Should the government ban some political organisations?

[Solopower]

Muslims against the Crusades (?) have been banned; I think because they were planning to burn poppies on Sunday. They were the group behind the protests at Wootten Bassett, too.

I heard on the radio today that several other Muslim groups have also been banned, and what the government is trying to do is stop their members reforming under another name. Obviously if they are planning terrorist attacks, that can't be allowed. But no-one is saying that is the case here, as far as I know.

So what about freedom of speech? Surely if they ban these Muslim groups for incitement to hatred or whatever, they should also ban the BNP?

Will I get arrested for posting this??

I'm glad when policing goes well.

I wouldn't however out EDL in the same category as the proscribed organisations. I think you've hit the nail on the head - EDL are troublemakers (who looked pretty risible yesterday). The proscribed organisations contain killers, and are not to be taken lightly.

Terrorism is vile and has to be stopped (apols for stating the obvious). But it is a battle for hearts and minds as well, which is why I worry about draconian methods like banning political organisations. I hope the government really does have reliable information that they are all involved in terrorist or other illegal activities. But it must have, surely, because why else would it ban them?

In general, I think an open discussion is a better way to convince people, and although I hated Nick Griffin appearing on Question Time (?) a few months ago, I did think on balance he should be included in the programme in the interests of free speech.

But I wonder if a radical Islamist would (or should) ever be given that publicity. Or is it illegal to be a radical Islamist?

I'm not aware of any proscribed organisations that are not terrorist.

Do you have a specific example in mind?

Nope. No inside knowledge at all. Just floating ideas as they occur to me.

Do you think people should be allowed to say what they think in a mature democracy? Or are some views so dangerous that we should not be allowed to hear them?

The problem here is that although some groups can engage in mature democracy, others don't want to be in a mature democracy and their terms of reference are from a theocracy. How can you engage in debate if the understanding of the rules of debate aren't the same?

Radical Islam is stuck in the 14/15th century timewise, as Islam started in the 7th century, and I don't think that the rest of the world can wait for it to catch up.