If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Aged 16-25? Share your experience of using the discussion boards and receive a £25 voucher! Take part via text-chat, video or phone. Click here to find out more and to take part.
Terror groups banned under new laws
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,735 Bot
"Two UK-based Islamist groups are to become the first to be banned under laws outlawing the glorification of terrorism. John Reid said he was taking action against Al-Ghurabaa and the Saved Sect. Under an order put down in Parliament, it will be an offence to belong to the groups, encourage support for them or wear clothes suggesting support. Mr Reid said the move sent a signal that the UK would not tolerate people who supported terrorism. Mr Reid is also banning two foreign groups, the Baluchistan Liberation Army and Teyrebaz Azadiye Kurdistan." Click here for details.
To those that say that this is a restriction on free speech - quite frankly, tough. I don't think there should be 100% total free speech myself, and to hear that these odious groups are being banned from operating in the UK is great news. It's long over-due, but it seems John Reid has finally got two things right at the Home Office, the first being to scrap the stupid, pointless merger of police forces.
However, just read the poision that Anjem Choudary spouted to, yes, you guessed it, the BBC. According to him, were the groups to be banned, they might start defending suicide attacks on Britain. Only on the BBC would such a man be allowed to speak. No respectable television channel, radio station or newspaper would broadcast such views, but Aunty seems to believe that respectable standards of journalism do not apply to them. If he ever dares justify a suicide bombing on Britain, rest assured there would be an outrage. Or is he just using the airtime, provided by the licence-fee funded organisation, to blackmail us?
What do you think of all this?
To those that say that this is a restriction on free speech - quite frankly, tough. I don't think there should be 100% total free speech myself, and to hear that these odious groups are being banned from operating in the UK is great news. It's long over-due, but it seems John Reid has finally got two things right at the Home Office, the first being to scrap the stupid, pointless merger of police forces.
However, just read the poision that Anjem Choudary spouted to, yes, you guessed it, the BBC. According to him, were the groups to be banned, they might start defending suicide attacks on Britain. Only on the BBC would such a man be allowed to speak. No respectable television channel, radio station or newspaper would broadcast such views, but Aunty seems to believe that respectable standards of journalism do not apply to them. If he ever dares justify a suicide bombing on Britain, rest assured there would be an outrage. Or is he just using the airtime, provided by the licence-fee funded organisation, to blackmail us?
What do you think of all this?
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
If it wasn't for the quotes would you have simply believed the ban was appropriate without any evidence, surely the BBC has done more to support the position taken by Reid by reprinting those views than by not showing what kind of a position he was taking?
And how does reporting extreme, and at the time legal views, constitue bad journalism, would you have preferred the BBC to ignore his views and censor themselves what you are permitted to read - that sounds like much worse journalism.
'Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through and media and regardless of frontiers.'
- Article 19, Universal Declaration of Human Rights
This has never been extended to include the active encouragement of criminal actions - the question is where you draw the line, what constitutes an idea and a debate, and what constitues an active attempt to recruit terrorists.
Not that I'm saying this is the right line in the sand
Freedom of expression SHOULD mean the right to advocate terrorist acts!
law itsef is such a misty cathegory, especially in part concerning human rights and freedoms..
the hardest part is to make a balance between freedom of speach, right to practice some religion, etc, etc and public safety.
no one can make prefectly safe country without restrictions of human rights. and i believe that no one of us would like to live in such county, for it would be something like north korea nowdays, or 3rd reich before 60 yrs...
on the other hand, full respecting of each man's human rights is possible only in anarchy. an anarchy is illusion
it is possible that such acces to the problem could obtain a good resoults... i don't know... possible something similar as happened with ira...
i don't claim it is only proper sollution. please, dont yell on me! i'm just making a theory!
erm yes.... personally yes
BUT one of these parties is non-violent, i've actuallychatted to their members, they would like sharia law, they would never see it happen, much like most of the communist and libertarian partes that have existed in this country