Britain to deport anyone who "justifies acts of violence"

British Prime minister Anthony C L Blair plans to deport anyone who "Justifies acts of violence"

www.cbc.ca...

Presumably those who enforce this new law will start with Mr A C L Blair himself (who justifies violence), and then deport the London Police (who justify violence).

Or is it now a foregone conclusion that the speech is Orwellian Doublespeak and Blair is not actually saying exactly what he means?

About time Britian grew some gonads over this issue. Too long logic has been held captive by the the cries of those who put idealism over reality.

It means he's got off his **** and actually doing something for once, at last we will have the powers to stop this country continuing to be the safe haven for international terrorists that it has become.

As the BBC article said:

London has been nicknamed "Londonistan" - centre for militant Islam - by some critics who believe the UK has been too liberal towards radical clerics.

Luckily it looks like anyone that challenges this too much might be affected by

Make justifying or glorifying terrorism anywhere an offence

At last this can start to come to an end, reading over the new rules I can't see myself or anyone I know suffering from it in any way.

Out of curiosity Roy, I dare say you have, but have you ever visited England or America, or any other countries?
I'm just curious on what you base your views on. I hope you don't base them on that horrible TV that must be destroyed or the Internet?

[edit on 5-8-2005 by AgentSmith]

Netchicken, regardless of one's opinion regarding violence in general or 'terrorist extremism' in particular, don't you think it is insulting to our intelligence that Mr Blair, who is a QC and should thus be capable of reasonably accurate speech, allows this kind of sloppy thinking in a public address?

Clearly Mr Blair is not proposing to deport himself or the London Police for "justifying violence" but according to his plan this is exactly what he is advocating, because it is a fact that he and the London Police "justify violence" constantly and publicly!

Why doesn't he say what he really means?

IMO if he said what he really meant (i.e. deport whoever they want to deport) then it wouldn't sound too good.

What disturbs me is that the public meekly accept that there is hidden unspoken meaning in Blair's statement. This is a step backwards, Prime Ministers should be obliged to speak with reasonable accuracy and not just indulge in this kind of vague 'witch hunt' rhetoric.

What is also very poor is the double standard in the plan: i.e. that some people are allowed to justify violence and some aren't. . . . . .




[edit on 5-8-2005 by Roy Robinson Stewart]

Originally posted by Netchicken
About time Britian grew some gonads over this issue. Too long logic has been held captive by the the cries of those who put idealism over reality.

Was it idealism that caused the London attacks? Was it an overdose of "idealism" that caused MI-6 to shield the eventual mastermind of the subway bombings? He was their guy. "logic" should tell you that it is dangerous to allow the government to gain power based on attacks that they themselves likely staged.

Originally posted by AgentSmith
reading over the new rules I can't see myself or anyone I know suffering from it in any way.

That is a very poor test for a new law.

Can't you see that Blair is proposing to deport those who justify the 'Wrong' kind of violence while protecting those who justify the 'Right' kind of violence ?

This is Hypocritical in the extreme, and if you are prepared to accept this illogical nonsense then you are giving your PM the right to delude the public.

My personal history, BTW, is none of your business.

Get a grip, Roy.

Although I'm not a Brit, I concur with Blair's activity. Waging war is one thing and if you don't like Blair's activities, you can vote his Anglo-Saxon butt out next time there's an election.

What Blair means -- and what everyone, even you, understand -- is that the UK will not put up with foreigners committing, abetting, encouraging, or justifying murderous attacks on British civilians. Your comments may be cute, but they're also disingenuous.

He was saying exactly what he meant, and you know it as well as anyone else.

Why don't you run for world President Roy? You seem to have all the answers to the world's problems so it is obviously an easy task for you.
I'm sure you would never make any little mistakes in a speech in front of potentially billions of people on live television.

I strongly suggest that you think about trying to get elected, hell even I'll vote for you!

You still havn't answered my question by the way? What do you base your views on?
Have you ever left your country and visited anywhere or do you base your views solely on the Evil television that MUST be destroyed or the Internet (which was designed under the sponsership of DARPA -

The story of the Internet begins in 1969 with the implementation of ARPANET by academic researchers under the sponsorship of the United States Department of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA). Some early research which contributed to the ARPANET included work on decentralized networks, queueing theory, and packet switching. However, ARPANET itself did not interact easily with other computer networks that did not share its own native protocol. This problem inspired further research towards the development of a protocol that could be "layered" over many different types of networks.[ur=len.wikipedia.org...]

and hence is controlled by the United States Government (who also control the 13 Domain Name Servers that control the Internet)).

So are Tony Blar and all war supporters going to be deported for justifying acts of violence or not? This "12 point plan" better shore up this potential problem.

[edit on 5-8-2005 by Frith]

Agent Smith, as you are a supporter of violence and a supporter of Blair's policy I suggest that you turn yourself in for immediate deportation.

And stop asking me personal questions please.

Luckily deportation tends to only apply to foreigners, so anyone that is originally British is not affected boviously.. Where would you expect him to go? He's already in his own country.

Deportation is the expelling of someone from a country. In general it refers to the expulsion of foreigners (the expulsion of natives is usually called banishment, exile, or transportation).

Almost all countries reserve the right of deportation of foreigners, even those who are longtime residents. In general, deportation is reserved for foreigners who have committed serious crimes, or entered the country illegally, or are wanted in another country (see extradition). It can also be used on those considered to be a threat to the country. Deportation is generally done directly by the government's executive apparatus rather than by order or authority of a court, and as such is often subject to a simpler legal process (or none), with reduced or no right to trial, legal representation or appeal.

You can never please people can you, I don't know anyone in real life that hasn't commented on how marvellous it is that he has actully bothered to tackle the problem head on for a change instead of succombing to the whining of people that don't know what's best.
This country has been the laughing stock for too long with these criminals using our own pathetic laws and our good will against us, to use us a safehaven and ops base.

Originally posted by Frith
So are Tony Blar and all war supporters going to be deported for justifying acts of violence or not? This "12 point plan" better shore up this potential problem.

[edit on 5-8-2005 by Frith]

Of course not, the war is legal according to British law and terriorts acts are not. It's perfectly legal the British government to wage war on countries it considers enemies and it is 100% illegal for terrorits to wage war on british civilians that they consider enemies. So why would they arrest pro-war people inciting violence against the enemies Britain is facing in Iraq?

Originally posted by Roy Robinson Stewart

Agent Smith, as you are a supporter of violence and a supporter of Blair's policy I suggest that you turn yourself in for immediate deportation.

And stop asking me personal questions please.

Oh, from the lack of a better response I assume that you must hypocriticaly base your views on the very media you readily condemn.. oops..

Oh and like I said, I'm English, I can't be deported, anyway somehow I think the government will stick by me on this one...

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
He was saying exactly what he meant, and you know it as well as anyone else.

Sorry, but Blair most certainly was not saying exactly what he meant because what he said was that he would deport anyone who "justifies violence". . . . .. . this includes himself and the London Police force


Fact!

Too many threads degenerate into personal attacks. This accomplishes absolutely nothing.

My concise statement will be that I approve of Tony Blair's stance. If a busload of innocent Londoners is blown up, and a Muslim spokesperson applauds it, he/she should be deported at very least.

Or perhaps such Muslims should be forced to ride such conveyances in anticipation of the next such slaughter.

Originally posted by Trent

Originally posted by Frith
So are Tony Blar and all war supporters going to be deported for justifying acts of violence or not? This "12 point plan" better shore up this potential problem.

[edit on 5-8-2005 by Frith]

Of course not, the war is legal according to British law and terriorts acts are not. It's perfectly legal the British government to wage war on countries it considers enemies and it is 100% illegal for terrorits to wage war on british civilians that they consider enemies. So why would they arrest pro-war people inciting violence against the enemies Britain is facing in Iraq?

The point is that Blair, who is a QC, and therefore capable of logical and careful thought and speech, deliberately didn't say what he meant.

If he had said what he meant then he would have excluded from deportation those people who justify "justifiable violence" while deporting those who justify "unjustifiable violence". . . . . . . . since the only difference between these two groups is a subjective interpretation of what is 'justifiable violence' then Blair's policy is certainly not what he says it is.

The man has an obligation to say what he really means as accurately as possible.

Originally posted by periwinkle blue
My concise statement will be that I approve of Tony Blair's stance.

What you actually mean is that you approve of Tony Blair's implied or hidden stance. . . . . . . it is clearly the case that you do not agree with the stance which he actually proposed in his speech, because the policy in his speech is to deport anyone who justifies violence!!!!!

You are 'reading between the lines' . . . . a tactic best left to clairvoyants.

Roy, without making a personal attack, its viewpoints like your own that have delayed these practical, logical, and necessary steps.

Why SHOULD people have to endure having individuals in their country who publically demand the destruction of that society.
Especially when such people have fled their own corrupt despotic and failed socieies for the relative freedom of the west?

If they want an islamic society then kick them back to the places they fled from initially.

Sure you can take the wet liberal view that this is a degredation of human values, but certianly if I had a guest in MY house who wanted to kill me, he would get a quick boot as well.

Don't forget the Mosque where this all originated had clerics who had described non-muslims as less than human who's lives were worth nothing and could be destroyed with impunity to bring about an Islam revolution.

The bombings have bought a burst of reality into British society.


[edit on 5-8-2005 by Netchicken]

One thing I'm curious about and didn't see discussed in this thread (might've missed it) is where exactly is the line drawn? I mean, I understand that most likely this will be used primarily for people who are saying the bombings were justified, keep the bombs coming, etc. But is there any possibility that it might be extended to cover acts that are not explicitly terroristic?

As an example, let's say a legal muslim immigrant gets attacked and defends himself. In the process, he kills one of his attackers. Although that is almost always considered justifiable (self defence), is there any possibility that some racist cop might take this as an "act of terrorist" and see to it the person is deported? Or perhaps a relative of his claims it was justified; what is the likelyhood that that relative gets deported for "glorifying/justifying acts of violence/terrorism"?

I'm not British, so I don't know what the general attitude towards immigrants are or what rights they may already have. As an American who's lived around areas with high immigration rates, I can say that the above situation isn't necessarily out of the question (albeit not likely.) I can see this possibly turning into a kind of UK Patriot Act though.

It's pretty pathetic when in the lack of viable arguments you have to make such a big deal out of a relatively minor wording error.
The point is everyone knows what he's on about and it's all good for a change!

Also, is there any proper transcript of the speech? I have a video copy of the speech but it lasts over an hour so I havn't watched it yet.
Does his wording in context within the speech actually imply what is being discussed here? Or is it in fact a mistake made by the news source in it's summary?