back to article 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 …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

  1. Dodgy Geezer Silver badge
    FAIL

    I presume that this is self-preservation.

    After all, if you ask an average member of the public 'Who do you hate?", the answer is likely to be "politicians..."

  2. Someone Else Silver badge
    Facepalm

    Really, Brittian...I mean REALLY?!?

    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....

    1. Naughtyhorse

      Re: Really, Brittian...I mean REALLY?!?

      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.

      1. Someone Else Silver badge
        Unhappy

        @Naughtyhorse: Really, Brittian...I mean REALLY?!?

        You make me want to weep....

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    hate comments

    re the Eton entrance exam

    it's 2060 and the mob have strung up members of the cabinet from the lampposts of Westminster bridge. write a speech explaining why this is necessary and moral.

    just saying...

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Pro-Freedom

    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.

    1. Steven Roper

      Re: Pro-Freedom

      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.

      1. Mike Ozanne

        Re: Pro-Freedom

        "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.

        1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          Re: Pro-Freedom

          So completely unlike our own government process then ?

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So, judging from what I've seen online, that spells the end of magazines that cater to Sony, Microsoft, Apple or Android fans. Apart from that though, I think it's a bad idea.

  6. Winkypop Silver badge
    Big Brother

    The object of power is power

    “The object of terrorism is terrorism. The object of oppression is oppression. The object of torture is torture. The object of murder is murder. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?”

    ― George Orwell, 1984

  7. pewpie
    Black Helicopters

    Hmmm..

    So does this mean the end of my campaign to get #HeadsOnPoles trending?

    Well, you know what I say to that.. (I hope you do - cus if I tell you here I'll probably end up in a bin bag.)

  8. Naughtyhorse

    Calm Down Dear!

    After the drubbing they got from ukip in the recent council elections, the tories said they needed a more effective strategy to deal with them in future.

    Welcome to the future.

  9. Persona non grata

    She's absolutely correct!

    **** SARCASM ALERT!!! SARCASM ALERT!!! ****

    Obviously the best way of dealing with those proposing an authoritarian and dictatorial system is to impose even harsher limits on free speech.

    **** End of Sarcasm ****

    Politicians don't do irony, do they?

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The problem with freedom

    is that some dictator is free to step in and take away peoples freedom

  11. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

    Does not add up

    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?

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like