• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Tony Blair's new legislation

Binary_Digit

DP Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
4,145
Reaction score
1,638
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Washington Post said:
We are unable to locate the page you requested.
The page may have moved or may no longer be available.
I guess Blair's mind isn't the only thing that was lost...
 
H

HTColeman

Sorry, don't know what happened, I had to register to view the article, but it was free and quick, so it doesn't matter, I'll just copy and paste


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/05/AR2005080500477_2.html?sub=new

Blair to Institute New Deportation Measures
Britain Could Deport and Exclude Foreign Nationals for 'Fostering Hatred'

By Kevin Sullivan and Fred Barbash
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, August 5, 2005; 10:45 AM

LONDON, Aug. 5 -- Prime Minister Tony Blair, responding to last month's deadly bombings in London, outlined a series of unprecedented steps that would allow Britain to deport and exclude foreign nationals who promote or incite extremist violence or are "fostering hatred."

"The rules of the game are changing," Blair said in an 80-minute news conference devoted almost entirely to the issue of terrorism, which has taken on new urgency in Britain since a July 7 bombing that killed four bombers and 52 other people and injured 700 more.

Blair announced that two Islamic organizations, Hizb ut-Tahrir and al-Muhajiroun, would be banned in Britain.

Blair said he was not trying to undermine religious tolerance or "legitimate political debate," but rather he wanted to remove those who are "actively engaged in inciting" people to violence.

Blair said there will be a list drawn up of "specific extremist Web sites, bookshops, centers, networks" and organizations and that "active engagement" with any of them would be a "trigger" for possible deportation.

Blair also said the government would:

*Consider stripping citizenship from naturalized Britons "engaged in extremism."

*Establish, within the Muslim community in Britain, a commission to advise on how to better integrate into society "those parts of the community presently inadequately integrated."

*Consider closure of places of worship used as centers "for fomenting extremism" and, in consultation with Muslim leaders, "draw up a list of those not suitable to preach who will be excluded from Britain."

Fred Barbash reported from Washington.
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Binary_Digit

DP Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
4,145
Reaction score
1,638
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
That's interesting. I don't understand how he's going to draw the line between "legitimate" political opposition groups and those who are "fomenting extremism." It seems pretty much any political group could fit this definition if any of its members happen to resort to violence. It's quite a slippery slope in my opinion. Before this, I admired Briton for not making extreme changes because of the bombings like America did. :confused:
 
H

HTColeman

Binary_Digit said:
That's interesting. I don't understand how he's going to draw the line between "legitimate" political opposition groups and those who are "fomenting extremism." It seems pretty much any political group could fit this definition if any of its members happen to resort to violence. It's quite a slippery slope in my opinion. Before this, I admired Briton for not making extreme changes because of the bombings like America did. :confused:
I know, they went further than we did with the Patriot Act, I was shocked. As far as drawing the line, that is the problem with vague legislations like that. It is basically whatever the gov't deems as inappropriate is out of the country.
 

Plain old me

Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2005
Messages
228
Reaction score
1
Location
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
As I answered on another thread, I'm in two minds about this...

...The powers to expel those who are seriously recruiting terrorists seems alright to me, but an article on the BBC's website reckons that the new legislation could expel people for "visiting certain bookshops and websites", this seems a little far, as does the banning of organisations, one has already protested, saying it is non violent.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4747573.stm

I think this serves to highlight the problem we have over here of having no enshrined rights, no method to prevent legislation that clearly enfringes on rights we take for granted. I'm not saying this neccerssarily does, but its something to be considered.
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I have mixed emotions about this........On the one hand I am for doing whatever it takes to stop a terrorist attack even if I have to give up some of my civil rights.......I believe desperate times call for desperate measures................

On the other hand they might be carrying this to extremes if someone can be arrested for just going inot aa book store..........I kind of doubt that is true..........
 
H

HTColeman

Plain old me said:
As I answered on another thread, I'm in two minds about this...

...The powers to expel those who are seriously recruiting terrorists seems alright to me, but an article on the BBC's website reckons that the new legislation could expel people for "visiting certain bookshops and websites", this seems a little far, as does the banning of organisations, one has already protested, saying it is non violent.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4747573.stm

I think this serves to highlight the problem we have over here of having no enshrined rights, no method to prevent legislation that clearly enfringes on rights we take for granted. I'm not saying this neccerssarily does, but its something to be considered.
I agree, if they had a permanent bill of rights like the U.S. then it would make it very hard for legislation like this to pass. I posted this in another thread

HTColeman said:
...legislation like that is so vague that it gives a lot of power to export people in the name of the new legislation. It allows paranoia to influence political decision. [...] Britain now won't have any laws to stop such paranoia from the gov't and the people, can we say "Salem Terrorist Trials"?
 

Plain old me

Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2005
Messages
228
Reaction score
1
Location
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yes, it does seem vague, the last time legislation similar to this was put before parliament it had to be whittled down to a more acceptable level, but now the conservatives have announced their general support for it it seems like there won't be problem with passing it...

...your majesty:roll:
 
Last edited:
H

HTColeman

Plain old me said:
Yes, it does seem vague, the last time legislation similar to this was put before parliament it had to be whittled down to a more acceptable level, but now the conservatives have announced their general support for it it seems like there won't be problem with passing it...

...your majesty:roll:
At last someone realizes! The first of many...
 

GarzaUK

That European Guy
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
3,682
Reaction score
625
Location
Belfast, Northern Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
If Blair goes too far and too eager to deport people, we could have a Muslim backlash on our hands.
Injustice tends to make people very unhappy, which could drive them radicalism. They might feel Britain has double standards... after all Britain is releasing convicted Irish and Ulster terrorists with no whalms at all.
 

Peter Dow

Banned
Joined
Aug 6, 2005
Messages
213
Reaction score
14
Location
Aberdeen, Scotland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Terrorist propaganda on the BBC

Anjem Choudary is a terrorist-propagandist who is at war with the British people.


Click below to read this on my web page

Well I listened to this guy, Anjem Choudary, “Former” UK Head of Al Muhajiroun, on BBC News 24 last night, 8th August 2005 (HARDtalk with Stephen Sackur).

Clearly, Choudary is wily propagandist for the Al-Qaeda-inspired terrorist war against the British people (and presumably, the Scottish and the English people too), who he hates, apparently.


This BBC broadcast of his supporting propaganda in favour of the terrorist bombings of London on 7th July 2005 is further evidence -
- that he and his friends are at war with the British people, and
- that they have had support from the UK state that continues today.


Again it strikes me as strange that while those waging war against the British people are allowed to broadcast terrorist-war propaganda on BBC TV, on the other hand, I myself, a British patriot, was recently arrested for trying to display a Union flag, the British national flag, during a 2 minute silence for the victims of the London bombings!

So the UK state is helping Britain’s enemies while hindering Britain’s patriots!

Due entirely to their extremely stupid and counter-productive actions, the BBC, the police and the courts are, some of the time, supporting the terrorists in their war against the people of Britain and yet they still wonder why Britain has been bombed!

Anjem Choudary and the other terrorist-propagandists should be urgently yet humanely detained until such time as the war on terrorism is won.

True patriots like myself should be given protection from the stupid oppressive actions of the idiot officers of the UK state.

People must wake up to the fact that they have been badly served by the UK state, from the Queen and the Prime Minister on down, who have allowed terrorism to flourish while ensuring that freedom fighters like myself are victimised.

It is no good imagining that just changing the law while leaving the same UK state officers in charge is going to solve this, or any other, problem that besets the British people.

Leaving idiots in charge doesn’t work - ever.

Tony Blair claimed recently that the rules had changed. He is wrong. The rule that counts has stayed the same. The rule is that idiots are to be in charge.

There is still an undemocratic United Kingdom, Elizabeth is still the Queen, Blair is still PM, Prescott is still Deputy PM, Clarke is still Home Secretary, idiot judges still rule the courts and idiot chief constables still rule the police.

Wrong Blair. The rules of the game are still the same – idiots are still in charge.
 
Last edited:

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
HTColeman said:
Sorry, don't know what happened, I had to register to view the article, but it was free and quick, so it doesn't matter, I'll just copy and paste.
[mod mode]
HTColeman, per

FORUM RULES

8. Copyrighted Material - All material posted from copyrighted material MUST contain a link to the original work.
Please do not post entire articles. Proper format is to paraphrase the contents of an article and/or post relevant excerpts and then link to the rest. Best bet is to always reference the original source.
Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107 http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html

I edited the copyrighted material in your post.
[/mod mode]
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom