Haven't voted on here as I find it kind of hard to come to a decision...I would love it if the EDL were banned but other groups aren't banned and I find it hard to agree with a government being able to keep the groups they like and ban the groups they disagree with....because if that were the case they could use that in their favour and not have any groups that were gonna cause them trouble.
So, playing devil's advocate a bit here. But really - I am torn. I can see the benefits and less hassle which would result from a ban, but looking at the bigger picture - would it be in a slap in the face to freedom of expression and stuff? Would they just go underground?
Once in 1970's i guess a ruler banned prostitution but couldnt implement in whole country as it was a corrupt state. result there were raids in commercial capital city to stop prostitution so the prostitutes went underground and spread in the whole city making every town of that city a gutter, whereas the other city which was cultural capital there were no raids so the filth stayed at one place and the rest of the city clean.
You are spot on there chav princess. They shouldnt be banned. they will go underground and spread
Labour's open door immigration policy has led to the large increase in the number of Muslims, and when you combine this with the policy of multiculturalism which has encouraged Muslims NOT to integrate this has led to serious social problems.
Groups like the EDL are merely a reaction to these idiotic policies, so if you want someone to blame for militant Islam in the UK then blame Labour.
Hisb ut-Tahrir condemned both 9/11 and 7/7 as un-Islamic terrorist attacks. The U.S. government, according to the Global Security thinktank, "has found no clear ties between Hizb ut-Tahrir and terrorist activity."
They say alot of despicable things, but they cannot be linked to terrorism. I hold the position that banning groups which espouse views like Hizb ut-Tahrir is counter-productive. They simply go underground with less public debate that could serve to counter the propaganda they pedal. This is a view held by Majid Nawaaz (ex-Hisb ut-Tahrir leading member who now works for a counter-extremist think tank) and many other experts.
[Edit] You are just going to neg me without even providing a reason 'Chav Princess?' [/Edit]
Hizb ut-Tahrir may not be linked to terrorism but that doesn't mean they are benign, quite the opposite.
Given that they want to establish a Caliphate where non-Muslims and women are second class citizens, they really are nothing more than the Islamic version of the Nazi party.
Hizb ut-Tahrir may not be linked to terrorism but that doesn't mean they are benign, quite the opposite.
Given that they want to establish a Caliphate where non-Muslims and women are second class citizens, they really are nothing more than the Islamic version of the Nazi party.
If you want a fully representative poll result you should add the word 'Perceived' before the pros section as at the moment it's a little leading.
My personal view is that there is nothing to be gained by banning organisations like this. You can kill the singer but not the song - they'll reform into another group and they'll simply have more ammunition to claim that free speech is being attacked.
Labour's open door immigration policy has led to the large increase in the number of Muslims, and when you combine this with the policy of multiculturalism which has encouraged Muslims NOT to integrate this has led to serious social problems.
Groups like the EDL are merely a reaction to these idiotic policies, so if you want someone to blame for militant Islam in the UK then blame Labour.
What did Labour specifically do - in terms of laws and policies enacted?
Pfft, they'd just set up the Defence of England League or something, and this time they'd have some real ammunition that people with Muslim sounding names want to eradicate free speech and freedom of association.