Welcome to 1984

Originally posted by infinite

So they're not promoting violence. i.e. they're just being banned for their political beliefs

true, but they want to change the UK way of life and turn the UK into an Islamic state, the Monarchy and parliament is not going to let a political group stand. 2.7% is the muslim population in this Country and its unfair for us non-muslim to live under Islamic law.

The British National Socialist Party will probably be banned too because they openly admit that they want to overthrow democracy in the UK. Plus they celebrate on Hitler's birthday.



[edit on 5-8-2005 by infinite]

This is the BBC summary of Blair's points...

news.bbc.co.uk...

"Ban the Hizb ut Tahrir and the successor organisation of Al-Muhajiroun - and look at whether the grounds for banning such groups need to be widened"

But nothing about the BNSP. I'd be more interested in banning the BNP though to be honest (unless that's who you mean) as they've been linked with incitement to racism on numerous occasions. I bet they won't be banned though...

British National Party is the BNP. BNP do not support terrorism, unlike these groups that do. All the Government needs to do, is adopt BNP policy and make them less extreme and the BNP is dead. Thats what Blair has done. Used their extreme policies, turned them into respectful ones and used them. Now the BNP will loose its support. Heck, two members of the BNP got arrested for handing out leaflets up North

Hizb ut Tahrir are banned in most countries because they support terrorism, the leader of Hizb ut Tahrir was just speaking on Skynews and he is full of crap. He said the UK wants an Islamic state (even though its only the a small section of the UK muslim community that wants it), its his bull# views against the west that got them banned. He thinks Islam will save the west.

how can his group be peaceful when he is trying to shove a religion down our throats which only 2.7% are apart of?

Putting tougher restrictions on terrorist is now a compromise of civil liberties? Sorry, but claiming no assylum for terrorist is bad and the vendetta to 'gain back' these liberties is lame. You really want refugee status for the perps don't you dom?

Originally posted by Frosty
Putting tougher restrictions on terrorist is now a compromise of civil liberties?

Sorry, but claiming no assylum for terrorist is bad and the vendetta to 'gain back' these liberties is lame. You really want refugee status for the perps don't you dom?

Nope, I think you've misunderstood Frosty. I think these terrorists are foul human beings and they shouldn't be allowed into this country for any reason whatsoever.

However, I think we have to be careful that we don't bring in laws that can be used indiscriminately against a wider section of the community. i.e. you can want a sharia state without supporting terrorism. Banning terrorists is great, but when you start banning people supporting a peaceful move to a different system of government you've sucked in a bunch of other people. If the only alternative system you ban support for is Sharia, then it begins to look like you're only interested in banning Islamic extremist groups, and not extremist groups in general.

Does that make sense?