Britain's government said Tuesday it will ban an Islamist group whose proposed protest march through a town known for honoring British soldiers killed in Afghanistan drew national outrage.

there are two things here

one is that free speech is being repressed

but the other is a threat from bakri.

mr. bakri, if you're free speech is being violated then fight for it, make that your case.

instead you start saying people will turn to violence?? terrible! unproductive! and a blight on islam.

also this "group argues that, as Muslims, they're not bound by British law and has expressed support for bin Laden and al-Qaida"

how can you say you are not bound by british law but then expect to have the same rights that only british law grants, namely free speech???

ass hole of the greatest kind.

sounds more like bakri's group is a hate group more then a group fighting for the humanitarian rights of afghistan.

if he truly cared for the afghan people, then he would also be protesting against the taliban's numerous attacks at mosques and markets.

but they are not? why? hypocrits.

islam hates hypocracy.

correction: if YOUR freespeech is being repressed then...

than**

sorry oh grammer police... please forgive me.

Hehe, not grammar police, but spelling police.

But we'll let you off for the good post.

one is that free speech is being repressed

but the other is a threat from bakri.

I imagine that the Brits could preserve free speech while dealing with specific threats made by individuals who are coming unglued. If they wanted to, that is.

how can you say you are not bound by british law but then expect to have the same rights that only british law grants, namely free speech???

#2 | Posted by klifferd at 2010-01-12 10:38 AM

"I imagine that the Brits could preserve free speech while dealing with specific threats made by individuals who are coming unglued."

i feel they would have, if this guy bakri wasn't known for his hate speech.

i feel they would have, if this guy bakri wasn't known for his hate speech.

I don't know... it's a tough call. The Brits are not exactly friends of free speech, especially lately, but Bakri is a real piece of work, too. The problem is that the Brits already deported him and he is stoking the fires of radicalism from overseas. The Brits need to marginalize his supporters, not try to muzzle them with the legal system.

I think that a democratic government is obliged to allow peaceful protests, even if they are in poor taste. Even hate speech is protected, and it may not be all bad since it usually ends up turning moderates against the radical fringe of their own group. A government is certainly not obliged to tolerate threats, though. Choudary needs to be presented with a choice: renounce Bakri and his thinly veiled threats of violence, or go to prison for providing support to a known radical.

i'm with ya

Ditto.

"We let our religious extremists picket funerals. We also let bikers provide security for said funerals. Unfortunately, they're not the kind of bikers that would shank a motherfucker, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. There is something to be said for allowing the "private sector" to sort things out, though.
#1 | Posted by ZombieHunter"

Yeah just like how the Rolling Stones hired the Hells Angels for security. Vigilantes are great until they start killing whomever displeases them and feel they are above the law themselves. Sort of where some police departments are going nowadays.

Vigilantes are great until they start killing whomever displeases them and feel they are above the law themselves.
Vigilantes? I thought Blackwater's new name was Xe.

"a Lebanon-based cleric who serves as the group's spiritual leader, claimed that the ban could push some of his members to violence."

No, really? That is so unlike radical Islamists!

Yeah just like how the Rolling Stones hired the Hells Angels for security.

Sure, rationally speaking vigilante justice is a terrible idea. You can't deny that it would be satisfying to see the Hells' Angels take out Phelps and his garbage... or at least shank a few of the bastards to send a message. Alas, we are a society of laws. People like Phelps and Bakri make you desperately want to bend the rules so it would be legally permissible to brutalize a first-rate douchebag. Oh well. We're better than that, I guess.

Free speech is paramount to any society; as are laws to insure its safety.

It is up to the authorities to enforce the law when free speech turns to criminal behavior; not to make speech criminal.

Its group that has included terrorists in its ranks and that had already been banned. They come back under new names and fool nobody. The threat made by the leader after their latest incarnation was banned only further proves the wisdom of the decision.

The outrage of these extremist assholes always cracks me up. They advocate killing you and expect respectful treatment in return. I have no idea how any culture could exhibit such an astounding lack of self awareness but one clearly has to swear off any form of introspection in order to be a jihadist.

"They advocate killing you and expect respectful treatment in return. I have no idea how any culture could exhibit such an astounding lack of self awareness..."

Kind of like a country that lets its govt go around the world starting wars of aggression and clandestinely destabilizing and overthrowing governments and then wondering why "they hate us for our freedom"

"Kind of like a country that lets its govt go around the world starting wars of aggression and clandestinely destabilizing and overthrowing governments and then wondering why "they hate us for our freedom"

If you say so. This article is a concrete example that illustrates exactly what I'm talking about. The next time I hear about a terror leader who was wronged by the US before becoming a jihadist will be the first time. I'm all for the US minding its own business but that doesn't mean I'm foolish enough to believe jihadists are any more justified in their beliefs than the KKK or any other hate group.

a country that lets its govt go around the world starting wars of aggression and clandestinely destabilizing and overthrowing governments

These actions no more legitimize terrorist violence and religiously-inspired hatred than 9/11 legitimized the invasion of Iraq.

wondering why "they hate us for our freedom"

Most people who have been paying any measure of attention know it's a little more complicated than that.