NationStates Jolt Archive

Things that have never been done before are being done. UK is going to deport 500 muslims. Italy has banned the hijab with the face cover.

UK is now going to deport 500 "muslims"

http://web.mid-day.com/news/world/2005/august/115708.htm

London: In a massive crackdown on extremists following the London terror attacks, British authorities will deport in phases as many as 500 radical Muslims, out of which a dozen clerics will be sent to their homelands over the next two weeks.

The move follows Prime Minister Tony Blair's announcement last week of a purge on terrorists and extremists.

Immigration officials have already been given a list of names, compiled by MI5, and told to begin proceedings. Among the first to be deported will be a dozen radical clerics. But hundreds of other foreign extremists, including some Islamic bookshop owners, writers, teachers and website operators will also go, the 'News of the World' newspaper reported.

"Just as the police operation over the past four weeks has been dynamic and fast-paced, so will our response," a senior home official was quoted as saying.

All 500 names have been taken from a "watch list" of extremists compiled over the past five years by the Intelligence Service. Their identities are being kept secret so that they will not be able to go into hiding or mount a legal challenge.

An initial wave of up to 100 people will be booted out in the next month, officials at the Foreign Office revealed.

Another 100 foreign nationals will then be sent home by the end of the year. And 300 more will be sent home next year once the government has new laws in place to strip them of their British citizenship.

Over the next week agreements will be completed with 10 African and Middle Eastern countries to make sure they will accept the extremists.


So does a person have the right to cover their face in public (for whatever reasons) ?

Italy does not think so.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16110721%5E2703,00.html
Italy bans Islamic burqas
Natasha Bita, Florence
August 01, 2005
ITALY has banned Islamic burqas under tough terrorism laws that provide two-year jail terms and E2000 ($3200) fines for anyone caught covering their face in a public place.

The counter-terrorism package, passed by Italy's parliament yesterday, doubles the existing penalty for wearing a burqa or chador -- traditional robes worn by Muslim women to cover their faces -- or full-faced helmets or balaclavas in public.

Police can extract DNA samples without a suspect's consent, detain them for 24 hours without a lawyer present, and deport foreigners suspected of terrorism under the new legislation. Soldiers involved in counter-terrorism have been given the same stop-and-search powers.

I can see the need to deport radicals. It should have been done long back. If they had indeed been watching them for 5 years, but did not have political will to deport them and had to wait until 7/7 happened, then it is indeed a shame.

But banning a persons right to wear what he/she wants to wear, especially when that person considers it a religious requirement ?

I feel this is kind of barking up the wrong tree. There has been no threat from women in burqas. By banning this, you are only giving credence to the islamists contentions that you are indeed against muslims. Is this the right step to combat islamism ?

this is getting to be quite creepy. It's like The Seige all over again.

If someone wants to trade their freedom for security that's fine, but they shouldn't expect me or force me to do the same.

If there was a direct terrorist threat on my life, I might give up some freedoms if I knew it would stop the threat. Until that circumstance arises, no dice.

But OTOH, you have cases like this.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=358382&in_page_id=1770&ct=5

Deportation not fair, says extremist (on benefits)

An extreme Muslim cleric whose family have been living on benefits in Britain for 20 years says it would not be 'fair' to deport him.

Speaking after the Prime Minister announced his clampdown, father-of-seven Sheik Omar Bakri said: "I have wives ;) , children, sons-in-law, daughters-in-law. It would be hard on my family if I was deported." :confused:

Since Syrian-born Bakri settled in Britain, he and his extended family have raked in benefits amounting to at least £300,000. :eek:

He is registered disabled because of an injury to his leg during his childhood, and was recently supplied with a £31,000 Ford Galaxy under the Motability scheme.

Bakri, who lives in a £200,000 home in North London, tops up his £250-a-week benefit payments with an extra £50 incapacity allowance.

He has praised the September 11 terrorists as 'magnificent', called Israel 'a cancer' and said homosexuals should be 'thrown from Big Ben'.

In January, he declared that Britain had become a 'land of war', and called on Muslims to unite behind Al Qaeda. He has supported suicide bombings and urged his followers to kill non-Muslims ' wherever, whenever'.

He also claimed he has no wish to stay in Britain, but his family would suffer if he was deported. ;)

"If they want to change the law and say that people who are here must live within the framework of those rules, then that is fine," said the 45-year-old cleric.

"But they cannot punish people by backdating it for 20 years or so.

"That is not a smart or fair system. Tony Blair should have charged me years ago if that was the case. He did not because I had done nothing wrong."

Bakri also claimed he had tried to dissuade affected young Muslims from carrying out terror attacks in Britain, by telling them that under Islamic law it would be wrong to target a country in which they were living.

Blair unveiled the tough crackdown on those who inspire Islamic terrorism and pledged to amend the Human Rights Act if the courts try to use it to block deportations.

Speaking in Downing Street, Mr Blair said he is ready to recall Parliament next month to drive the new laws through as quickly as possible.

He declared: "Let no one be in any doubt that the rules of the games are changing. People can't come here and abuse our good nature and our tolerance.

"They can't come here and start inciting our young people in communities to take up violence against British people here. And if you do that, you're going to go back."

The proposals include:

• Deporting foreigners who foster hate, or advocate or justify violence.

•Throwing out those linked to extremist websites, groups, bookshops or centres.

• Banning foreign extremist preachers from Britain.

•Closing mosques and places of worship if used for 'fomenting extremism'.

•Outlawing worldwide the condoning or glorifying of terrorism.

• Refusing asylum to anyone linked to terrorism.

• Stripping citizenship from extremist naturalised Britons.

• Banning extremist Islamic groups Hizb ut Tahrir and Al-Muhajiroun.

Previous attempts to deport Islamic hardliners have been derailed because judges have ruled they could face torture in countries such as Jordan, Algeria or Lebanon - and that would breach the European Convention on Human Rights.

Mr Blair said he hoped the courts would allow deportations if Britain can get pledges from the ten countries involved that deportees will not be maltreated. French and Spanish courts allow such deportations.

And he made clear he is ready for a 'battle' with the courts. "Should legal obstacles arise, we will legislate further, including, if necessary, amending the Human Rights Act in respect of the interpretation of the ECHR."

Why was action not taken sooner?


In addition, ministers will introduce laws to allow appeals against deportation to be heard after a person has been thrown out.

And a maximum time limit will be imposed on cases to extradite terror suspects from Britain to other countries.

Mr Blair highlighted the case of Rachid Ramda, wanted by the French for the Paris bombings in 1995, but still in a British jail. It was 'totally unacceptable' that his case had dragged on for ten years.

The Government's intelligence and security co-ordinator Bill Jeffrey will head a unit of senior officials who will drive the crackdown through. Mr Blair also entered the debate on multi-culturalism, saying it is vital different communities are properly integrated.

He said he was 'worried' when he heard about people who had lived in Britain for 20 years but still did not speak English.

"There is a problem when people withdraw from the common culture and become separate in a very deliberate way - that's unhealthy," he said.

He was confident most Muslims would accept the new measures. "They know perfectly well these people are a menace to their own community, never mind to the rest of us."

His message contrasts with that of his lawyer wife Cherie last week, when she warned it would be "all too easy to respond to such terror in a way which undermines commitment to our most deeply-held values".

And Mr Blair ducked questions about why ministers had not acted sooner against hardliners.

He instead argued that Labour had faced fierce resistance in Parliament and the courts against previous anti-terror laws. "If I had come forward with these measures three or four months ago, I think it would have been a little more difficult."

But concern about failure to address the issue sooner was voiced earlier by Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair. "It may have been better if it was done before - but let's do it now," he told GMTV.

Last night, shadow home secretary David Davis said of the proposed clampdown: "It is vital that the Home Secretary is able to use his powers to deport or exclude non-UK citizens who threaten our national security - we have been calling for him to use these for some time. There is no reason why they cannot be applied as soon as possible."

But Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy criticised the lack of consultation - and warned that Muslims could be alienated.

The Muslim Council of Britain said it could support some of the proposals, but criticised the decision to ban Hizb ut Tahrir as "undermining our own democratic values".

Shami Chakrabarti, director of civil liberties group Liberty, condemned the deportation plans.

"You do not deport people to places where they would face torture, and self-serving agreements and statements by governments that are not democratic are not going to cut it," she said.

Bruce Holder, chairman of the Bar Council's public affairs committee, criticised Mr Blair's pledge to amend the Human Rights Act.

"There can be no justification for suspending basic human rights when even other countries in Europe who are signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights are bound by the decisions of that court," he declared.

Personally, I am happy that atlast Hizb-ut-Tahrir is banned and their operatives are being cracked down. They have been funding the Kashmir jihad by collecting funds in UK. It would be interesting to see what happens to the measures outlined in their parliament. Would it pass or not ?

What do you do with people like these?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1724541,00.html
Inside the sect that loves terror
By the Insight team

AN undercover investigation has caught leaders of a radical Islamic group inciting young British Muslims to become terrorists and praising the Tube bombers as “the fantastic four”.

A Sunday Times reporter spent two months as a recruit inside the Saviour Sect to reveal for the first time how the extremist group promotes hatred of “non-believers” and encourages its followers to commit acts of violence including suicide bombings.

The reporter witnessed one of the sect’s leading figures, Sheikh Omar Brooks, telling a young audience, including children, that it was the duty of Muslims to be terrorists and boasting, just days before the July 7 attacks, that he wanted to die as a suicide bomber.

After the attacks that claimed 52 lives, another key figure, Zachariah, justified them by saying that the victims were not “innocent” people because they did not abide by strict Islamic laws. In the immediate aftermath the sect’s leader, Omar Bakri Mohammed, said: “For the past 48 hours I’m very happy.” Two weeks later he referred to the bombers as the “fantastic four”.

The evidence compiled by The Sunday Times in hours of transcripts and tapes will lend weight to moves, announced last week by Tony Blair, to proscribe such organisations for providing a breeding ground for would-be terrorists. The attorney-general’s office said last night it would investigate the recent comments by a number of Islamic radicals with a view to prosecution.

The Saviour Sect was established 10 months ago when its predecessor group Al-Muhajiroun was disbanded after coming under close scrutiny by the authorities. Its members meet in secret in halls, followers’ homes and parks. They are so opposed to the British state that they see it as their duty to make no economic contribution to the nation. One member warned our undercover reporter against getting a job because it would be contributing to the kuffar (non-Muslim) system. :confused:

Instead, the young follower, Nasser, who receives £44 job seekers’ allowance a week, said it was permissible to “live off benefits”, just as the prophet Mohammed had lived off the state while attacking it at the same time. Even paying car insurance was seen as supporting the system. “All the (Saviour Sect) brothers drive without insurance,” he said.

The reporter became a member of the sect three weeks before the July 7 bombings. From the start he was taught that it was his duty to destroy the kuffar. Moderate Muslims who did not believe in the overthrow of the British government and its replacement by an Islamic state were held in equal disdain.

Within days of joining, he witnessed seven Saviour Sect members beating up a member of the moderate Young Muslim Organisation in an East End street because they believed he had insulted their version of Islam.

Last week Omar Brooks stirred controversy with televised comments, but they were carefully chosen to avoid appearing to incite violence. On Saturday, July 2 he had been more forthright.

Speaking to a group of teenagers and families, he declared it was imperative for Muslims to “instil terror into the hearts of the kuffar” and added: “I am a terrorist. As a Muslim of course I am a terrorist.”

The 30-year-old, who claims to have had military training in Pakistan, said he did not want to go to Allah while sleeping in his bed “like an old woman”. Instead: “I want to be blown into pieces with my hands in one place and my feet in another.”

In public interviews Bakri condemned the killing of all innocent civilians. Later when he addressed his own followers he explained that he had in fact been referring only to Muslims as only they were innocent: “Yes I condemn killing any innocent people, but not any kuffar.”

Yesterday Bakri said he had no connections to a group in east London but said that he did attend prayers and preach to up to 15 people. He denied using the words “fantastic four”.

So how do you act against men like these without foregoing civil rights, liberties etc ?

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

You don't. Freedoms are rights. If the person is a legal resident, then there is no grounds to deport them. Much the same in the United States. People say "have your rights been violated by the patriot act?", which really isn't the point. The point is, all freedoms, my RIGHTS, can not be infringed by anything, and the patriot act poses a threat to my RIGHTS, irregardless of if they actually do anything against my rights. Even Justice Scalia is very clear on this point, nothing can violate a right, none of this crap about "if you're a law abiding citizen you have nothing to fear".

You don't. Freedoms are rights. If the person is a legal resident, then there is no grounds to deport them. Much the same in the United States. People say "have your rights been violated by the patriot act?", which really isn't the point. The point is, all freedoms, my RIGHTS, can not be infringed by anything, and the patriot act poses a threat to my RIGHTS, irregardless of if they actually do anything against my rights. Even Justice Scalia is very clear on this point, nothing can violate a right, none of this crap about "if you're a law abiding citizen you have nothing to fear".
Can I use this quote against you sometime? :D

In that case, for tracking the radicals (who ought to be deported/detained), the police must have resorted to crossing lines that the public don't know that the police is crossing.

Like unauthorised tapping etc.

How about Italy's measures

"Police can extract DNA samples without a suspect's consent, detain them for 24 hours without a lawyer present, and deport foreigners suspected of terrorism under the new legislation. Soldiers involved in counter-terrorism have been given the same stop-and-search powers. "

Do you think this is a necessary step ?

If yes, why ? and if no, why ?

I just want to see how people from western countries and elsewhere view these steps. I am interested in knowing how the threat perception is and what you think is a fair trade off. So, if it is not too much trouble, please identify your nationality while giving your opinion, as a favor for me. Thanks.

German, living in Australia, and you know my opinion.

I don't feel threatened in the least by terrorism, and so I'm not ready to forego any of my rights for it.
Especially if I can get deported soon for doubting that all of Hezbollah is a Terrorist Organisation.

Its great to see our governments are starting to wake up to the danger, and ignore the pc idiots.
The Muslims should have waited another fifty years, they would have taken the west from within probably by greater numbers, the foolish ego driven extremists sounded off too early.