i know i always do this...politics again...these new proposed laws...

[Heathcliffscathy]

i know that it feels awful to have been bombed and then for some imams/muslim figures to have said awful things about it being justified etc etc

but


we already have laws protecting against incitement to racial hatred.

why do we need laws that make 'glorification of terrorism' illegal? that could mean anything tbh.

how can we justify deporting people to countries where they will be subject to torture? (for saying things???)

how can we as a society that is proud of a democracy do this?

these laws will not stop any further attacks. but they attack the very democracy that we are trying to defend...don't they???

if you put the ability to strip citizens that are naturalised of their nationality on the statute, that is such a dangerous thing. and it could be me, as I am naturalised, but i've lived here all my life and consider myself british.

[hunkermunker]

If they don't want to be deported, they shouldn't say things that glorify terrorism. That's oversimplifying it, but that's it in a nutshell.

I get pissed off with people who want to blow us up, then use our system to claim huge amounts of rights and protections.

[Heathcliffscathy]

hunker do you want to live in a country where you can be imprisoned/deported/stripped of your citizenship for what you say?? what's next, thought police a la 1984?

isn't this just a sop to blue rinse middle england daily mail land posse?

this is not going to protect us!

[hunkermunker]

Sophable, you always take things a bit far!

No, of course I don't want to live in a country as you describe, but I do want to live in a country where if ignorant bastards repeatedly preach hatred, they are dealt with severely.

[handlemecarefully]

I read the Independent....think Daily Mail is a form of toilet paper, but 100% support the proposed legislation.

If you want to get an intelligent debate going with me though, wait until I'm sober

[QueenOfQuotes]

of course it won't protect us - I doubt very much the 8 men who set off/tried to set off bombs walked around saying proudly that terrorism was good and what a good idea they thought it was.

If they had chances are none of the attacks (failed or successful) would have happened - at least not from those 8 as they'd have been stopped!

[QueenOfQuotes]

lol@ hmc

[hunkermunker]

And I don't have a blue rinse, nor do I read the Daily Rail...

[Heathcliffscathy]

i'm not taking it far, tony is...they are going to try to pass laws that mean that if someone expresses the opinion that terrorism is understandable/justified in light of for example iraq, they can arrest them/deport them/strip them of citizenship....

[Heathcliffscathy]

and once again libdems are saying 'whooa there, wtf' (in so many words...actually i wish they did issue statements saying things like that!)...and god love them for it!

[Ladymuck]

My concern is that, whatever Blair claims is the intention of the current proposals, the reality is that if and when the laws are enacted, it will be down to the judicial process to interpret what they mean. I think that Blsir has too much faith in the jduiciary taking "his" view of the world. Sooner or later someone else is going to have a different agenda to pursue and will use these laws accordingly. The laws seem to be aimed at a handful of known people, but clearly will possibly apply to a much-wider section of the population. This is just a bad way to make law.

[handlemecarefully]

I think that is a way to - hic- literal interpretation sophable. Do you really think the British public would stand for that? Tony Blair knows how far he can go, and he knows that the rather extreme picture that you have painted would not be - hic- tolerated in these venerable isles

[hunkermunker]

That's hardly glorifying terrorism though. Would like to see the actual wording of the new law before making assumptions about how strictly interpreted it will be - isn't it to get people like the Abu Hamza out of the country more easily?

[edam]

Agree with QOQ again and kind of Sophable. Bob Marshall Andrews was saying something intelligent on this - he's a QC as well as an MP and was pointing out that there are plenty of laws available already to deal with terrorists and preachers of hate. We don't need new laws, they are just headline grabbers to convince us that those in charge are doing something. What we need is action. And politicians who pull their finger out and deal with the real threat, not invent stupid laws to criminalise anyone who dares to question religions, for instance.

[handlemecarefully]

Well actually soph, when I heard Charles Kennedy's take on it I thought to myself 'lordy - get real'

However ladymuck makes a reasonable point.

[Heathcliffscathy]

edam...exactly...why kind of???

[QueenOfQuotes]

here's the proposals

here


"Make justifying or glorifying terrorism anywhere an offence"


Where do you 'draw the line' with that one?

[BadHair]

Let's face it, it's just to pander to the middle englanders (why does no-one talk about them anymore?).
As QoQ said, REAL terrorists don't walk around talking openly about it. Those who incite to racial hatred, ie the hook handed bloke, should be dealt with under existing British laws.
I am a British citizen, was born here and family are all from here from as far back as we know. I have advocated the IRA in the past (not for bombing campaigns but for the idea of an Irish Ireland) - I take it I would be classified as glorifying terrorism for this.
Actually, like someone else said, I should come back to this when I am soberer.

[edam]

Actually, I have no idea why I said 'kind of'. Looked back at your posts and they all make sense to me.

It's all very well for people to claim that 'it will only affect these specific individuals'. The law applies to everyone. And will be 'explored' by the lawyers to see how they can make it apply to people we can't even imagine being affected.

It may be Abu Hamza or whoever is in their sights today. Could be anyone else they fancy tomorrow, next week, next month, next year... and who knows what the next Government will do?

[hunkermunker]

QoQ, have skimmed them, but don't see anything too worrying. Mind you, am cross-eyed with tiredness (nice get-out clause for if I've missed one that says "Electrocute the goolies of anyone who likes orange juice")

[Ladymuck]

And once these laws are enacted, it takes quite a lot to repeal them. You end up adapting to them (as we did with the official secrets act), and allow our liberty to be curtailed with questionable advantages.

[edam]

Well, "justifying" is a catch-all, isn't it? Would have caught out anyone who went on a Free Nelson Mandela protest, for a start. And will prevent writers writing about terrorism, therefore stopping us poor unwashed proles knowing anything Tony doesn't think is good for us.

[QueenOfQuotes]

good point edam - Nelson Mandela is probably the most well liked terrorist in the world!

[Ladymuck]

I did have to smile when the reporter indicated that Ken Livingstone could have been caught out by the proposed rules for stating that he could understand why some Palestinians ahd been driven to ebing suicide bombers!

Presumably Ken would love the publicity of Tony trying to slap a control order on him!

[WideWebWitch]

sophable, I was listening to the radio about this last night and it all sounds a bit mad really: they don't know what they're going to say exactly, it's all very ill thought out it seems to me and is a sop rather than anything meaningful. I'm not impressed by what I've heard about this so far.

[WideWebWitch]

I agree with Edam too.