Islam4UK

AcidHell2 said:
:rolleyes:and think how many people will be brain washed. Preaching hate and other stuff is banned for a good reason.
Click to expand...
I never said preaching hate should be legal. In fact, if you go back and read my posts you will see I have continually said that if you preach hate then you are committing a crime and should be arrested. If nobody in the group is preaching hate, then why should the group be banned?

AcidHell2 said:
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.
Click to expand...
That literature will have been created by an individual. If an NHS worker was to create a racist leaflet should be arrest the individual or dissolve the NHS. Of course you tackle the individual that has committed the crime, you do not punish every other member of that group for the individual's actions by banning it.

AcidHell2 said:
That is not illegal and nor should it be.
Click to expand...
Agreed, though, with respect, the question was aimed specifically at Fenris who stated that it should be banned because of their opinion. Others, including yourself, may hold differing opinions, but in that question I was looking to get to the root of Fenris'.
 
Last edited:
fini said:
then why should the group be banned?
Click to expand...
They shouldn't.

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...

fini said:
That literature will have been created by an individual. If an NHS worker was to create a racist leaflet should be arrest the individual or dissolve the NHS. Of course you tackle the individual that has committed the crime, you do not punish every other member of that group for the individual's actions by banning it.
Click to expand...

there is a massive difference between a person making something and the ideology of the entire group and what it stands for.

If it is an individual they are charged. if it is the latter the group is shut down and people are charged. their is nothing wrong with that,
 
AcidHell2 said:
If it is an individual they are charged. if it is the latter the group is shut down and people are charged. their is nothing wrong with that,
Click to expand...
So you've taken all the individuals who have committed crimes and locked them away in prison. You then have left an organisation filled with people who have committed no crime. Why should you ban their participation in the group (which is what you do by banning the group) when they have done nothing illegal?
 
fini said:
So you've taken all the individuals who have committed crimes and locked them away in prison. You then have left an organisation filled with people who have committed no crime. Why should you ban their participation in the group (which is what you do by banning the group) when they have done nothing illegal?
Click to expand...

Do you not get it, the group ideology makes the group, if that ideology is to preach hate and act on it then the group is shut down. it is not hard to understand. Doing what you suggest mearly means you put sacrifice leaders in. They get told what to print tehy got to prison. New scapegoat is put in. All funding, advertising and everything else is already in place. The organisation is shut down to stop this.
 
Last edited:
fini said:
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.


So you do want to ban the holding of certain opinions? That's a thought crime, right?


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.
Click to expand...

Are you islamic ? If not how do you think your quality of life would prosper if for some reason they managed to get in and run the country ?
 
fini said:
Agreed, though, with respect, the question was aimed specifically at Fenris who stated that it should be banned because of their opinion. Others, including yourself, may hold differing opinions, but in that question I was looking to get to the root of Fenris'.
Click to expand...

Look you don't seem to understand my point of view here so I will explain it more clearly, I apologise before hand that I am not very good at writing stuff like this down.

Basically I have no issue with groups having differing opinions, I have no issue with people who think the EU should pull out of Iraq etc or that the UK's policies on immigration are too light, I have no issue with people even protesting these ideas and I would have issue with this group if all their mission was was for say, equal rights for Muslims or more cultural integration of Islam into the UK etc etc.

However what they aim for is a complete and utter upheaval of this countries laws and rights and to have them in such a way that every single citizen would be made an enemy because they are not one of them. Would you allow a group to be made that denned the holocaust and that all Jews should be executes to run for election? I certainly wouldn't.

This group if they gained power to turn this country into a thought policing and horrible place to be for anyone besides themselves, a place where anything but strict belief in Islam is punished by god knows what, where education in anything that questions it's control and religious ideals is banned, where people with differing opinions are not allowed to live even if its simply "I want to learn about Shakespeare", where most likely any public displays of affection are banned, where you most likely would never be able to chose your partner and where crimes such as adulty, or even things like homosexuality are punished by death.

Would YOU like to live in that country? Because that' what they want.

The right to an opinion is important, however if that opinion is such that is inspires nothing but hatred, racism and bigotry then I sure as hell do not want it to be displayed in my country.
 
Last edited:
AcidHell2 said:
Do you not get it, the group ideology makes the group, if that ideology is to preach hate and act on it then the group is shut down. it is not hard to understand.
Click to expand...
I did not say that I struggle to understand you, I merely disagree with you. If a group is full of individuals not breaking the law and they all meet up and don't break the law then why can they not have their group? Why should their group be treated any differently than the local tiddlywinks club? If there are people in the group that do break the law, then throw those individuals in prison.

AcidHell2 said:
Doing what you suggest mearly means you put sacrifice leaders in. They get told what to print tehy got to prison. New scapegoat is put in. All funding, advertising and everything else is already in place. The organisation is shut down to stop this.
Click to expand...
Do you really think that people are going to agree to take that scapegoat position that you've imagined? In any case, if that person is being compelled to print those articles on the sayso of the leaders then those leaders will have committed a crime as well and will be put in prison. Funding for an organisation where no members are committing any crimes is not a problem.

twoblacklines said:
Are you islamic ? If not how do you think your quality of life would prosper if for some reason they managed to get in and run the country ?
Click to expand...
Not that it should matter, but no, I am not Islamic. I do not think life would be improved if this group was running the country. My point is wider than this group; that no group should be banned. It does not, or at least should not, matter whether the ideas of the group are a good thing or whether you or I agree with them. I do not happen to agree with UKIP, but I respect their right to exist. I also do not agree with the Busted Fan Club, I think the type of things that they promote (music by Busted) is abhorrent, but I would not call for them to be shut down.

My point is a simple one. If an individual has broken the law then arrest and prosecute him. Once you have done that you have a group containing only law abiding citizens. As such, democracy demands that, until we start wholesale suspending habeas corpus, you should have a right to congregate with whomever you choose.

Fenris said:
Basically I have no issue with groups having differing opinions, I have no issue with people who think the EU should pull out of Iraq etc or that the UK's policies on immigration are too light, I have no issue with people even protesting these ideas and I would have issue with this group if all their mission was was for say, equal rights for Muslims or more cultural integration of Islam into the UK etc etc.

However what they aim for is a complete and utter upheaval of this countries laws and rights and to have them in such a way that every single citizen would be made an enemy because they are not one of them. Would you allow a group to be made that denned the holocaust and that all Jews should be executes to run for election? I certainly wouldn't.
Click to expand...
I would not ban any group of any kind, however evil its motive. To ban a group is to ban a thought, a concept and that cannot be right.

Fenris said:
This group if they gained power to turn this country into a thought policing and horrible place to be for anyone besides themselves, a place where anything but strict belief in Islam is punished by god knows what,
Click to expand...
So you would fight the rise of thought policing by...thought policing?

Fenris said:
where education in anything that questions it's control and religious ideals is banned,
Click to expand...
Which you would fight by not allowing people to congregate and discuss anything that questions democracy?

Fenris said:
Would YOU like to live in that country? Because that' what they want.
Click to expand...
Again, it is not about whether I agree with their policies, I do not, it is about whether they should have the right to exist. Whether freedom to congregate and to have legal discussions should be limited to only groups that the government find tolerable.

Fenris said:
The right to an opinion is important, however if that opinion is such that is inspires nothing but hatred, racism and bigotry then I sure as hell do not want it to be displayed in my country.
Click to expand...
I assume you call for the banning of the BNP, who present many bigoted and racist policies?
 
Last edited:
fini said:
So you would fight the rise of thought policing by...thought policing?
Click to expand...

If by thoughts you mean racist and bigoted thoughts then yes, something I believe is already covered under law.

fini said:
Which you would fight by not allowing people to congregate and discuss anything that questions democracy?
Click to expand...

Democracy must protect itself, something it has always sought to do.

fini said:
Again, it is not about whether I agree with their policies, I do not, it is about whether they should have the right to exist. Whether freedom to congregate and too have legal discussions should be limited to only groups that the government find tolerable.
Click to expand...

I suppose that is where we differ in opinion most greatly then, this entire debate is a "line in the sand" for me, some things are just too much for me to sit back and ignore, this is one of them, I can not agree with something like this, I just can't, if they wanted to discuss things politically then so be it but that isn't what they want and never will be.

fini said:
I assume you call for the banning of the BNP, who present many bigoted and racist policies?
Click to expand...

Yes, actually, something I'm pretty sure I have said before.
 
Fenris said:
If by thoughts you mean racist and bigoted thoughts then yes, something I believe is already covered under law.
Click to expand...
No, no country in the world turns thoughts in to crimes. Thought crimes are as abhorrent as they are unenforceable. Everyone should have the right to their own thoughts, however repulsive they may be. Firstly, no thought is evil within itself - it is the consequence of those thoughts that may be evil. Secondly, where is the harm from a thought if not accompanied by an action? Thirdly, and perhaps most damningly, how are you to conclude that an action or belief is wrong if you do not consider it, at which point it will be in your mind and you will have had the thought. Not even the most fascist of states have yet gone as far as to advocate, as you do, thought crimes.

Fenris said:
Democracy must protect itself, something it has always sought to do.
Click to expand...
Why? If the majority decide that they do not want democracy any more then why should that decision be stricken from them? Surely that is the very essence of democracy?

Fenris said:
if they wanted to discuss things politically then so be it but that isn't what they want and never will be.
Click to expand...
What do you class as political? They have held formal protests...

Fenris said:
Yes, actually, something I'm pretty sure I have said before.
Click to expand...
So in calling for the banning of the BNP you seem to be saying that democracy is good, but only if you happen to agree with that party's agenda. If you are repulsed at the party's agenda then you would ban them. That, Fenris, is not democracy at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom