perseus
Active member
Here's another point of view, I have to agree the law is inconsistent. However since we are effectively at war with Muslim extremists, this probably makes all the difference. Perhaps the home office has circumstantial evidence that Islam4UK has more than a mere passive interest in terrorism? who knows.
......
http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/01/13/the-state-is-wrong-to-ban-thought-crime/
......
The reasoning behind Alan Johnson’s ban is rather that Islam4UK is held to ‘unlawfully glorify the commission or preparation of acts of terrorism’. That is an interesting choice of word. The restriction is not upon advocacy, justification, or even mere apologia, but upon glorification.
Meaning what, exactly? Well, in the words of the legislation, ‘“glorification” includes any form of praise or celebration, and cognate expressions are to be construed accordingly.’ But isn’t there a difference between writing a pornographic novel that glorifies rape, conspiracy to commit rape, and rape itself?
It boils down to this; to be in a group that takes a positive view of any project deemed terrorist by the government of the day becomes a criminal offence punishable be ten years in prison. That’s a decade behind bars on the say so of the state, for what amounts to nothing more thoughtcrime.
Come to that, there was a time when the African National Congress enjoyed mainstream support in the Labour Party, even though Thatcher famously branded the ANC as, well, terrorists. Any notion of ‘unlawful glorification’ as a serious offence is monstrous in its ramifications.
In a democracy, it has no place on the statute books.
http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/01/13/the-state-is-wrong-to-ban-thought-crime/
Last edited: