Extremist groups banned in UK

[noons]

I'm sure you have heard the news by now that certain radical Muslim groups in the United Kingdom, among them Islam4UK, have been officially banned, and membership has been made illegal.

Opinions on the groups in question aside, as an American I am curious about how free speech laws in the UK are handled, and what kind of authority the government has in terms of free speech. What about other extremist groups, like the various skinhead organizations? Can the government really be consistent if they only ban extremist groups that espouse a certain Ideology?

Now, in America things are simpler, but not perfectly clear cut. We still have all sorts of groups like the Ku Klux Klan etc. There is no law that prevents someone from openly calling for a totalitarian state that persecutes minorities. The state recognizes the difference between advocating changing the laws, and advocating breaking the laws. The former is protected speech, the latter is incitement. However, it is often hard to define incitement, and even harder to prove one's intentions.

[merkavah12]

Extremist groups are banned...and yet the BNP still is functional.

Hmmm...

[sandwiches]

Bit stupid banning groups at at all since they simply reform under another name and also have ammunition to sneer that the vaunted Western ideal of free speech does not apply to them.

There are more insidious threats to free speech that can be used against Christians if the opportunity arises. This is from a blog by a barrister with an interest in religious discrimination law:

religionlaw.blogspot.com/2009/12/harassment-and-hatred-in-liverpool-and.html

"Harassment and Hatred in Liverpool and Canada
Two cases this week involving Religion and Free Speech are interesting. In Liverpool a Christian couple were cleared on a charge of harassing a Muslim guest who was staying in their Hotel and in Alberta, Canada a Christian Pastor was cleared on an allegation of inciting hatred of homosexuals. Both cases were very different in their facts but underlying them both is the common question of whether or where the law should become involved in situations where people are offended by another person expressing their personal opinions.

In the Liverpool case Ben and Sharon Vogelzang were charged with religiously aggravated use of
"threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress"
contrary to s5 Public Order Act 1986. They were alleged to have insulted a Muslim guest at their hotel when she came down wearing a Hijab, they were alleged to have described Mohammed as a warlord and the Hijab as a symbol of female subjugation. At the end of a two day trial the District Judge rejected the prosecution case on the basis that he was not satisfied about the complainants evidence.

Following the acquittal the Crown Prosecution Service has been criticised for its decision to bring the case but I do not agree with that way of thinking. I am a former Crown Prosecutor and I know that it is the job of courts, not prosecutors, to decide whether someone is guilty or innocent and no prosecutor should be criticised simply because a judge did not believe a witness. My criticism of the CPS is that the case should not have been brought regardless of whether the verdict was guilty or not guilty, to put it in terms of
The Code for Crown Prosecutors there was no "public interest" in bringing to court a case which essentially involved an argument, maybe a heated argument, but nevertheless nothing more than an argument. The Public Order Act exists in order to preserve the public peace and it should not be misused in order to stifle the expression of views however strongly expressed"

[zameel]

I think one needs to differentiate between "banning" and "not publicising". Unfortunately the sensationalist media has been complicit in Islam4UK's (and al-Muajiroun's) prominence in Britain - although it is tiny group with only a few dozen followers.

This Evening Standard piece is accurate when it writes:

"Mr Choudary has proven himself adept at grabbing publicity for what is apparently an almost entirely paper organisation. His announcement earlier this month that it planned to hold a protest march in Wootton Bassett against the war in Afghanistan appears to have had no basis in fact: no application to hold a demonstration was ever made. This did not prevent much of the media from covering it at length, however; now the Home Secretary has simply given Choudary new victim status.

There are real terrorist organisations that deserve to be banned. But Mr Choudary is telling the truth when he denies that his is a terrorist group: rather, it is a benefit claimants' exercise in macho fantasy and a prop for his own ego. Most people find Choudary's views repellent but he should be allowed to express them, if only to remind us just how silly and narcisisstic is this armchair warrior from Welling. He will be delighted that Mr Johnson has instead taken the bait as intended."

Groups such as Islam4UK and the BNP should not be banned, but they should not be publicised or given public platforms in respected institutions. It would be silly inviting Griffin for a representative British view as it would be silly inviting Choudhary for a representative Muslim one - but unfortunately, that is what is often done. As Islamophobia Watch writes: When it comes to giving Choudary and his tiny group of idiots publicity that is out of all proportion to their significance, the Standard itself has been one of the worst offenders (with articles such as "The Pope must die, says Muslim", "I want to see flag of Allah flying over Downing St", "Islamist group march for 'full sharia law in Britain'", "Next 9/11 in Britain warn banned Muslim militants" and "Islamist sect banned as security threat 'is recruiting teenagers'", not to mention "Wootton Bassett on parade as Islamic hate row grows" - all with regards to Mr Choudhary, who is a solicitor with no Islamic qualifications).

I think banning certain individuals from speaking at certain locations (like a university) is sensible, but not banning whole organisations that are not violent altogether. Niether the BNP nor Islam4UK are violent (although there have been some connections with "terrorist plots" with both groups e.g Robert Cottage for the BNP: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/6923933.stm - you probably haven't heard of these "white terrorists" in the UK - for the double standard, see: www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/jul/18/muslim-terror-suspects-neonazis ). However, I think the offshoot of BNP, the English Defence League (EDL) should be banned as it is a violent group that attacks shops, knives Asians and generally behave like drunked hooligans on a mission, and have caused far more havoc than have Islam4UK but have received much less attention. Similarly, I think the suggestion that Islamic Societies should be banned because of the failed bomb plot by Umar Abdulmutallab, is as ridiculous as banning the NHS because Harold Shipman murdered over 200 people (that's quadruple 7/7).

Also see: www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/jan/12/islam4uk-ban-johnson

[krkey1]

I fear this is a lesson Europeans have never learned.

The problem with censorship is simple. Someone has to determine what should and should not be censored. We humans are flawed creatures at best and therefore such a determination will be flawed at best.

And of course banning an opinion does not make it go away, if anything it gives it power.