Looks like Blair has had enough of the struggle from within:
Foreigners who preach hatred, sponsor violence or belong to extremist groups could be deported from Britain under strict new measures that Prime Minister Tony Blair announced Friday, nearly a month after suicide bombers killed 52 people on London’s transit system.
Membership in extremist Islamic groups such as Hizb-ut-Tahrir would become a crime under the new measures. The group, which advocates the creation of an Islamic state in Central Asia, already is outlawed in several countries.
Blair said the government also would compile a list of Web sites, bookshops and centers that incite hatred and violence. British nationals involved with such organizations could face strict penalties. Foreign nationals could be deported, he said.
“They come here and they play by our rules and our way of life,” Blair said at his monthly news conference. “If they don’t, they are going to have to go.”
The government would hold a one-month consultation on new grounds for excluding and deporting people from the United Kingdom, he said.
Britain’s ability to deport foreign nationals has been hampered by human rights legislation. As a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, Britain is not allowed to deport people to a country where they may face torture or death.
I am sure we will hear much more about this in upcoming weeks, and it will be interesting .
Blair should start with traitorous scum like George Galloway.
Jeff Goldstein has some thoughts.
Katherine
No, he really shouldn’t. I realize it is emotionally satisfying to say it, but countries are not supposed to denaturalize their citizens for being complete assholes.I don’t think they should denaturalize their citizens at all–if they commit crimes prosecute them. There are other remedies.
This sort of rhetoric is what has convinced the administration that the public is cool with us torturing people.
John Cole
Katherine:
Jimmy Jazz
Nicely put. As for the deportation policy itself, as long as it does apply just to non-citizens I don’t have a problem with it. Conservative hypocrisy alert, though: how can one whine about hate crime legislation being the work of the “thought police” yet want to deport anyone who expresses these (admittedly horrible) views and literally make guilt by association the law of the land?
KC
Katherine, I see your point. At the same time, there’s a side of me that also says, if you don’t like the country you live in, then leave it. Don’t sit and preach violence especially if you know your words can have real influence.
Steve
Starting with someone like George Galloway would be a great way to completely delegitimize the program. Sure, let’s make the first target a political opponent, rather than any of the dozens of extremist Muslims who have preached far, far more hate than Galloway.
KC
Jimmy Jazz, good point too. There’s no doubt that this is just another version of hate crimes legislation, not without good reason either.
Mark
I’d support this if I could believe that the law wouldn’t be abused. I’m just afraid it will be used as a political weapon to silence dissent. Maybe the Brits are more decent and principled than that.
Certianly, I wouldn’t support such measures in this country, especially under this administration. The word “treason” and phrases like “aiding and comforting the enemy” are invoked far to readily against liberals these days. It really has become an alarming GOP pasttime. The last thing we need is a law to further encourage them.
Eugene Debs comes to mind.
Defense Guy
These laws are already on the books here, they just aren’t used.
neil
Good thing we have a Constitution here with stuff like Freedom of Association in it. I’ll take that over a Queen any day.
d
treason is first and foremost a betrayal of duty, although I suspect John meant it in a “high treason” sense.
I think it’d be fun to deport Cheney for telling us he genuinely believed Iraq had a nuclear program. Maybe to Niger in a weak attempt of irony?
John Cole
Some might argue the word treason is just as easily and carelessly thrown around by liberals and progressives.
d
none of them have titled a book on it to my knowledge, but that’s an entirely fair point.
Defense Guy
Have you ever actually read this book?
mac Buckets
He’d have a lot of company, including the last two presidents.
gratefulcub
Who gets to decide what is acceptable speech and what isn’t. I am not crashing down on one side of this argument, I realize that this is one of those situations that fall into the gray area, where there are no perfect solutions. But, the government compiling ‘a list of Web sites, bookshops and centers that incite hatred and violence’; and ‘British nationals involved with such organizations could face strict penalties.’
To me that is scary. When those laws are on the books, the potential for abuse is overwhelming. Someone above said that we already have these laws, I hope they are wrong. If we do, and we use these laws, what is the end result? How long before Move.on or Focus on the Family (depending on who is making the rules at that time) become ‘centers that incite hatred’, especially on election years?
I am not a slippery slope type of guy. I don’t believe gay marriage ends in Santorum on dog love. I don’t believe that the 10 commandments in a courthouse results in James Dobson being president (I do want religion out of government completely, but the 10 commandments isn’t the tipping point)
That being said, restrictions on our right to free speech and the right to associate and gather, does seem to me to be a slope I don’t want to start down.
On the other hand, groups getting together to talk about overthrowing the government, or committing mass murder are obviously a problem. But where is the line, and who draws it?
We support Osama and we are signing up recruits
We support Osama, but aren’t actually going to participate
We support Osama’s goals, but we abhor his methods
We think the US government should be brought down, but we aren’t going to percipitate it, we just like talking about the idea
What is free speech, and what gets you locked up?
I do not know what the actual legislation is, or how it will be enforced, etc. But, ideologically, I am more than torn on this issue.
I assume that John was kidding about Galloway first. I don’t think he would support locking up Senators for what they say. This is my hope anyway.
Defense Guy
gratefulcub
I’m not wrong, the link below is one example of the attempted use.
http://www.dawn.com/2005/01/06/top11.htm
gratefulcub
I don’t think that is the same thing. The way I read it, they were deporting naturalized citizens that had broken laws or lied on their paperwork. They weren’t deported for belonging to a group that the government considers to be ‘inciting hatred.’
The deportation part is not my problem. I am just wondering about the thought and speech crime piece. Being prosecuted for being associated with a group that the government considers to be ‘inciting hatred.’
Defense Guy
We took the step towards this when we allowed the hate crime laws to be passed. We are fortunate, as our history should show us, that it is never too late to change the way we do things.
Having said that, I have no problem locking up people who actually are trying to incite hatred that leads to violence, or those who help them raise money to do so.
Katherine
Okay. I think I still had in mind the Times article about the same policies, which mentions denaturalization for naturalized citizens. That is not cool. Unless it involves fraud in the process of obtaining citizenship in which case I guess it’s okay.
I still prefer America’s more robust protection of free speech to the British approach. You could not constitutionally imprison Galloway for his speech under the Brandenburg test; it’s a test I think we should keep.
I support hate crimes laws, which are mere sentence enhancement for criminals based on especially destructive or evil motives, something that has been part of our system for decades if not centuries. As far as deportation for speech, I think this approach is both Constitutionally and morally justifiable:
–as a condition of entry, have people sign a statement promising not to advocate or support the murder of civilians for political reasons.
–if they go ahead and do so anyway, they falsified their entry papers which is grounds for deportation.
gratefulcub
It is setting up a situation that will eventually be abused. Who decides what is ‘inciting hatred?’ I agree, if someone is raising money for terrorist organizations, that is different. if someone is recruiting suicide bombers, that is different. But, that isn’t how i read the article. It is aimed at organizations that are inciting hatred. I think anti gay groups incite hatred. Others think moveon incites hatred. Michael Moore, Coutler, Malkin, Durbin, Planned Parenthood, Chomsky, and the beat goes on. Who decides? All of the above are seen as inciting hatred by someone. Should Prez Hillary get to lock up Fallwell and Robertson, or does Prez Santorum get to lock up NOW because of they are inciting hatred towards the traditional family?
gratefulcub
For the record, I have problems with hate crime legislation too.
frontinus
Can we work France into the pillory schedule?
Sounds like someone needs to reread Brandenburg.