Islam4UK

n111ck said:
Still a very small minority and certainly not deserved of all the constant attention and PC nonsense.
Click to expand...

That's the thing about growth, it starts off slow but gets increasingly faster as time goes on.

2.4 million Muslims is not a small number of people.
 
n111ck said:
Compared to 60m+ non Muslims it is.
Click to expand...

2.4m especially when concentrated in our inner cities is a huge amount of people who are having a profound effect on our society.

"Manningham belongs to Muslims. We dont want whites. We rule Bradford. We are going to get you out."
Click to expand...

That is what one Muslim thug shouted, before stabbing a random white person in Bradford in a racist attack: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...ailed-for-five-years-for-racist-stabbing.html


This Irish journalist was shocked at the virtual colonisation of parts of Britain by foreigners: http://www.independent.ie/opinion/c...t-could-be-tomorrows-ireland-too-1589227.html
 
Ross1234 said:
"Islam4UK" do not represent the views of the majority of Muslims. They are a fringe group of Muslims like the BNP are a fringe group not representing the views of the majority.
Click to expand...

I'm aware but I refuse to support any adaption of this country to any ways other than our own. I wouldn't go to a Middle Eastern country, for example, and insist everyone respects my English ways. It's an entirely different argument though, it doesn't really have anything to do with this thread.
 
Free speech should not include or allow the preaching of hate, death and destruction nor should those who do it be free from consequence as vonhelmet rightly says.

The banning of Islam4UK, to me, is a pointless exercise and will glorify and martyr the organisation rather than crush it.

I have to ask the question of why people who despise such a supposed decadent and evil society choose to live there ?
 
vonhelmet said:
I think we're banning people who preach hate and violence.
Click to expand...
That's already illegal. What does banning a club have to do with this? If anything, if we know that a particular group is frequented by people likely to break the law then we should definitely keep the group open because then all you need to do is monitor that group and picking up the individual's crimes is then easy pickings.

vonhelmet said:
I'd hazard that it is markedly easier to prove that a group as a whole is deserving of banning than it is to prove an individual is deserving of prosecution.
Click to expand...
How and why? Surely any evidence would be evidence of actions committed by individuals (potentially in their role as part of that group). As such, you can prosecute those individuals.

vonhelmet said:
They are free to have their opinion, but they are not free to troll the streets with it looking for trouble, which is what their group does.
Click to expand...
So people are allowed to disagree with the government in their mind, but not to protest against it? Slippery slope, no?
 
Last edited:
fini said:
That's already illegal. What does banning a club have to do with this? ?
Click to expand...

it's part of the law. it's so people can't hide behind organisations.

I hope more info is released as at the moment I don't know if it's a good or bad thing.

They have not banned freedom of speech and they have said it is banned because of hate preaching and links to terrorists and/or terrorist sympathisers which promote such activities.

fini said:
So people are allowed to disagree with the government in their mind, but not to protest against it? Slippery slope, no?
Click to expand...

where did he say that? protest is fine, condoning and preaching hate/murder/terrorist acts is not ok.
 
AcidHell2 said:
it's so people can't hide behind organisations.
Click to expand...
How would they do that? Clearly any document will have ultimately have been created by an individual - whether that is the group's treasurer, president or tea boy. If that document or action is illegal then deal with that individual.

AcidHell2 said:
They have not banned freedom of speech and they have said it is banned because of hate preaching and links to terrorists and/or terrorist sympathisers which promote such activities.
Click to expand...
A group cannot preach hate - a group is merely an organised collection of persons rallied together by common principals. If each of the individuals in the group are preaching hate then lock them all up for their actions, not for having a badge attached to their lapel. What is achieved by banning a group?


AcidHell2 said:
where did he say that? protest is fine, condoning and preaching hate/murder/terrorist acts is not ok.
Click to expand...
Agreed and that is why you lock up the individuals for their actions not for their affiliations, which merely indicates their thoughts. Actions can be illegal, thoughts should not be.
 
fini said:
How would they do that? Clearly any document will have ultimately have been created by an individual - whether that is the group's treasurer, president or tea boy. If that document or action is illegal then deal with that individual.
Click to expand...

because groups have agendas, a group has far more power and money than an individual. If the group is using such propaganda then you close the group.

Do you think al-qaeda should be allowed in the Uk?

There is nothing wrong with shutting a group down if there is evidence, whether there is or not I fear we will never know.

there's a difference between individuals preaching hate and a group preahcing hate.

If one person is preaching hate you charge him.

If the group is set up and run to preach hate you shut the group down.

The decision, based on months of monitoring the output of websites and comments by senior figures, will have to be endorsed by parliament. Al-Muhajiroun was founded by Omar Bakri Muhammad and Anjem Choudary, and has been operating in Britain since the mid-1980s.

The group became notorious for praising the September 11 attacks in 2001. Bakri was banned from Britain by the former home secretary Charles Clarke in August 2005, on the grounds that his presence in the country was "not conducive to the public good".

At the same time, the Home Office announced its intention to ban the group but it disappeared from view before relaunching itself in June last year.

The Saviour sect and al-Ghurabaa were proscribed under the 2000 Terrorism Act.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
fini said:
So people are allowed to disagree with the government in their mind, but not to protest against it? Slippery slope, no?
Click to expand...

Are you just trolling? Because you see to be taking everything anyone says and twisting it at every opportunity.

The reason people don't want this group allowed is not because they have a differing opinion, its because that opinion is so deeply racist and oppressive that it basically consists of "We want this country, so **** off".

They are not asking for better health care or equal rights, hell even if all they wanted to for the UK to pull out of Iraq then it would be fine but that's not it, they are acting towards the goal of taking over the UK and enforcing THEIR views onto every single citizen of the UK, views that are racist, bigoted and to be quite plain against everything they are using to declare their right to do what they want.
 
AcidHell2 said:
because groups have agendas, a group has far more power and money than an individual.
Click to expand...
If they don't commit any actions then what's the problem? If they commit actions than the individuals committing those actions will be breaking the law and you arrest them at that point.

AcidHell2 said:
Do you think al-qaeda should be allowed in the Uk?
Click to expand...
If no groups were banned then consider how easy it would be to detect these crimes. All these vile individuals coming together in one place so you immediately know who holds those beliefs. You then know who to monitor and once they do absolutely anything at all you can jump straight on them and arrest them. Much better and easier than trying to monitor secret meetings in hushed tones.

AcidHell2 said:
If the group is set up and run to preach hate you shut the group down.
Click to expand...
How would the group preach hate without any one particular individual be preaching hate? Unless they all stand in a line and each individually read out one word, which would be ridiculous, then at least one person in that group will have committed a crime. Arrest the individual and then see how likely the other members of the group are to commit offences.
 
fini said:
If no groups were banned then consider how easy it would be to detect these crimes. All these vile individuals coming together in one place so you immediately know who holds those beliefs. You then know who to monitor and once they do absolutely anything at all you can jump straight on them and arrest them. Much better and easier than trying to monitor secret meetings in hushed tones.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:and think how many people will be brain washed. Preaching hate and other stuff is banned for a good reason.

fini said:
How would the group preach hate without any one particular individual be preaching hate? Unless they all stand in a line and each individually read out one word, which would be ridiculous, then at least one person in that group will have committed a crime. Arrest the individual and then see how likely the other members of the group are to commit offences.
Click to expand...

A group has an agenda is made of of people. The group is committing a crime (well maybe), literature and stuff in the GROUPS NAME.

The decision, based on months of monitoring the output of websites and comments by senior figures, will have to be endorsed by parliament. Al-Muhajiroun was founded by Omar Bakri Muhammad and Anjem Choudary, and has been operating in Britain since the mid-1980s.

The group became notorious for praising the September 11 attacks in 2001. Bakri was banned from Britain by the former home secretary Charles Clarke in August 2005, on the grounds that his presence in the country was "not conducive to the public good".

At the same time, the Home Office announced its intention to ban the group but it disappeared from view before relaunching itself in June last year.

The Saviour sect and al-Ghurabaa were proscribed under the 2000 Terrorism Act.
Click to expand...
 
Fenris said:
Are you just trolling? Because you see to be taking everything anyone says and twisting it at every opportunity.
Click to expand...
No, I'm not trolling. If you wish to engage in this debate then please do, but calling someone a troll doesn't add anything except a personal attack.

Fenris;15721856 (my own bolding) said:
The reason people don't want this group allowed is not because they have a differing opinion, its because that opinion is so deeply racist and oppressive that it basically consists of "We want this country, so **** off".
Click to expand...
So you do want to ban the holding of certain opinions? That's a thought crime, right?

Fenris said:
They are not asking for better health care or equal rights, hell even if all they wanted to for the UK to pull out of Iraq then it would be fine but that's not it, they are acting towards the goal of taking over the UK and enforcing THEIR views onto every single citizen of the UK, views that are racist, bigoted and to be quite plain against everything they are using to declare their right to do what they want.
Click to expand...
Surely under a democratic and liberal society they should have the right to do that? Any political party wants to take over power in the UK and enforce their views. Many political parties hold views that could be seen to be bigotted. Are we, thus, to ban all political parties? No, we must allow discussion, debate and disagreement to occur because that is a fundamental tenant of free society.
 
I think they should come down to certain parts of Cornwall and just try an islam march tbh.

Im not racist or anything, nor do i have anything against islam, but forcing it on people and then doing force-marriages in a majorly non islamic country - big no no.
 
How hard would it be for a group that wants sharia law to form a legitimate political party?

Is there anything in law that could stop it legally if all they want is sharia law, no terrorism or anything?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom