Britain's new deportation rules.

[King Henry V]

In the wake of the London transport bombings on the 7th July, Big Ears has now revealed the new laws targeting radical and extremist preachers and anyone advocating or justifying terrorism. The new measures only apply to foreigners who are not British citizens, who will be deported back to their home country if they preach violence and/or hatred. Of course this has provoked a verbal torrent by the Human Rights and civil liberties groups who say these prechers may face torture and abuse in their home country.
Link http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4179044.stm

[Aenlic]

Big Ears?

Edit: Oh, just saw the pic of Clarke. Nevermind! Heh. Wow. Is he related to the royals by any chance? I've seen those ears before.

[Al Khalifah]

I doubt these radical preachers are likely to face much abuse in their home countries. More likely they will be seen as heroes amongst the radicals there.

[InsaneApache]

Saw a guy on telly the other night talking about how bad it could be for these 'radicals' if they get sent home. It seems that they may be subject to imprisonment and even torture in their own countries. Good. I say torture them and imprison them. Perhaps they may stop inciting Moslems to murder 'infidels' as the pliers go to work on their fingernails.

Talk about bite the hand that feeds you, this government needs to sort out these benefit wallahs and get rid of them. After all most of these ingrates arn't even British subjects. At least 'bruiser' Clarke is giving it a go. Now all we need to do is rescind the ridiculous Human Right Act, and get back to some common sense laws.*

*except we won't as Mrs Blair has a particularly podgy finger in that money spinning pie.

[Adrian II]

In the wake of the London transport bombings on the 7th July, Big Ears has now revealed the new laws targeting radical and extremist preachers and anyone advocating or justifying terrorism. The new measures only apply to foreigners who are not British citizens, who will be deported back to their home country if they preach violence and/or hatred. Of course this has provoked a verbal torrent by the Human Rights and civil liberties groups who say these prechers may face torture and abuse in their home country.
Link http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4179044.stmI agree that these gentlemens' speeches and activities should not be tolerated anymore. Thank heavens the Brits are finally waking up to the existence of a Londonistan right under their noses. I believe the British goverment is seeking agreements with the countries in question to the effect that the deportees will not be shot or tortured. If a satisfactory agreement can not be reached, they should be detained in Britain and not be allowed to walk.

[Productivity]

And here we have an example of someone phrasing a poll such that it gets the response they want...

No, I don't think they should be deported. But not because they might get hurt, it's that there are better ways of dealing with the problem. Simply deporting them and letting them preach their bile elsewhere is not something that I support. Lock them up in Britain where they can preach to nobody. But you have given me no realistic option that I can choose, so the "no" side of the poll is one down.

Bravo!

[Aenlic]

The option was missing to vote for locking them all in a big room along with Blair, Bush, Condoleeza Rice, Dick Cheney, Pat Robertson, Peewee Herman, Carrot Top, a couple of random Scientologists, a chainsaw, three sets of brass knuckles, two ewes and a pair of velcro gloves, a deck of cards with a few missing, nude pictures of the Dalai Lama and one very large turnip. So I had to chose "Gah!"

[GonZ]

It's all well and good - and not before time.

But what happens to the homegrown crop of "radical and extremist preachers"?

Any suggestions?

[Proletariat]

I agree that these gentlemens' speeches and activities should not be tolerated anymore. Thank heavens the Brits are finally waking up to the existence of a Londonistan right under their noses. I believe the British goverment is seeking agreements with the countries in question to the effect that the deportees will not be shot or tortured. If a satisfactory agreement can not be reached, they should be detained in Britain and not be allowed to walk.


Honest question, A2. What are the main differences to you between these policies of Britain and the Patriot Act?

[Adrian II]

Honest question, A2. What are the main differences to you between these policies of Britain and the Patriot Act?That is a tall order, ma'am. But as far as these provisions are concerned, I believe they are similar to the ones in the Patriot Act that enable the U.S. authorities to detain and deport alien terrorists and those who support them. And they suffer from the same problem in that they allow for the 'rendition' of suspects.

[King Henry V]

And here we have an example of someone phrasing a poll such that it gets the response they want...

No, I don't think they should be deported. But not because they might get hurt, it's that there are better ways of dealing with the problem. Simply deporting them and letting them preach their bile elsewhere is not something that I support. Lock them up in Britain where they can preach to nobody. But you have given me no realistic option that I can choose, so the "no" side of the poll is one down.

Bravo!
They are even more likely to preach hate in British prison. Ibrahim Muktar Said, one of the 21 July bombers, was turned from a womanising, drug addicted criminal into a fervent, extremist terrorist.

[Petrus]

They are even more likely to preach hate in British prison. Ibrahim Muktar Said, one of the 21 July bombers, was turned from a womanising, drug addicted criminal into a fervent, extremist terrorist.

That's the problem when dealing with political prisoners : in a jail they can form others to their ideals if they are mixed with 'classical' criminals or form communities when they are regrouped only between themselves.

The only other option that remains consists in isolating them which poses other kind of problems such as logistics and the fact that men tend to grow mad after being let alone in a cell for a long time.

Anyway the fact that some of those hate preachers are british citizen is enough to show that systematical deportation is not a solution to fundamentalism preaching.

[King Ragnar]

Anyone who has voted no they might get hurt and are British should be ashamed of themselves, of course they should be deported if not that excuteed hear bring back corpral punishment just for these cases.

[Productivity]

They are even more likely to preach hate in British prison. Ibrahim Muktar Said, one of the 21 July bombers, was turned from a womanising, drug addicted criminal into a fervent, extremist terrorist.


From a gaol cell?

[Duke Malcolm]

The laws for Treason should be changed to include inciting, justifying, or glorifying attacks against the Mother Country and the British Commonwealth, then sections 28 - 33 (or just 33) and section 36 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 should be repealed afterwards.

[Proletariat]

That is a tall order, ma'am. But as far as these provisions are concerned, I believe they are similar to the ones in the Patriot Act that enable the U.S. authorities to detain and deport alien terrorists and those who support them. And they suffer from the same problem in that they allow for the 'rendition' of suspects.

I was just curious because you seem to support them here, yet I've heard you rail against these things in the US system.

I always figured the reason why the PA was hated so much by it's opponents, yet people look the other way when the Brits do similar things, may be because of a different respect freedoms are bestowed in America. Maybe I'm just looking at it through rose-colored glasses, though.

[Adrian II]

I was just curious because you seem to support them here, yet I've heard you rail against these things in the US system.I see.

[Proletariat]

I know they aren't perfectly analgous policies, so that's what my question was. What are the differences between the two country's methods while they are facing a similar dilemma, in your opinion?

[Adrian II]

What are the differences between the two country's methods while they are facing a similar dilemma, in your opinion?As I said: as far as the provisions against hate-preaching foreigners are concerned, there seems to be little difference. But the Patriot Act covers a lot more ground.

And with regard to the activity of foreigners, the dilemma faced by Britain is not similar at all. The UK faces an increasing threat of home-grown terrorism, supported and organised by foreign clerics and other fanatics on British soil. There is a clear and present danger emanating from these clerics and their collaborators.

[Csargo]

WHO CARES DEPORT ALL of THEM cracker.

~D ~D ~D ~D ~D ~D ~D ~D ~D ~D ~D ~D ~D ~D ~D ~D :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

And here we have an example of someone phrasing a poll such that it gets the response they want..."

That was exactly my forst thought looking at the orignal question. The no they might get hurt part was the clincher ~D

[Spetulhu]

And here we have an example of someone phrasing a poll such that it gets the response they want...

Bravo!

"Should extremist clerics be deported even if they face torture and abuse?"

There's nothing wrong with a poll like that until someone edits it. It's a very long question for a newspaper headline, isn't it? Let's shorten it to "Should extremist clerics be deported?" so we can marvel at how many people think it's a bad idea.

[Papewaio]

If you are a refugee inciting terrorism against your new host nation then it should be standard procedure to either be judged by the local laws or deported.

Also any professional privileges should be stripped from those who incite hatred. So Doctors, Police, Lawyers etc who are found to incite for or donate to hate groups should no longer be allowed to practise in the nation.

This cuts both ways from imported hate mongers to home grown fascists and neo-nazis to fundamentalists.

[bmolsson]

I think that a person that doesn't respect the country he is a refugee in, has no right to demand anything as well. A refugee should carry his head high, but respect and humbleness is something they need to learn before they can enjoy help from other nations.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I think that a person that doesn't respect the country he is a refugee in, has no right to demand anything as well. A refugee should carry his head high, but respect and humbleness is something they need to learn before they can enjoy help from other nations.


wow - i actually agree with you

[Ja'chyra]

And here we have an example of someone phrasing a poll such that it gets the response they want...

No, I don't think they should be deported. But not because they might get hurt, it's that there are better ways of dealing with the problem. Simply deporting them and letting them preach their bile elsewhere is not something that I support. Lock them up in Britain where they can preach to nobody. But you have given me no realistic option that I can choose, so the "no" side of the poll is one down.

Bravo!

And why, pray tell, should we face the expense of locking them up.

The simple fact is that if they are not natives, and I don't mean 200 generations before the smartass comments, and they are allowed to live here then break the laws then they should kicked out. If they are actually preaching hate and violence against the very people who took them in and sheltered them they are lower then pond life and don't deserve our help our even our consideration, again it's a case of taking responsibility for your own actions.

[Productivity]

And why, pray tell, should we face the expense of locking them up.


Because I'd prefer to pay them to be locked up, than to have them free and preaching their bile somewhere else, where you can do nothing to them.

[Adrian II]

The simple fact is that if they are not natives, and I don't mean 200 generations before the smartass comments, and they are allowed to live here then break the laws then they should kicked out.The simple fact is that they are human beings. And if you find it unacceptable to shoot or torture human beings in the UK, you should find it unacceptable in other countries as well.

[King Henry V]

I do not find it unacceptable to shoot and torture such "human beings".

[Petrus]

Anyone who has voted no they might get hurt and are British should be ashamed of themselves, of course they should be deported if not that excuteed hear bring back corpral punishment just for these cases.

I voted 'no' to this poll as i do not think the fact of sending terror preachers back to their medieval country can be of any efficiency to fight terrorism.

Now, let me be clear.

Have you heard of Rachid Ramda?

He is probably the financer and one of the organizers of the saint michel attack in 1995 that killed 8 persons and mutilated a few dozen in paris.

He has been in jail in Britain for 10 years now and the french justice has never been able to hear him because of british political decisions - let us nest terrorists so that they do not attack us - and of your obsolescent judicial system that prevent any form of cooperation on this point.

There are no photos of the mutilated men and women dying in the pavement while fire fighters tried to give them first aid, as the french law prohibits such sort of insult to the victims, but i can insure you that the situation was worth what happened in london a few weeks ago.

As you can see it, i have, as a french, reasons as good as yours to reform british law so that terrorism can be fighted with efficiency and this does not pass by torture and deportation in dictatorship countries, or by emergency laws but by cooperation, police work and a clear legal system.

If you want to cut bollocks of terrorists you do not need to change your legal system in a back-up of dictatorship, just take a trip to Bagdad you will find plenty of men ready to die in pain for their ideology.

[Ja'chyra]

Because I'd prefer to pay them to be locked up, than to have them free and preaching their bile somewhere else, where you can do nothing to them.[/QUOTE

If they are wanted for imprisonment in their own countries why should we bother?

[QUOTE]The simple fact is that they are human beings. And if you find it unacceptable to shoot or torture human beings in the UK, you should find it unacceptable in other countries as well.

I don't find it unacceptable to shoot human beings. ~:eek: If there is sufficient reason, and please don't turn it into a what deserves the death sentence thread.

[King Ragnar]

The simple fact is that they are human beings. And if you find it unacceptable to shoot or torture human beings in the UK, you should find it unacceptable in other countries as well.

They do not treat us as human beings, they behead captives, so why treat them as humans, locking them up or sending them back still isnt going to solve any problem we need to act, foget human rights because they dont think about it so why should we. I think we should shoot them it would save us honest British tax payers a hell of alot of money.




I voted 'no' to this poll as i do not think the fact of sending terror preachers back to their medieval country can be of any efficiency to fight terrorism.

So how should we treat them, lock them up let the tax payer pay for there food and bed, how would you stop terrorism?

[Productivity]

If they are wanted for imprisonment in their own countries why should we bother?


Call me paranoid if you want, but I'd prefer to have them under my own countries control than other countries. (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=52549)

[Adrian II]

They do not treat us as human beings, they behead captives, so why treat them as humans (..)Because you are not a terrorist. I hope.

[King Henry V]

The Western, civilised world's key weakness is its incapability to be as ruthless with its enemies as they are ruthless with it.

[King Ragnar]

Because you are not a terrorist. I hope.

Of course im not i find that insulting, but you must fight fire with fire, kicking them out the country will not stop them killing them will.

[Proletariat]

This is why they choose us. They could fly buildings into Shanghai for the way muslims are treated by the Chinese Communists, but there's no telling what a wily nuclear armed China would do. India hasn't been nice to the muslims either, but they don't mess around with them, either. Wonder why.

[Petrus]

So how should we treat them, lock them up let the tax payer pay for there food and bed, how would you stop terrorism?

Two things :

First, a coherent legal system that makes illegal any call to murder, discrimination, hate and public proselytism so that people convicted of those sort of crimes go to jail because they offend common law, not because they offend circumstance law targeted against muslims.

Second, admit once and for all that you will never, wathever your actions, reduce terrorism risk to nothing.

[Adrian II]

This is why they choose us. They could fly buildings into Shanghai for the way muslims are treated by the Chinese Communists, but there's no telling what a wily nuclear armed China would do. India hasn't been nice to the muslims either, but they don't mess around with them, either. Wonder why.Probably because you missed a lot of news. There have been attacks in China. Beijing blames muslim militants from the Uighur minority two hundred atacks between 1990 and 2001 and suspect financial and material aid has been coming from Al-Qaida. But for some reason China hasn't had occasion to occupy, divide and re-occupy the Middle East for a period of, say, one hunded years, so it does not have top priority. As for India.. boy, where to begin? Maybe you could start with the 1947 separation and the successive wars and clashes over Kashmir, then look into the spate of recent bomb attacks such as this one (http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/Story/0,2763,1030044,00.html) in 2003 that left 50 dead.

[Petrus]

This is why they choose us. They could fly buildings into Shanghai for the way muslims are treated by the Chinese Communists, but there's no telling what a wily nuclear armed China would do. India hasn't been nice to the muslims either, but they don't mess around with them, either. Wonder why.

I do not know if China is victim of islamic terrorism but i doubt they would ever admit it if such was the case.

India has been targeted by Pakistan-led islamic terrorism during decades and their very harsh laws did not change anything to this.

This is a positive side effect of the attacks on northern america at least in Pakistan : the governments promoting terror now know that they will have to assume some sort of responsability of their acts, which has greatly reduced the potential of nation-led terrorism.



Enfer. Not fast enough ...

[Proletariat]

Hrm... 3,000 left dead... and then 50 left dead... Hm... I see.

You're right, nothing special about the west. They're after China and India just as fervently.
:dizzy2:

[Ja'chyra]

At least China wouldn't piss about worrying about people who are actively preaching, if not practising, violence against the very people who support them.

I wonder if a political party came out and said that all captured terrorists would be shot would get elected?

Woah, I missed my 1000th post ~:cheers:

[Adrian II]

Hrm... 3,000 left dead... and then 50 left dead... Hm... I see.It does not help to belittle other peoples' suffering. India has suffered more and longer from islamic terrorism than any other country in the world. And in recent years there have been islamist attacks on the Indian parliament, on the Red Fort in Delhi, on villages, trains, buses, etcetera. Look into it before you judge.

[Proletariat]

That's my point. I think they target us above others because of our Humanist thought. I'm not saying throw our culture of human rights out the window, but it seems like it's being exploited as a weakness by terroists.

[Proletariat]

It does not help to belittle other peoples' suffering.

I don't mean to belittle anyone. The British half of my family grew up in Calcutta and saw what you're speaking of, and the violence as you know wasn't just one sided attacks.

I don't think that China or India holds the same trophy status the West does to Islamic Terrorism.

[Adrian II]

I don't mean to belittle anyone. The British half of my family grew up in Calcutta and saw what you're speaking of, and the violence as you know wasn't just one sided attacks.Then you know that the cumulative effect on India has been far, far worse than on the U.S. or the United Kingdom.

Sure, the West has trophy value. But I believe that is because of its power, not because of its weakness.