| I love that headline, just as much as I love the reasoning or lack thereof behind it. Y'see, just because nine Moose limbs either exploded or tried to explode in the British public transit system, inflicting a large number of casualties on their fellow citizens or inhabitants in the name of their religion, that's no reason to take any action to protect the nation against members of their religion who may feel called upon to do the same thing. You might alienate other homicidal maniacs, who would them attempt to... ummm... do the same thing they were going to do anyway. |
 Prime Minister Tony Blair's government on Saturday defended its plans to crack down on extremist Islamic clerics who preach hate, as critics warned the measures could further alienate British Muslims.
| Just an aside here, but when I was a lad, the noun was "hatred" and the verb was "to hate." When did the language change? |
Britain's chief legal official, Lord Chancellor Charles Falconer, said the deadly attacks in London on July 7 showed the government must act against people "who are encouraging young men who are becoming suicide bombers. I think there is a very widespread sense in the country subsequent to July 7th that things have changed. A new balance needs to be struck. It needs to be a lawful balance but it needs to be an effective balance," he told British Broadcasting Corp. radio.
| To me, that seems the very voice of sweet reason, but then I'm a linear thinker who believes in cause and effect... |
Since the bombings on three subway trains and a bus, which killed 52 people and four suspected suicide attackers, Blair's government has been trying to build support among political opponents and Muslim leaders for new anti-terrorism legislation. On Friday, the prime minister announced proposals to deport foreign nationals who glorify acts of terror, bar radicals from entering Britain, close down mosques linked to extremism, ban certain Islamic groups and, if necessary, amend human rights laws.
| That's basic management school stuff. If you have a problem, you identify solutions, staff them, apply feedback within constraints, then implement them. |
But the government's new plans appear to have cracked the spirit of consensus. Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy warned the measures could alienate the law abiding majority of Britain's 1.8 million Muslims and inflame tensions.
| Whoa, there Chuck! The measures involve deporting foreign nationals who glorify acts of terror, which the presumably law-abiding majority of Muslims should be happy to support; barring radicals from entering Britain, which would keep the population law-abiding, rather than flavoring it with the lawless; closing down mosques linked to extremism, which the law-abiding presumably don't frequent; and banning certain Islamic groups on the basic of their lack of law-abidingness. Which of those points, precisely, do you object to? |
"A fundamental duty, a responsibility on all of us, whether government or nongovernment, is to uphold the rule of law and the safety of the citizen," he said.
| Hey! Boilerplate! Go ahead, ooze some more platitudes... |
"But alongside that, of course, is to uphold civil liberties and the right to free speech. It is getting that balance right that will be very important ..." he told BBC radio.
| Agreed. It's very important. Also important is stopping people from killing large numbers of Londoners with explosives in the public transportation system and maiming even more. |
A British Muslim group called the Islamic Forum Europe warned the measures could jeopardize national unity in Britain.
| That means they don't like it, pehaps because they're not... ummm... law-abiding at heart... |
"If these proposed measures are allowed to see the light of day, they will increase tensions and alienate communities. The measures are counterproductive and will encourage more radicalization," said forum President Musleh Faradhi. "Many Muslims will perceive our prime minister as playing into the hands of the terrorists." He also criticized the government's plans to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir, a radical Islamic group that calls for the formation of an Islamic caliphate and is banned in several countries in Central Asia. Supporters insist it is a nonviolent group persecuted by corrupt governments. "Proscribing it will be counterproductive," said Faradhi. "It will give a green light to despotic leaders in the Muslim world to silence political dissenters."
Meanwhile, three men were scheduled to appear in court Saturday charged with failing to disclose information about the whereabouts of a suspect in the failed July 21 London bomb attacks. The Metropolitan Police said Shadi Sami Abdel Gadir, 22, Omar Almagboul, 20, and Mohamed Kabashi, 23, were charged under the Terrorism Act with withholding information that they "knew or believed might be of material assistance in securing the apprehension, prosecution or conviction" of a terrorist suspect. Three other people already face similar charges, including the wife and sister-in-law of suspected bomber Hamdi Issac, who is being held in Rome.
A postscript...
I had to go out before I'd finished my train of thought on this article, specifically the part about how "the measures could jeopardize national unity in Britain."
I think I've made the point before that "unity" can be a good thing or it can be a bad thing. A common assessment of national purpose is a good thing. But if I step outside and see my next door neighbor, grab her by the neck, throw her to the ground and begin copulating, she and I have achieved a certain unity of purpose. She's still being raped. If I stop by the liquor store to buy a bottle of underpriced champagne and stick my trusty .38 in the cashier's face and holler "gimme your dough!" we've achieved a certain unity of purpose as he's handing over all the money. He's still being robbed. There are times when a certain amount of difference of opinion is good, even if it degenerates into a domestic altercation complete with throwing crockery and calling names. That's because sometimes one side of an argument is right and the other side is wrong. Those who're right have an obligation to stick to their principles, regardless of whether the other side is jumping up and down and rolling its eyes and calling bad names. |
|