Comments on: Dr Yusuf Al-Qaradawi http://downingstreetsays.com/briefings/2004/07/07/750 Every day the Prime Minister's Spokesman meets a small coterie of political journalists known as 'the lobby' for a topical chat, or 'briefing'. Tue, 31 Aug 2010 06:25:01 +0100 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Uncarved Block http://downingstreetsays.com/briefings/2004/07/07/750/comment-page-1#comment-1208 Uncarved Block Thu, 08 Jul 2004 11:04:58 +0000 #comment-1208 Arthur, it is a point of debate whether or not muslims are covered under existing legislation (I think any good lawyer would have no problem using current legislation to cover cases involving muslims) but my worry is why Blunkett is asking for new powers? Normal procedure when an omission is found in current Acts is to put forward an amendment in secondary legislation rather than creating a whole new law in primary legislation. Secondary legislation is far simpler and is usually passed through the parliament far quicker because the need for the amendment is usually obvious (e.g. in this case one religeon doesn't get the same protection as all the others). The only reason I think Blunkett is putting forward new legislation is because he wants to do things that the current law doesn't allow i.e. rather than protecting the rights of people he is trying to infringe the rights of others. Arthur, it is a point of debate whether or not muslims are covered under existing legislation (I think any good lawyer would have no problem using current legislation to cover cases involving muslims) but my worry is why Blunkett is asking for new powers? Normal procedure when an omission is found in current Acts is to put forward an amendment in secondary legislation rather than creating a whole new law in primary legislation. Secondary legislation is far simpler and is usually passed through the parliament far quicker because the need for the amendment is usually obvious (e.g. in this case one religeon doesn’t get the same protection as all the others). The only reason I think Blunkett is putting forward new legislation is because he wants to do things that the current law doesn’t allow i.e. rather than protecting the rights of people he is trying to infringe the rights of others.

(Report comment as abusive?)

]]> By: Gregory Block http://downingstreetsays.com/briefings/2004/07/07/750/comment-page-1#comment-1206 Gregory Block Thu, 08 Jul 2004 10:14:08 +0000 #comment-1206 People have an awful big knee-jerk reaction to wanting to kick people out of the country... What, exactly, is wrong with the concept of free speech? The most important tenet in the concept, if you hadn't already guessed, is PROTECTING SPEECH YOU DON'T LIKE. Now, if they're preaching death and destruction, preaching violence, that's different - but a line has to be drawn, and trying to pretend that's an easy line to draw is narrow-minded and simplistic. Pretending that just anybody can draw that line is almost beyond the pale. If you've got a case good enough to stick in court, then it's probably good enough to throw him out on; but people should think twice about whether they actually want a government capable of ejecting people with evidence that wouldn't hold up in a court of law. Here's one of the few times when government actually seems conscientious about the needs to protect civil liberties and the rights of the individual vs. the state, and we're all so steeped in fear that we're unwilling to accept what is, actually, a pretty straightforward answer. If the UK populace cannot learn to control its fear, then the individuals in it cannot expect to feel like they are anything more than mice in a maze, being prodded down tunnels in the hopes for a crumb of cheese. People have an awful big knee-jerk reaction to wanting to kick people out of the country…

What, exactly, is wrong with the concept of free speech? The most important tenet in the concept, if you hadn’t already guessed, is PROTECTING SPEECH YOU DON’T LIKE.

Now, if they’re preaching death and destruction, preaching violence, that’s different – but a line has to be drawn, and trying to pretend that’s an easy line to draw is narrow-minded and simplistic. Pretending that just anybody can draw that line is almost beyond the pale.

If you’ve got a case good enough to stick in court, then it’s probably good enough to throw him out on; but people should think twice about whether they actually want a government capable of ejecting people with evidence that wouldn’t hold up in a court of law. Here’s one of the few times when government actually seems conscientious about the needs to protect civil liberties and the rights of the individual vs. the state, and we’re all so steeped in fear that we’re unwilling to accept what is, actually, a pretty straightforward answer.

If the UK populace cannot learn to control its fear, then the individuals in it cannot expect to feel like they are anything more than mice in a maze, being prodded down tunnels in the hopes for a crumb of cheese.

(Report comment as abusive?)

]]> By: Arthur http://downingstreetsays.com/briefings/2004/07/07/750/comment-page-1#comment-1205 Arthur Thu, 08 Jul 2004 09:33:13 +0000 #comment-1205 Yes but the existing law doesn't protect Muslims because they aren't a race, they're a religion. There's no doublethink, there's a faulty existing law. Yes but the existing law doesn’t protect Muslims because they aren’t a race, they’re a religion. There’s no doublethink, there’s a faulty existing law.

(Report comment as abusive?)

]]> By: Uncarved Block http://downingstreetsays.com/briefings/2004/07/07/750/comment-page-1#comment-1204 Uncarved Block Wed, 07 Jul 2004 20:25:48 +0000 #comment-1204 Asked what the Prime Minister was going to do to pander to the rabid rantings of the right wing press the PMOS pointed out that that was David Blunkett's responsibility. Mr Blunkett had already announced new legislation to be introduced under the banner of anti-discrimination (which was clearly a smoke screen as the offences could already be covered under existing legislation) which would allow the government to lock people up for saying things that were judged to be 'extremist'. The PMOS hoped that the press would now enjoy the freedom to vilify anyone they chose to with the support of idiotic laws. Asked what the Prime Minister was going to do to pander to the rabid rantings of the right wing press the PMOS pointed out that that was David Blunkett’s responsibility. Mr Blunkett had already announced new legislation to be introduced under the banner of anti-discrimination (which was clearly a smoke screen as the offences could already be covered under existing legislation) which would allow the government to lock people up for saying things that were judged to be ‘extremist’. The PMOS hoped that the press would now enjoy the freedom to vilify anyone they chose to with the support of idiotic laws.

(Report comment as abusive?)

]]> By: DEGREEK http://downingstreetsays.com/briefings/2004/07/07/750/comment-page-1#comment-1203 DEGREEK Wed, 07 Jul 2004 20:12:33 +0000 #comment-1203 Isn't it about time that Orwellian Blunkett got the push. His doublespeak is breathtaking. On the one hand he wants to introduce a new law when he on the same day declines to enforce the existing law. Pathetic. Anyway we let in Hamza so no surprise that we let in a few more. Maybe Blunkett thinks it'll put suicide bombers off bombing London. Isn’t it about time that Orwellian Blunkett got the push. His doublespeak is breathtaking.

On the one hand he wants to introduce a new law when he on the same day declines to enforce the existing law. Pathetic.

Anyway we let in Hamza so no surprise that we let in a few more. Maybe Blunkett thinks it’ll put suicide bombers off bombing London.

(Report comment as abusive?)

]]>