May threatens ban on 'hate-inciting' radicals, even if they don't promote violence Radical groups should be banned to prevent them inspiring others to violence, even if they're not promoting violence themselves, according to Home Secretary Theresa May. Currently the UK Home Secretary can ban any group overtly promoting violent rebellion, and has successfully done so in the past. A new task force led by the …
I concur, Ms May, I hate you and your policies.
And I encourage anyone else who is against a 1984 style monitored and censored society to feel the same as I do.
Hate is an emotion, a feeling, a thought, I am allowed to hate the Nazi's, I am allowed to hate fascism and I should be allowed to express my feelings and encourage others to feel the same way I do....
Big Brother is watching us, freedom is an ideal we are sleepwalking away from...
You are only allowed to hate that which is approved by the government (Nazis are a good example). Sadly it is that way in every country. Not that I am 'pro-hate' it just seems disingenuous for government to expose the populace to 'divisive' propaganda but not allow the populace to do the same. No new story there I guess.
"Hate is an emotion, a feeling, a thought, I am allowed to hate the Nazi's,"
You are allowed to hate Nazi's. I don't, I pity them, because they are retarded fools. They are empathically handicapped. You don't hate somebody because he's walking with a crutch and shouldn't hate somebody because he's empathically handicapped.
But you're allowed too.
However, you're not allowed to inspire others to violence. After all, Nazi's, like any racists, are people too.
You only thought (you have that right in the US) permission (elsewhere) but (the right in the US) permission that you thought can be taken away just like it was given to you in the first place. We of the US have the constitutional right to free speech in the US but it dose not mean that a person can say what he wants. We here in the US have had several conservative speakers who were to speak college audience who were stopped by violent demonstration and at a graduating class of doctors the speaker who was from the same school was told not to speak. Not because any of these speakers were promoting hate or overthrow of a government but because they had views that was not the mainstream of the liberal universities.
So with those whose country dose not guarantee your freedom of speech which is given by permission and not law can and will be taken back from you depending on those in power. Good luck in protecting your freedom of speech you will kneed it very much!
Freedom of speech doesn't mean private colleges can't decide not to pay someone thousands of dollars to give a speech.
Since you made the claim, why don't you post the name of a conservative speaker who was dismissed from speaking at a college, or violently demonstrated against, so we can dissect his background and see if he ever advocated hate.
Let's not forget that the terror incident upon which they are attempting to base this anti-freedom* legislation was triggered by the victim wearing a "Help for Heroes" t-shirt. The reason this charity exists at all is because the LABOUR ** government who were responsible for sending our troops into an illegal war, subsequently failed to provide adequate funding for the care of soldiers injured in that conflict.
So if you voted for Labour back in 2001/2005, then your choice makes you responsible for (i) an illegal war, (ii) failure to care for the troops who performed their duty for this country and (iii) giving terrorists reason to kill one our soldiers. This likely was not your intention, but this chain of events would not have happened if the electorate had not voted Labour. Ultimately this is a democracy, that is how decisions are made, so Labour voters are at the root of the chain of responsibility, no matter how much they protest their innocence.
Incidentally, I'm well aware that the Tories would likely have taken us into an illegal war too, but they are less likely to have cut care costs for our injured soldiers.
* Freedom allegedly being what our soldiers have been fighting for in most conflicts since WW2.
** whom I HATE intensely for destroying our nation but hereby do not incite anyone else to hate them.
"Incidentally, I'm well aware that the Tories would likely have taken us into an illegal war too, but they are less likely to have cut care costs for our injured soldiers."
So it wasn't a Conservative government that shut the military hospitals and left an inferior level of NHS provided care in its place?
Giving the establishment powers to censor expression of non-specific feelings, as distinct from censoring suggestion on how to act upon those feelings, is a shift of biblic proportions.
If the reporting is accurate, I cannot begin to imagine what protest there would be against this blatant attempt to edge closer towards a totalitarian state. The potential for abuse of such a power would be overwhelming to the extent that I simply cannot see this ever happening.
Which is a good thing, as I, for one, would not leave the gates of parliament unless and until the law reverted, or I was removed.
'Cos it'll be censored.
I wonder how long it'll be before this is extended to people inciting resistance to government 'reforms' that we 'need' to 'save' the economy by funneling more cash to big businesses where it can be more efficiently used to buy Bentleys and yachts.
> you're NOT ALLOWED to protest there without a Police/Government permit
The permits aren't too tricky to come by[1] as long as you do a bit of preparation.
Mark Thomas has an excellent story about having a Police escort through another demonstration so that he could have his own demos[2], just because he had all his permits.
Vic.
[1] No, of course they shouldn't be necessary. But they are.
[2] He held many demonstrations that day - got a Guinness World Record for it. I'm not sure if he still holds that one or not...
Which is a good thing, as I, for one, would not leave the gates of parliament unless and until the law reverted, or I was removed.
If you don't have a permit, the Met is going to do it very, very quickly. Check out "Steven Jago", who got arrested while holding a placard quoting 1984 outside Parliament. Oh, the irony...
These people will set up encrypted channels of communication where they be able to talk with less fear of interception. Why not let them spew their BS on forums and mailing lists and use it to drive intelligence. No snoopers charter would help if they turn to crypto. All it will mean is the 99.99999% of people who are not terrorists end up with their privacy infringed and ISPs are burdened with the onerous task of collating this information and policing their members.
She needs to be shown the door... Doesn't matter what she says now, no one (with any sense of humanity / liberty) will take what she says in a positive light. She used a tragic, sensless attack to save face after the rejection of her snoopers charter... She's even worse than Jacqui Smith...
Bad news when Clegg is our only hope to stop totalitarianism - and we haven't had anyone say "I agree with Nick" in a while.
Anon because, well, you know... Not that it'll do much good once Theresa storms into Rackspace demanding copies of all of theregisters databases to track down those of us guilty of thought crime.
Did anyone see this interview?. Once again the buzzword "paedophile" was thrown in along with "terrorist" when the ugly one was talking about re-introducing the Communications Data Bill, just to make sure everyone is just that little bit more scared because this is what its all about; ruling by fear and we all know that a frightened population is a controlled population.
But even more funny and sinister is how they now call anything explosive a "weapon of mass destruction", at least the Americans do. A hand grenade now equals a nuke in terms of the punishment one gets for possession.
So, if Saddam was only attacked today, they would have found tons and tons of WMD all over Eyerack to justify any invasion. Interesting how goal posts are moved to make scoring goals easier for politicians...
".....they now call anything explosive a "weapon of mass destruction", at least the Americans do. A hand grenade now equals a nuke....." Complete and utter male bovine manure. Please do supply some verifiable quotes where grenades have been referred to as weapons of mass destruction.
".....if Saddam was only attacked today, they would have found tons and tons of WMD all over....." I suggest you and the other sheeple go read this website and then reconsider the issue of WMDs in Iraq - you may need an adult to explain the long words for you:
http://www.iraqwatch.org/profiles/biological.html
While I'm on your side of the aisle politically, he's actually correct about the first, even if he didn't have quite the right language. And the example is actually the recent Boston bombing attack. If you think about it, the IEDs they used in the attack are the functional equivalent of a hand grenade. He's being charged with using a weapon of mass destruction. To me this is part of the problem with treating the war against Islamofascism as a police action instead of a war. There might not be defined battlefields, but it remains a war.
I do concur about the WMDs and Iran. I expect if we had gone in immediately we would have found them. But with Teddy and his buddies delaying action, Saddam had plenty of time to move them elsewhere. Possibly to Syria where we now have various reports of chemical weapons being used, and depending on who is doing the claiming it is either the government or the rebels doing the gassing.
This post has been deleted by its author
I can think of a few groups that incite hatred and de-normalisation of others. Most of them are of the new-puritan nannying type. Think of anti-smoking groups that make out that smokers are evil. Should these groups be banned. I would love it to be so, but it's unlikely to happen as these groups are on the same side as authoritarian politicians. But it shows how difficult it is to define a hate group.
<-- Fail for obvious reasons.
Thatcher was loved my many and hated by many, Theresa May is just asking to be hated.. maybe that is why she is asking for this? a way to stop people from inciting hatred against her...
I can't see how this could be allowed, surely it goes against the whole idea of human rights and the freedom of speech?
There is no explicit UK law giving you freedom of speech, or even freedom of association or gathering
As such you will find our esteemed elgov can & indeed does regularly shaft a good 90% of the population
depressing really just how messed up politics is, i'm really beginning to believe the punchline of that joke about 100 lawyers at the bottom of the sea being a 'good start'
Exactly, it came into law via our implementation of the EU Human Rights law, which we were required to bring in by our signing of one of the EU treaties.
Nothing to do with our own law makers. Hence there is no explict UK law & if we leave the EU or 'renegotiate our relationship' or even just suspend it to get rid of terrorists like May wants to do, that human rights statue might easily get revoked or mean less than the paper it is written on
Ridiculously vague offences that you couldn't possibly enforce even-handedly if you tried* are the wannbe totalitarian's wet dream.
Found someone you don't like, but can't pin any real crimes on them? Then trawl their computer for something vaguely hateful on their internet history, along with any material "useful" to a terrorist you can find (like photos of St Paul's Cathedral, based on previous reports).
As we saw with the failed prosecutions for the extreme p0rn offences, it's only once the police have been all over someone they don't like and found nothing else that they reach into the back drawer for the vague wrongspeak crimes. That's not law enforcement, that's cutting criminal justice to fit the offender.
*If Ofcom's having trouble with TV companies broadcasting in foreign language as this report suggests, then it's reasonable to assume that for every one incident they find, there are several more that they haven't. The only way you'd do it on the internet IRL is if you target someone unfairly (if you had anything concrete enough to make it fair, you'd have bust them for that already).
In the 1950s in Australia, foreign language papers, published by "New Australians", had to carry an English version of all their content, to stop monolingual "real" Australians worrying about subversive content.
The publishers often had very poor English, and some of the resulting "translations" were hilarious. Plus many were not translations at all, just something vaguely on the same topic, or often the exact opposite in meaning. But nobody else could read the original languages so they never got caught out.
After a few years of this the Government finally woke up and dropped this stupid requirement.
Perhaps they could do something similar with these worrisome broadcasts. Put them through a speech to text converter then Google translate. And get laughed out of court.
" A new task force led by the prime minister will consider extending that power to cover organisations "inciting hatred and division""
So the Tory party will be banning itself? Given the rhetoric against the sick, unemployed and those on Housing benefit who have all been the target of a sustained Government Vilification campaign.
Big Brother - because they have found a new excuse to impose stasi style monitoring of the populace. There is no depth to which out political masters will sink to get their way
I really don't think the everyone realises the trade off he or she has made to live in a democratic, free-speaking (mostly) society. Whilst I abhor and condone what happened last week, it is going to happen at some point every now and again. Attacking and murdering a defenceless person (or any person for that matter) is illegal, and it will be dealt with by laws that have been in place for centuries. Merely thinking or talking about murdering a person IS NOT A CRIME and signing up to the idea that if politicians slowly erode democratic rights and freedoms it will stop people imagining such things is not going to work...and all just because you are scared that such a horrific thing might happen to you or your loved ones. I gladly live with that risk compared to the awful reality of a totalitarian/authoritarian state (and murder still happened in the Soviet Union and still happens in Iran/modern Russia/N Korea etc).
This is before you get on to the statistically tiny chance that you will ever be involved in such an attack anyway (every day people get into cars, use kitchen knives, step over skateboards and shoes that are far more likely to kill).
And way before you even consider the irony that extremist minorities actually want a society that is restricted in such a manner.
All this is stating the obvious but I thought I'd exercise my democratoc right to do so, natch. Democracy is often wasted on the democratic it seems.
"Nobody is claiming that any of these snooping measures would have prevented those events, ..."
Aren't they? Boris Johnson said at the weekend that it was too soon to say whether they'd have been stopped but we should have the measures anyway. Now Boris is supposedly a smart guy and perfectly able to follow a line of reasoning, so for him to advocate having the measures anyway makes no sense in this context unless you take him to mean that they might well have stopped it, and the first half is then just cowardly wiggle room.
As the days pass, it becomes clearer that there is no email or internet trail that might have allowed us to prevent this. On the contrary, it looks like good old-fashioned detective work had already brought at least one of the perpetrators to the attention of MI5, to the extent that they had spoken to him so often that he felt harassed. You can't *be* more on MI5's radar than that, but still he "slipped through" because people like that are just unpredictable. As a society, we need to face up to that. 100% security is not possible.
I'm sure that most people on MI5's 'radar' are identified by tracking who visits certain websites, plus the old fashioned method of intercepting snail/e mail to other known individuals. Hence, any semi-intelligent terrorists (if there is such a thing?) would have moved on to untraceable methods of communicating by now.
If MI5 had identified a real potential terrorist, then harassing them might provoke them to plan an attack, perhaps this is their intention in order to gather evidence? What other motive can there be for harassing a suspect? Unbelievably, they even try to "recruit" subjects. Why would a terrorist want to work for the very people who oppose them? Are our rulers so corrupt that they're surprised when others don't put profit before principles?
In the US there have been a number of "terrorism" convictions of people who had made or planted (fake) bombs in schemes entirely concocted by the FBI pretending to be some foreign terror organisation. Does that make the FBI a foreign terror organisation??
For someone prepared to make his own bomb, a bit of regular harassment by the authorities could be just enough to push him over the line from disgruntled to active. One on one harassment is, after all,. just a small scale version of the whole-country-invasion methods that are KNOWN to be a major force for radicalising hitherto peaceful, non-political, farmers minding their own business.
Let people jabber away on the internet and get it out of their system. Or start pursuing them and PROVING THEM RIGHT.
"....."terrorism" convictions of people who had made or planted (fake) bombs in schemes entirely concocted by the FBI pretending to be some foreign terror organisation...... a bit of regular harassment by the authorities could be just enough to push him over the line from disgruntled to active....." And next week , on Apologist Central, we'll be discussing how the big, bad FBI forced Osama bin Laden into the 9/11 attacks! Seriously, go grow a brain and then try finding a clue you can borrow. The FBI using entrapment of those that have expressed not only sympathy for terrorists but also a desire to emulate them is not harassment, it's prevention. Anyone willing to plant what they think is a real bomb, with the intention of killing American citizens, is committing a crime under US law, regardless of whether the FBI gave them the fake bomb or not. The people the FBI fooled into planting fake bombs had already been radicalised by the item the FBI found them, they were not harassed in any way, shape or form. The FBI did not turn them into frothing Islamists, they were already prepared to kill, all the FBI did was give them enough rope to hang themselves.
The former head of MI5 (Stella Rimington) today stated that "Britain must become a police state" to be safe.
With millions of street cameras, laws that allow more "legal" snooping than the News of the World, and MI5 longing for the return of the Gestapo, Britain has its problems, but with over-reaching bureaucrats and politicians, not outspoken organisations.
It's about time the country woke up to its loss of liberty. A Theresa May as Prime Minister might just be enough to allow Nazi-level repression to occur. Her "inciting organisations" term is short-hand for Muslims, but I'm sure she would rapidly expand it to Dr Who fans arguing that their series is better than Star Wars!
Then, Rule Britannia!
The former head of MI5 (Stella Rimington) today stated that "Britain must become a police state" to be safe.
I can't find any reference to her saying that, and such a statement seems to be in direct contradiction of her words in 2009, where she said, to quote the Telegraph, "the Government risks creating a police state by eroding civil liberties to combat terrorism".
Has she changed her mind, then?
Dear Complete Fuckwitt,
Please follow this link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4668245.stm) to a list of people that might have wanted to disagree with you about it all just being "MI5 longing for the return of the Gestapo", only they don't have the chance to. Then go get someone to buy you the clue you obviously missed whilst attending Paranoia For Leftie Sheep 101.
Yours sincerely wishing people like you had actually seen the results of terror first-hand,
From someone that has.
@Matt Bryant, whilst I sympathise with what must have been a terrible experience (I heard the bus explosion that day but was far enough away to not be directly affected, thankfully, and my girlfriend would have been on the tube that blew up had she not stayed at my house that night - we are luckier than most), I fail to see what your point is. Do you think that the government should be given powers like in the article? Do you think the snooper's charter is necessary? I don't mean to sound callous but taking a serious decision personally and emotionally (like giving even greater powers to the police and security services) is not really a good solution.
Many would argue that there are sufficient laws and provisions in place already - yes the police and MI5 will argue for greater powers but that is their job, in exactly the same way an IT manager will always push for the greatest budget he can, even if it is not in the overall interest of the business. He just wants to get his job done the best way he can, just like our surveillance professionals. These laws are serious though and could have far reaching effects beyond catching potential terrorists - once you have introduced laws like May's, it is very difficult to go back. Is that the road you wish to go down?
".....Do you think that the government should be given powers like in the article?....." Yes. And the vast majority of the objections posted here and elsewhere seem to be nothing more than the reflexive bleating of the sheeple, the same bleating we hear whenever the Police or security forces get any new kit or powers. For example, EXACTLY the same kind of cobblers was bleated when the UK started issuing coppers with pepper spray:
Sheeple: "We don't want armed coppers, baaa-a-a, 'cos armed and violent crims are people too, baa-a-a!"
Gov.t: "OK, we'll give the coppers pepper spray and issue strict guidelines on when they can use it, that will allow many violent confrontations with people resisting arrest to end without serious and possibly life-threatening injuries to those being arrested or the coppers making the arrest."
Sheeple: "Baaa-a-a, you can't do that, pepper spray is LETHAL, <insert clueless celebrity> says so despite having no medical or scientific training, and I choose to believe them rather than real scientific facts 'cos some rapper/model/filmstar/"whistleblower" also said it was cool to think so! Baaa-a-a! If the coppers get peppers pray they will spray EVERYONE at random! Baaa-a-a!"
"......Many would argue that there are sufficient laws and provisions in place already....." Yes, and our laws and police powers have never changed since Arthurian times? Of course they have! As the terrorists and criminals take advantage of new technologies the laws and police powers have to evolve to meet new threats. And those bleating the standard "plenty of laws/powers" boilerplate also determinedly ignore the fact there are plenty of checks and measures already in place to stop abuse. Fingerprinting, DNA testing for evidence, all attacked by the sheeple as "abusing people's rights", and all proving to be very effective in convicting criminals and not suffering the widespread abuse of power the sheeple insisted would happen. Interception of electronic communications has been around since the 1890s, yet the UK didn't turn into some repressive regime with the introduction of the telephone recorder. The World is evolving and so is the threat that the security forces and Police have to deal with - the Victorians didn't have to contend with the IRB, predecessors to the IRA, using mobile phones and email - so it stands to reason that the Police and security forces will need new powers to face new threats. Asking them to stand still would be like asking them to fight modern car crime with Elizabethan carriage laws and technology.
Seriously, do you think if your girlfriend had been on the Tube on 7/7 that the bomber would have stopped to ask if she agreed with RIPA? Do you think they stopped to ask Lee Rigby whether he agreed with the Government's policies in Afghanistan or Iraq? Better still, do you think the stabbing of Lee Rigby was the best attack the Islamists could come up with, or do you maybe think the unseen actions and monitoring of our security forces have made it too difficult for them to plan and enact major attacks like 7/7? Do you want to guess as to whether Michael Adebowale would rather have stabbed one soldier or driven a truck packed with ANFO into the Woolwich Barracks? Assembling the info and material for a truck-bombing is much, much more expensive and intensive, and much more likely to be detected by monitoring. Whilst the attack on Lee Rigby is a tragedy, it could have been far, far worse if the security services and Police are not given every legal means to monitor such people.
All the bleating hand wringers keep insisting that we cannot prove that new powers will stop terrorist attacks, but by the same coin they cannot prove they will be abused either. The history of such laws in the UK shows that the majority of cases have not resulted in abuse of powers, despite the froth generated around a few and isolated examples. To say we should never introduce any new powers just because they might be abused is simply too stupid for words.
"Using terms like 'sheeple' and 'hand wringers' plus straw men and lashings of your own opinion makes your post sound a little bit silly....." So, from all that post, the only bit you can argue with is the name-calling? What, all those alleged "straw men" yet you can't even debunk one? May I suggest it is more whimsy on your part that labels them "straw men"? Whatever.
"....In fact you sound exactly how I would imagine Richard Littlejohn on acid to be." Ah, I see the problem - too much reliance on imagination and not enough objective consideration of the matter in hand. Never having actually watched any of Richard Littlejohn's shows I'll have to bow to your superior knowledge of low-brow telly. But I suspect your labelling might be something to do with a reflexive denial of anyone that disagrees with your politicial point of view, rather than based on any in-depth analysis of any matter discussed by Mr Littlejohn.
Your use of such terms as 'sheeple' and attempting to belittle anyone who doesn't agree with your own personal agenda by calling them ' Leftie Sheep' does nothing for your personal rant driven cause. In fact, it stops me reading further as you seem to have no rational arguments, but merely rely on ad hominem attacks - childish.
".....it stops me reading further....." Gosh, does it also stop you posting any form of counter to the points raised, or is it that you simply can't, therefore brindle under the frustration of being exposed as said sheep? BTW, when you actually get to be someone important you can let me know, 'cos then I might actually care about your sulking.
When will politicians finally get it into their heads that you can't legislate against an idea?
You can't stop people thinking 'bad' thoughts and disseminating them to others, it's a losing battle. You have to listen, understand and then refute their arguments, together with understanding the root causes that lead to the promotion of these philosophies in the first place.
The attitude of May and her ilk is akin to trying to cure a cold by banning someone from sneezing.
Sure you can. Not only you can legislate against an idea, but in the process you can also earn some brownie points. And after said earnings the effectivity of said legislation or its blowback is irrelevant for said poilitican, which is currently busy legislating something else like the number of windows per house.
".....trying to cure a cold by banning someone from sneezing." Actually it's more of wanting to be able to quickly identify the snifflers before they pass on the cold, only for well-meaning but clueless sheep like you to whine "you can't do that, it's coldist!"
This evil woman is developing a very clear track record for such things. Always using any bad news to promote her agenda - no matter how disconnected the matter is.
After this latest puke I was going to say I now have utter contempt for her. But I realise that's wrong. I've considered her utterly contemptible for quite some time.
This post has been deleted by its author
"What is it with women home secretaries?"
Like David Blunkett and John Reid? I notice Lord Reid has also taken to the airwaves to voice his support for the snoopers charter.
To paraphrase your question, "What is it with Home Secretaries?" Are they all lobotomised by MI5 and ACPO as soon as they enter their ministerial office? If you made Peter Tatchell or Shami Chakrabarti the Home Secretary, would they instantly transform into rabid securocrats?
Your internet comments can currently get banned is you were to post "I hate Muslim extremists/MPs abusing expenses/drunken louts taking over city centers on Friday night/street criminals/greedy bankers and we should shoot them". So now the new proposal is that your speech should get censored if you say "I hate Muslim extremists/MPs abusing expenses/drunken louts taking over city centers/street criminals/greedy bankers, and we should do something about them."?
For various reasons I am more attuned to American vs. British language differences than most people, but I never knew the phrase "government overreach" was one of those things that is only heard on the left side of the pond. (Or perhaps I am wrong, but any British posts using that phrase are instantly deleted by "HM Ministry of Approved Thought")
Where do you find these wankers? And how do they keep showing up in non-elected positions of power? Haven't you been watching your western colonials, and noted with sufficient horror and disgust the likes of Michelle Bachmann, Ted Cruz, Tom Coburn, Christine O'Donnel, Antonin Scalia et al? We on this side of the pond would have thought you would have learned something from our failures....
sadly may was elected.
we have no one to blame but..... all those fuckwits that voted tory.
Which is the same deal as your side of the pond. being a right(left!) thinking man in the US must be incredibly frustrating. At least this side it's easier to laugh at them (thx Jon Stewart little Stevey Colbert and all... oh and bill o'realy! 'fuckwit in chief' at fox). At least demographics are on the side of reason over there. not so here im afraid.
It concerns me that someone who would even consider revoking our freedom can have been elected to such a position of responsibility. The media like to demonise certain minor parties as extremists, but it appears that the real fascists (the dishonest, self-deluding hypocritical ones who are the most dangerous) have crept into power under our noses while most of the electorate have been asleep.
The way to win back our freedom is to find out which MPs support this legislation, then translate that into a co-ordinated "pro-freedom" campaign to remove every single one of them from their seat at the next election.
Hitler was elected by voters in a democracy. And it's happening all over again now. There are no moderates any more; on the one hand you have the liberal left and the political correctness horde enforcing feminism and multiculturalism and denying any voice to anyone who dares to question these agendas; on the other hand you have neo-nazi white-supremacists like the UKIP and National Front variants who would exterminate anyone whose skin shade is darker than #c89680 and happily reduce the entire Middle East to a radioactive wasteland.
It is in exactly this climate that hate and intolerance flourish, from both sides. Even more so when that hate and intolerance is denied and concealed by its adherents, and this is happening on both the left and the right. May's proposal here is an example of leftist (PC) intolerance, as this proposal is clearly targeted at groups like the EDL; the attacks on Muslims and the vandalism of mosques are an example of rightist intolerance. I read in the news that during the EDL protests in London yesterday that there was also a protest by UAR, and that police had to keep the two groups apart by force - or they would likely have torn each other to pieces. Literally.
There are voices in the wilderness crying out for moderation. I saw an article in the Guardian yesterday about how a mosque in York decided to greet EDL protestors with tea and biscuits, and an impromptu game of football. After a bit of initial shouting and posturing, the two sides met and had a good chat about who they were and what they were about. Turned out the Muslims hated the betrayal of their religion by the extremist nutters claiming to murder in the name of Islam, and the EDL people felt that political correctness was denying them a voice and the right to debate. And when they understood each other they got along wonderfully and had a game of football.
But sadly this isn't common enough. The politically correct left will no doubt claim that this is what they want, but they are twisting it to promote their agenda of discrimination against whites and males in the name of "equality". The white supremacist right will no doubt claim this is what they want, but they are twisting it to promote their agenda of cultural isolation of whites from all others.
But in the end, what most people really want is a balance: a place where they can be with their own kind, and a place where they can come together. This is why people of a given culture tend to conglomerate in the same area. They want to be with their own kind, with those who live the way they do and speak their language. This is not hate, it is not discrimination, it is a perfectly natural human desire. And there can be multicultural hubs, where different cultures can meet and mingle. But the extremists on both sides will not allow this. The leftists want multiculturalism everywhere, no exceptions, and the rightists want multiculturalism nowhere, no exceptions.
And when extremism flourishes and moderation fails, it is the extremists that are voted into power. The lessons of history are very clear on this point, as is the bloodshed and oppression that will inevitably follow.
"Hitler was elected by voters in a democracy."
Well no actually
From http://democraticpeace.wordpress.com/2008/12/16/what-hitler-was-not-elected/
"First, Hitler was never elected. He ran in two national elections in 1932. In the first, he got 30 percent of the vote, and no one got a majority. In the resulting runoff election, he increased his votes to 37 percent, while his opponent, World War I hero Field Marshall Hindenburg, got a majority. And since the Nazi party won 230 seats out of 608 in the Reichstag, it did not have the majority to make Hitler Chancellor.
So how did this happen? By backroom backstabbing, double-crossing, threats, and promises, including among former Chancellor Franz von Papen, present Chancellor Lieutenant General Kurt von Schleicher, and the elected President Hindenburg. Their maneuvering, a rumor of a threatened military coup, and the urging von Papen, who had entered into a secret alliance with Hitler to get supporters into Cabinet positions, finally persuaded Hindenburg to reluctantly appoint that “little corporeal” Hitler chancellor. Many involved in this intrigue, including von Papen, thought that this would bring Hitler under their control.
As Chancellor, then, how did Hitler turn this functioning democracy into a bloody, totalitarian dictatorship? I’ll let the History Learning Site answer this (link” http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/Nazi_Germany_dictatorship.htm”>link here):
When Hitler was appointed in January 1933, Germany was a democracy. Germany had fair elections; nobody had their right to vote abused; there were numerous political parties you could vote for etc. To pass a law, the Reichstag had to agree to it after a bill went through the normal processes of discussion, arguments etc. Within the Reichstag of January 1933, over 50% of those who held seats were against the Nazi Party. Therefore it would have been very unlikely for Hitler to have got passed into law what he wanted. . . .
Hitler had promised a general election for March 1933. . . . One week before the election was due to take place, the Reichstag building burned down. Hitler immediately declared that it was the signal for a communist takeover of the nation. Hitler knew that if he was to convince President Hindenburg to give him emergency powers – as stated in the HYPERLINK “http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/weicons.htm”Weimar HYPERLINK “http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/weicons.htm” Constitution – he had to play on the old president’s fear of communism. What better than to convince him that the communists were about to take over the nation by force?
A known communist – Marianus van der Lubbe – was caught near the Reichstag building immediately after the fire had started. Those that arrested him – Nazi officials – claimed that Lubbe confessed to them that the fire was a signal to other communists to start the revolution to overthrow democracy in the country. Matches were allegedly found on van der Lubbe and those who arrested him claimed that he smelt of petrol.
Hitler asked Hindenburg to grant him emergency powers in view of the ‘communist takeover’. Using the constitution, Hindenburg agreed to pass the Law for the Protection of the People and the State.
This law gave Hitler what he wanted — a ban on the Communists and Socialists taking part in an election campaign. The leaders from both parties were arrested and their newspapers were shut down. To ‘keep the peace’ and maintain law and order, the HYPERLINK “http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/nazi_police_state.htm” SA (the Brown Shirts) roamed the streets beating up those who openly opposed Hitler.
The election took place in March — though Hitler was convinced it would be the last. Hitler did not get the number of votes he wanted but he did get enough to get over a 50% majority in the Reichstag. . . .
After the burning down of the Reichstag, politicians had nowhere to meet. The Kroll Opera House in Berlin was chosen. This was a relatively small round building – perfect for meetings. On March 23rd, elected officials were due to meet to discuss and vote on Hitler’s Enabling Law.
As politicians neared the building, they found it surrounded by SS and SA thugs who tried to ensure that only Nazi or Nationalist politicians [in coalition with the Nazis] got into the building. The vote for this law was crucial as it gave Hitler a vast amount of power. The law basically stated that any bill only needed Hitler’s signature and within 24 hours that bill would become law in Germany. With only Nazis and other right wing politicians inside the Kroll Opera House, the bill was quickly passed into law. The act gave Hitler what he wanted — dictatorial power. What he wanted would become law in Germany within 24 hours of his signature being put on paper.
On 7th April 1933, Nazi officials were put in charge of all local government in the provinces.
On May 2nd 1933, trades unions were abolished, their funds taken and their leaders put in prison. The workers were given a May Day holiday in return."
On July 14th 1933, a law was passed making it illegal to form a new political party. It also made the Nazi Party the only legal political party in Germany.
Even a politician must know that the best way to promote an idea and make sure it spreads "virally" is to get a government to ban it.
Did banning publication of revolutionary materials help Tsar Nicholas the 2nd? Did Soviet censorship stop the spread of Samizdat literature? And there wasn't even the Internet back then.
The only way to fight an idea is to bring it up in the open debate and destroy it with counter-arguments.
A question to the MI5, MI6 etc - with all your army of wasters of time and taxpayers money, can't you find a couple of warm bodies, eloquent enough to out-argue a bunch of semi-literate fanatics who have ever read one book in their entire lives and failed to understand what was written even in that one? Is it so difficult?
A question to Ms May - if banning stuff only serves the extremists and you are so desperate to ban stuff, then what are you really up to, Ms May?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
