UK Muslim protest group banned - supporters could face 10 years - Polidicks

[B]As of midnight, membership of or supporting the Muslim protest group 'Muslims Against Crusades' will be a criminal offence.[/B] The group had planned an anti-Armistice Day protest tomorrow, however Home Secretary Theresa May has banned the group - [B]anyone who joins a demonstration or is found to be supporting the group, could face up to 10 years in jail[/B]. Last year the group hosted a protest where they burned poppies near to London's Albert Hall. Mrs May said she was satisfied that Muslims Against Crusades (MAC) was "simply another name for an organisation already proscribed under a number of names". "[B]The organisation was proscribed in 2006 for glorifying terrorism and we are clear it should not be able to continue these activities by simply changing its name,[/B]" she said. Muslims Against Crusades is the latest incarnation of the organisation originally set up by extremist preacher Omar Bakri Mohammed, who fled the UK six years ago. Anjem Choudary, the leading public figure in the organisation, [B]accused the government of attempting to cover up the truth[/B]. But he said he no longer knew whether the planned "Hell for Heroes" demonstration would happen. "[B]I think it is an abject failure of democracy and it is a victory for Sharia Muslims[/B]," said Mr Choudary. [img]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/56631000/jpg/_56631200_011345734-1.jpg[/img] [URL]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15678275[/URL]

I'm seriously unsure of how to feel about this... I respect Veterans... I also respect Freedom of Speech. They shouldn't face 10 Years regardless though.

This is fucked up.

That doesn't seem fair

MAC huh?

Keep in mind Britain refused entry to the Westboro Baptist Church. We see this as extremism which is against the law in the UK.

[QUOTE=matt.ant;33214715] "[B]The organisation was proscribed in 2006 for glorifying terrorism and we are clear it should not be able to continue these activities by simply changing its name,[/B]" she said. [/QUOTE] Really don't see anything wrong with banning something like that.

Line them up on a wall and have them shot, it's better then they deserve. These are the people who give immigrants the bad rep, they come into your country, and attempt to make it like the one they just left. They set up Sharia Law zones in cities and will actively enforce it. Call it racist or whatever, but this group in particular has caused problems and is outright disrespectful. Thank god the UK actually have the balls to deal with these groups properly. There is a difference from exercising your freedom of speech and being a prick.

Banning a meeting of extremist terrorism supporters? I'm okay with that.

I disagree with the actions taken, you should always be able to criticize and debate anything. And the UK got extremists on both sides. [video=youtube;8MuydPdVQ_Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MuydPdVQ_Q[/video]

[QUOTE=Gundevil;33215068]Line them up on a wall and have them shot, it's better then they deserve. These are the people who give immigrants the bad rep, they come into your country, and attempt to make it like the one they just left. They set up Sharia Law zones in cities and will actively enforce it. Call it racist or whatever, but this group in particular has caused problems and is outright disrespectful. Thank god the UK actually have the balls to deal with these groups properly. There is a difference from exercising your freedom of speech and being a prick.[/QUOTE] Except almost anywhere else wouldn't let them enforce their own version of the law. I think these guys have the right to protest all they want. I mean, I don't like them, but I'd probably just laugh at them like I laugh at Westboro.

I don't like how "supporting" is left ambigous. Its a broad term and no doubt invites abuse of law.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;33214864]I'm seriously unsure of how to feel about this... I respect Veterans... I also respect Freedom of Speech. They shouldn't face 10 Years regardless though.[/QUOTE] Free speech is fine till you start o̶f̶f̶e̶n̶d̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶m̶a̶j̶o̶r̶i̶t̶y̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶p̶e̶o̶p̶l̶e̶ (please see my edit below), then it should be controlled. This isn't really a matter of freedom of speech though, they actively support terrorism (under another name). The 10 years is because of the classification its under, its the same as actively supporting any other "terrorist" group in the UK. There aren't actually that many groups on the [URL="http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/counter-terrorism/proscribed-terror-groups/proscribed-groups?view=Binary"]list[/URL]. Edit: I think I worded this horribly, I meant more inciting hate in the eyes of the majority of people not offending. [editline]10th November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Starpluck;33215172]I don't like how "supporting" is left ambigous. Its a broad term and no doubt invites abuse of law.[/QUOTE] Its not [I]that[/I] ambiguous. [URL]http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/12[/URL]

[QUOTE=Jsm;33215197]Free speech is fine till you start offending people the majority of people, then it should be controlled.[/QUOTE]I take it your against 'Draw Mohammed Day'?

When Osama died, they tried to hold mourning sessions for it. They had entire articles dedicated to him and also referred to him as one of the greatest hero's of the muslim people. Try to argue these guys are all there in the head, just try.

[QUOTE=Starpluck;33215235]I take it your against 'Draw Mohammed Day'?[/QUOTE] No. I think I worded my post badly to be honest. Someone standing in the street and attempting to incite hate (which is what this group does) should be stopped, "offending" was probably the wrong word.

Why is this choudary guy still in this country?

[QUOTE=Moby-;33215278]Why is this choudary guy still in this country?[/QUOTE] Because he is a natural born British citizen who has every right in the world to remain in his birth country?

[QUOTE=Moby-;33215278]Why is this choudary guy still in this country?[/QUOTE] He's British [quote]Anjem Choudary (Urdu: انجم چودری; born 1967 in England) is a British former solicitor, and, before it was proscribed, spokesman for the Islamist group Islam4UK. He is married, has four children, and lives in Ilford, London.[/quote]

Yeah he should've lostnthat right when he began inciting hatred.

[QUOTE=Moby-;33215320]Yeah he should've lostnthat right when he began inciting hatred.[/QUOTE] You cannot lose your birth citizenship involuntary. Pretty sure the UDHR has some stuff that makes deporting natural born citizens rather illegal.

[QUOTE=acds;33215031]Really don't see anything wrong with banning something like that.[/QUOTE] okay so it's fine to support state terrorism, and have your state deal with terrorists and fund them and train them, but it's not okay to glorify terrorism yeah sure Britain

Meh good riddance of that crap EDL should be next English defence league ahahahha

[quote]Free speech is fine till you start offending people the majority of people, then it should be controlled.[/quote] I love me some tyranny of the majority bet Madison is real happy about it

[QUOTE=Godline;33215376]Meh good riddance of that crap EDL should be next English defence league ahahahha[/QUOTE] It would only be fair to be honest, they are all as bad as each other.

[QUOTE=Gundevil;33215240]When Osama died, they tried to hold mourning sessions for it. They had entire articles dedicated to him and also referred to him as one of the greatest hero's of the muslim people. Try to argue these guys are all there in the head, just try.[/QUOTE] Osama was radicalized by the US propping up Saudi Arabia, a fucking terrible regime that should have been (and probably would have been) overthrown years ago, if not for money from the US in order to achieve a greater measure of energy security I'd argue they're as much 'there' as any other politico-religious group

[QUOTE=Contag;33215379]I love me some tyranny of the majority bet Madison is real happy about it[/QUOTE] I think I worded that post horribly, I meant more inciting hate in the eyes of the majority of people not offending. People take offence to things far too easily and "offending the majority" would mean that swearing would be illegal.

[QUOTE=Jsm;33215197] Its not [I]that[/I] ambiguous. [url]http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/12[/url][/QUOTE]Much more specific and assuring. Reason why I asked was due to concern it may be similar to one of the despicable provisions in the U.S. Patriot Act, providing material support to terrorists. The four types of support described are “training,” “expert advice or assistance,” “service,” and “personnel.” In the U.S., the Humanitarian Law Project sought to help the Kurdistan Workers’ Party in Turkey and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam learn means of peacefully resolving conflicts. However, under the Patriot Act provision, the U.S. Supreme Court [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holder_v._Humanitarian_Law_Project"]ruled they were indeed "providing material support to terrorists" [/URL]

[QUOTE=Jsm;33215415]I think I worded that post horribly, I meant more inciting hate in the eyes of the majority of people not offending. People take offence to things far too easily and "offending the majority" would mean that swearing would be illegal.[/QUOTE] Swearing is illegal in a way. You can be arrested for swearing in public, it's a public order offence.

[QUOTE=Jsm;33215197]Free speech is fine till you start offending the majority of people, then it should be controlled. This isn't really a matter of freedom of speech though, they actively support terrorism (under another name). The 10 years is because of the classification its under, its the same as actively supporting any other "terrorist" group in the UK. There aren't actually that many groups on the [URL="http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/counter-terrorism/proscribed-terror-groups/proscribed-groups?view=Binary"]list[/URL]. Edit: I think I worded this horribly, I meant more inciting hate in the eyes of the majority of people not offending. [editline]10th November 2011[/editline] Its not [I]that[/I] ambiguous. [URL]http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/12[/URL] Edit:[/QUOTE] Wow, a disturbing amount of groups on that list have something to do with Islam. Must be the religion to use as an excuse these days. Even past all of this, it is still a 'protest' group, it even says in the article. The only reason they aren't allowed to protest is because their beliefs aren't shared by the rest of the UK. Now, if they were protesting with signs that say 'Change or I'll bomb a building', then there would be cause for concern.