Warning: Teaching Parents The Signs of Terrorism Can Get You Labled "An Enemy of Islam"

British Home Secretary John was disrupted while addressing a group of Muslim Parents by Abu Izzadeen AKA Trevor Brook who was banned after praising those that took part in the 7/7 bombings. Izzadeen allegedly said: "you (Mr Reid are a Tyrant" and "you are enemy of Islam and Muslims." Reid was in the process of advising parents to watch out for tell tale signs of possible signs of brainwashing by terrorists when the disruption took place.



OK I am not a British Citizen so I do not know their laws, yet I am wondering if he was Banned earlier and labled as a Fanatic Muslim, why is he still in the Country?

Seems to me they should have revoked his citizenship and deported him or am I missing something here? Also I would like to know why they allowed the 2nd invidual to remain in the country assuming of course that he too was banned earlier as Izzadeen had been?

It truly is a shame that Reid was interrupted in this manner, all he was doing was making parents aware of certain signs bad

[edit on 9/20/2006 by shots]

Well you didn't read it properly did you?

It said the group he had belonged to was banned, and the man had been investigated by the police previously.

The guy actually had a point, because the arrest/charge ratio is appalling.

It makes no mention of the second person having been involved with the group. It merely says he interupted the speech as well.

And while I don't personally believe that John Reid is what the guy proclaimed him to be, if its the mans opinion, shouldn't he be allowed to voice it? Instead of removing him why didn't John Reid have a reasoned discussion with him about it?

In the UK we have this thing called "freedom of speech" where you are allowed to say pretty much whatever you want, even if it is about the current Governments policies.

I realise that post 9/11 that may be an alien concept to some right wing people but its sure as hell not enough to get someone deported from the UK.

Originally posted by neformore
Well you didn't read it properly did you?

What do you mean I did not read it right it clearly says

The protester, also known as Trevor Brook, is an extremist from the al Ghurabaa group, which was banned by Mr Reid under new anti-terror laws.

Source

That to me indicates the whole group was banned and that would include the protester would it not? And no he should not be allowed to promote his hate in a public forum. There is a big difference between a protest and what he did as far as I am concerned. There is absolutely no need to disrupt someone for educating parents about the warning signs of possible terrorists.

[edit on 9/20/2006 by shots]

Originally posted by neformore
Well you didn't read it properly did you?

It said the group he had belonged to was banned, and the man had been investigated by the police previously.

The guy actually had a point, because the arrest/charge ratio is appalling.

It makes no mention of the second person having been involved with the group. It merely says he interupted the speech as well.

And while I don't personally believe that John Reid is what the guy proclaimed him to be, if its the mans opinion, shouldn't he be allowed to voice it? Instead of removing him why didn't John Reid have a reasoned discussion with him about it?

In the UK we have this thing called "freedom of speech" where you are allowed to say pretty much whatever you want, even if it is about the current Governments policies.

I realise that post 9/11 that may be an alien concept to some right wing people but its sure as hell not enough to get someone deported from the UK.

Does our freedom of speech extend to slogans such as "Jesus is the slave of allah"

or (at todays little spat) "John Reid must pay" - hmmm - what do they mean by that I wonder ?

Does our freedom include drawing cartoons or discussing violent tendancies that may or may not be part of a religion?

I wonder if I headed down the local mosque with 100 people and stood outside with similar plackards what would happen

A level playing field shouldnt be to much to ask for, should it?

Originally posted by neformore
Well you didn't read it properly did you?

It said the group he had belonged to was banned, and the man had been investigated by the police previously.

The guy actually had a point, because the arrest/charge ratio is appalling.

Do we have any statistics on the arrest/charge ratio? Does this go for all races and religions in the UK or just the "hard done by" muslims?

Originally posted by neformore
It makes no mention of the second person having been involved with the group. It merely says he interupted the speech as well.

And while I don't personally believe that John Reid is what the guy proclaimed him to be, if its the mans opinion, shouldn't he be allowed to voice it? Instead of removing him why didn't John Reid have a reasoned discussion with him about it?

LMAO, have you seen these fanatical muslims when they are ranting and raving about how Islam is so repressed and everyone is an infidel and an enemy? You'd be lucky to get a word in let alone have a reasoned discussion. These people have no idea what a reasoned discusion is, thats why we see them setting alite to embassy's when a cartoon is published or burning an efergy when someone say something they may not agree with.

Ooh, how about all the times they have had reasoned discussions when it comes to speaking about Isreal or thier views on Muslims in the UK? The words "reasoned" and "discusion" have no meaning in fanatical Islam.

Originally posted by neformore
In the UK we have this thing called "freedom of speech" where you are allowed to say pretty much whatever you want, even if it is about the current Governments policies.

I realise that post 9/11 that may be an alien concept to some right wing people but its sure as hell not enough to get someone deported from the UK.

We have freedom of speech do we? Well i being a white british male with no religion sure dont feel like we do. If you critise Muslims publicly, think of the backlash you get, you cant say anything against them without it being a personal attack, if i am in a fight with a black male it is "racially motivated", if i use a derogatry term aimed at someone from another race then i am arrested. Oh course if i was a fanatical Muslim calling for Sharia law in the UK and the destruction of Isreal then it would be all perfectly acceptable to demonsrate in the streets shouting and holding banners to get my point accross.

At the end of the day i am getting sick to death of muslims and thier so called religion of peace. No one is allowed to say or do anything around them yet they are free to do as they please. I didnt see the BBC getting burnt down when Farther Ted was aired, i havent seen Embassy's across the world burnt down when i cartoon of Jesus or god has been published. I am not right wing, infact doing some personal tests has shown me to be very liberal, and my personal life shows this but i cannot believe that these people are constantly allowed to do what they like when people who actually like this country (regardless of what religion they follow) are not allowed to say a word against them.

In my view, if you call for the destruction of the UK, public support any terrorist attack on the UK or shout about how you want Sharia law to be introduced then you should be immediately deported to a country which fits your needs. Why do these people stay in the UK if they want sharia law? it baffels me. Do they really think it will happen?

Now before i close i realise this is a bit of a rant, i have no problem with religion, with peaceful muslims. I have no religion so my mind is not clouded by the constant obsession that you are pleasing some higher power. I am however so fed up with all these muslims crying about how someone said this, someone said that. How the hell did we let it get this bad, and why do we accept it?

This person should have been sent immediatly to Gitmo.Let him exercise his freedom of speech there!

I despair at the response of Muslims recently. Everytime someone pushes over responsibility to the Muslim community, they are up in arms and then start rambling on about foreign policy being the sole reason (if that was the case, then surely West Indian men would be blowing up tube stations because of slavery back in the days)

It wasn't just the fanatic who didn't take too kindly to the speech. Most of the moderates there didn't like it at all. They just can't accept that they have to drastically change things within their communities, and to be honest, they don't know what to do.

John Reid had a point. Parents and religious leader have to be vigiliant. Every young muslim i've met, some of them very good freinds, had a read tedency to turn to fantacism. Islam is very collective, very protective and yes, vengeful. We need the moderate religious scholars and leaders to stand up, and preach the true civilised version of Islam. Its for the good of everyone, the parents, the kids, and the stability of social cohesion in this country.