Bush has never directly suggested something like this.
quote:do you really expect someone to take you seriously when you simultaneously complain that the government is trying to do something about increased levels of violence and then complain that there are increased levels of violence without offering a single viable alternative?
Well, yes... why would you not take the matter seriously? I'd suspect your reaction would not be a yawn if the government started cracking down on your religion and you started becoming a victim of hate crime in your home town. If people have become so partisan that they don't even care about issues that 'the other side' might be complaining about, simply on the grounds that the other side is complaining about it, then I think we have an even more serious problem.
quote:All my life, I have personally and politically heard the advice "just ignore them and they will go away" and I have never seen it work, once.
But who wants to just ignore them? The best method to fighting 'bad' speech is better speech, not to ban the 'bad' speech and leave it to go martyred and unrefuted in underground circles.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tres, what are the specific provisions of this that you object to. Do you even know what the specific provisions are? We've seen similar outrage on the board over a recent extradition/assistance treaty with Ireland, outrage which seemed to vanish as soon as the actual language was examined. Perhaps you're jumping the gun?
quote:Is there any doubt that this will (1) result in the deportation of innocent people, (2) fail to significantly diminish the terrorist threat to britain, and (3) be used as a tool to stifle political dissent if those in power believe it could be?
Yes, there is doubt to all three. I'm pretty close to a free speech absolutist, and I'm not happy about restrictions on it. But does a country honestly have to let in a non-citizen who advocates violent acts against the country he's trying to enter?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I agree it restricts freedom of speech, to a degree, but I don't think it's a "crackdown" on Islam. If there's a Muslim group in Britain funneling money to hate groups, or advocating hate related violence, I'd think we could all agree that they should be stopped. I also think that Muslims especially would want something like that stopped.
I think you've misread... "stopping hate" is just rhetoric Blair is using. The laws are aimed at stopping extremist Muslim groups from advocating terrorism directly or "indirectly". It's the indirectly that is most troublesome.
quote:Tres, what are the specific provisions of this that you object to. Do you even know what the specific provisions are?
No, I object to the intent, as stated by Mr. Blair. "But if you come to this country from abroad, then don't meddle in extremism," Blair says. "Because if you meddle in it, and engage in it, you're going back out again." I take this as an indication that they are trying to set up laws to prevent people with certain extremist religious viewpoints from coming into the country and send out those already there, whether or not they are actually associated with any terrorist crimes or organizations. I haven't read any exact laws, and I'm not sure they've even written any yet - it is the intent to do so and the suggestion that it is an acceptable sort of law that bothers me.
posted
If it were Bush, I'd be on your side, I don't have an ounce of trust left in that man.
But I trust Blair a little more than that, certainly more than to think he's flat out lying to get an ulterior motive across. I don't think this law can be used to just remove anyone from the country that the Prime Minister wants. It's to deport non-British nationals who are importing dangerous rhetoric of their own.
A nation's leader's first priority is to protect their nation. Blair has just seen his nation come under multiple attacks, with reason to believe many more are planned. I dislike restrictions on free speech, but I also dislike people from other countries coming to my own for the specific purpose of stirring up trouble.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, I object to the intent, as stated by Mr. Blair. "But if you come to this country from abroad, then don't meddle in extremism," Blair says. "Because if you meddle in it, and engage in it, you're going back out again." I take this as an indication that they are trying to set up laws to prevent people with certain religious viewpoints from coming into the country and send out those already there, whether or not they are actually associated with any terrorist crimes or organizations.
Then I suspect you take it the wrong way. Maybe make your complaint conditional, or propose what limits you would like to see on it. I'll ask again, does a country honestly have to let in (and I'll add "or stay in") a non-citizen who advocates violent acts against the country he's trying to enter? If not, what safeguards do you propose that will allow them to exclude people who advocate terrorism without infringing on civil liberties?
quote:I haven't read any exact laws, and I'm not sure they've even written any yet - it is the intent to do so and the suggestion that it is an acceptable sort of law that bothers me.
So you're complaining about something he might do, if you interpreted the fragment of his statement you've been exposed to correctly, and equate it to a dissipation of freedom.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
It says the grounds for deportation "will include fostering hatred, advocating violence to further a person's beliefs or justifying or validating such violence." It says a law will be made that "will include an offence of condoning or glorifying terrorism. The sort of remarks made in recent days should be covered by such laws. But this will also be applied to justifying or glorifying terrorism anywhere, not just in the UK." To me, these sound as if they advocate legislating opinions and beliefs, rather than acts or actual support of terrorism.
It should be noted that there are things I and others have said on this forum that could qualify under certain of these categories.
And yes, I think a country should not deport non-citizens for their beliefs and statements alone. That is the essence of free speech. They don't HAVE TO do this, because it is their country, but I think they would be wise to.
quote:If not, what safeguards do you propose that will allow them to exclude people who advocate terrorism without infringing on civil liberties?
I don't think the government should even be trying to exclude people who advocate terrorism. They should work to counter that opinion by making it clear what is wrong with those beliefs, and they should fight people actually conspiring to commit acts - exactly as we do in America all the time to fight groups like the KKK, which are not banned, but whose opinions are countered and prevented from being put into illegal action.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:It says the grounds for deportation "will include fostering hatred, advocating violence to further a person's beliefs or justifying or validating such violence." It says a law will be made that "will include an offence of condoning or glorifying terrorism. The sort of remarks made in recent days should be covered by such laws. But this will also be applied to justifying or glorifying terrorism anywhere, not just in the UK." To me, these sound as if they advocate legislating opinions and beliefs, rather than acts or actual support of terrorism.
I still await some explanation from you as to why non-citizens who advocate violence against a country should be allowed into it, or be allowed to stay. They are guests in the country.
quote:It says a law will be made that "will include an offence of condoning or glorifying terrorism. The sort of remarks made in recent days should be covered by such laws. But this will also be applied to justifying or glorifying terrorism anywhere, not just in the UK."
This portion I am NOT happy with. It depends entirely on how narrowly drawn it is, and I can't imagine it being applicable to anyone once it is drawn narrowly enough.
quote:I don't think the government should even be trying to exclude people who advocate terrorism. They should work to counter that opinion by making it clear what is wrong with those beliefs, and they should fight people actually conspiring to commit acts - exactly as we do in America all the time to fight groups like the KKK, which are not banned, but whose opinions are countered and prevented from being put into illegal action.
As was clear from the context of the questions, we're talking about excluding non-citizens from entering the country - the KKK and whether or not it's banned isn't a relevant example.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not talking about excluding non-citiznes from entering. I'm talking about deporting non-citizens who are already here.
As to why we should not deport these people - it's for the same reasons we don't arrest citizens who speak things we don't like. History has shown that not allowing beliefs to be expressed leads to a troublesome state and potentially oppression - and this is just as true with non-citizens as with citizens. I don't see why we would want to allow citizens to say certain things, but also want to ban non-citizens from doing the same - if we need to be able to hear certain viewpoints, it should not matter who the source is. The only real difference here is that it is easier to get away with doing things to non-citizens, so the government violates its principles in regards to them first. But it should be noted both that banning speech for non-citizens also intimidates citizens who believe the same thing, and that doing so can also be a big step towards legitimizing the idea that certain speech should be eliminated altogether.
...
Incidently, I'm surprised there are not more people concerned about this, especially you, Dag. It seems like the most direct assault on the principle of freedom of speech that I've seen among modern democratic powers, at least since the end of the Cold War. (Well, maybe not if you count Putin's regime in there... but it is up there.)
quote:Incidently, I'm surprised there are not more people concerned about this, especially you, Dag. It seems like the most direct assault on the principle of freedom of speech that I've seen among modern democratic powers, at least since the end of the Cold War.
The part I'm not happy about is the criminal offence for people condoning terrorism. But, for Europe, that's not actually a big surprise. They are much more willing
And I don't see it as the biggest threat. I'd place France's headscarf ban up there, as well as many of the provisions aimed at Sein Fein, plus Germany's anti-Nazism laws right up there. Let's not forget the Swedish minister who went to jail for an anti-homosexuality sermon.
I'm not happy about it, but it's not news to me.
And I disagree whole-heartedly about the deportation issue for noncitizens. I might be willing to give permanent residents who are changing their citizenship some leeway, but not guests.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you believe non-citizens should have ANY speech rights? I had an exchange student friend from France - do you think it would have been wise or okay for our government to deport him because he though the Iraq War was bad?
Why do you think we should give free speech rights to citizens, but not to non-citizens? Why doesn't the argument for giving them to citizens work just as well for non-citizens?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you believe non-citizens should have ANY speech rights? I had an exchange student friend from France - do you think it would have been wise or okay for our government to deport him because he though the Iraq War was bad?
Yes, they should. But not to the extent of supporting people who want to commit violence against us.
quote:Why do you think we should give free speech rights to citizens, but not to non-citizens? Why doesn't the argument for giving them to citizens work just as well for non-citizens?
Because they are a guest, in the country at the country's sufferance.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because they are a guest, in the country at the country's sufferance.
Yes, that just means we can subject them to whatever laws we want, within the bounds of fundamental human rights. My question is why would we WANT to restrict their free speech, yet not want to do so for citizens?
Or are you suggesting that we actually WANT to ban citizens from advocating hatred or violence too, but simply can't legally do it? If so, why don't we just change the constitution so we can?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:My question is why would we WANT to restrict their free speech, yet not want to do so for citizens?
Because a person who whould choose to come to a country with the purpose of undermining it through violence is not someone we want in the country.
quote:Or are you suggesting that we actually WANT to ban citizens from advocating hatred or violence too, but simply can't legally do it?
No. I'm suggesting that, at the heart of immigration law, is the idea that countries let in people who have values similar to the values of the country as a whole.
It's a screening tool, and a good one.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I am still very concerned, though, that this will be used more broadly than just stopping people from entering Britain with the intent to undermine it.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee is absolutely right here- there is a great difference between allowing your own citizens to exercise the right to spew invective against your country and to allow immigrants to do so.
The reason should be clear- citizens generally have roots in a country including things like familial ties, being raised in the particular cultural traditions etc. Immigrants do not have the same degree of investment in the country. This means that some immigrants who come with the specific goal of destroying the institutions of and perhaps killing citizens of the country they emigrate to are not affected to the same degree by the deaths of the citizens and the destruction of institutions in the country.
It is suicide to allow people to immigrate or remain in your country when they advocate its destruction and have a population of adherents willing to act on the words of such people.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The reason should be clear- citizens generally have roots in a country including things like familial ties, being raised in the particular cultural traditions etc. Immigrants do not have the same degree of investment in the country. This means that some immigrants who come with the specific goal of destroying the institutions of and perhaps killing citizens of the country they emigrate to are not affected to the same degree by the deaths of the citizens and the destruction of institutions in the country.
Most of the supposed culprits of the London bombings were home-grown terrorists, as I recall.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
True. However, it is very likely that all or some were taught and encouraged to commit violence by non-citizens. I think this is the exact behavior being targeted: people coming into the country and inducing citizens to essentially rebel - violently.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder if the movie "V for Vendetta" will be shown in England? If it's even close to the plot of the comic, it celebrates the terroristic actions of the protagonist.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Didn't Puffy Treat have a thread on "V" where he revealed that the plot has been changed to some alternate future where Nazis rule or something?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
