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.stm

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.

[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.

[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

[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.