Let these nutters have their say
While I didn't think it was right to allow an al-Muhajiroun protest through Wootton Bassett, given the inflammatory nature of the march, the whole coverage of the event has been a spectacular own-goal for everyone except this one, small, extremist group, who have been given acres of publicity - well beyond their wildest dreams, well beyond the amount their tiny influence deserves, and well beyond what they should have been given.
That the protest would definitely go ahead was always in doubt - Anjem Choudhary and his chums have form for getting maximum publicity and then suddenly running away. Yet the media ploughed on with horror. These were not just a few nutters trying to rabble-rouse a tiny protest at the site of repatriations; they became the bogeyman.
That's why the media love Islam4UK - the catchier name of al-Muhajiroun, used so that readers don't have to try and wonder what those unfamiliar letter groupings sound like, and besides, it's better branding for the bogeyman. They represent fear. They are Islamists, militant, angry and aggressive. They are dhimmitude. They are Londonistan. They are the scary image that people who are scared of Muslims see. They would struggle to pack out a cub scout hut, let alone any bigger venue, but that's not the point; they punch well above their weight because they're what the media think we fear most. And in a lot of cases they're right.
They cause awkward questions about freedom of speech, and freedom in general. These are people who, after all, would almost certainly seek to deny the freedoms of others, in the extraordinarily unlikely event that they ever managed to get any kind of political power. But that said, I've always thought the best thing to do would be to let them have their deeply unpleasant say - not necessarily all over the media, which is where they've been delighted to be over the past couple of weeks, but in protests they organise themselves, so long as they're not set up to be taunting and aggressive, or located in particularly inflammatory places.
I've said it before about extreme right-wingers and racists - they shouldn't be banned from the country. They should be allowed in, with no fanfare, no hand-wringing, no worries, unless they pose a genuine threat to security, which these jokers don't - and which Islam4UK don't either, as far as I am aware. It's the deep intake of breath and the screaming that gives these people the publicity they crave for their vile views; and it's a lesson that this Government has failed to learn time and time again.
But the Government is wrong to ban this organisation, poisonous and awful though it is. That does nothing other than play into their hands as well. It's not as if this handful of extremists will do anything other than regroup somewhere else, as something else; they're not going to change their views or their intent overnight, just because they've been told they can't be Islam4UK any more.
Let these nutters have their say. Just don't give it any more credence than it deserves. Don't say they represent Muslims, because they don't. Don't say they're anything other than extremists, because they aren't. Don't give them so much airtime and column inches if they're a small group that shouts very loudly. Is that possible? Or is it the desire to tap into people's fears that means they're given immensely more coverage than they deserve?
Alan Johnson:
"Proscription is a tough but necessary power to tackle terrorism and is not a course we take lightly.
"We are clear that an organisation should not be able to circumvent proscription by simply changing its name."
If these people have committed offences, then let them be tried in a court of law - yet there are no charges, despite the thought-crime offences brought in by this most illiberal of Governments. If they haven't committed any crimes even under those laws, then they are not terrorists. Yet banning them just makes terror exist where there was none: it creates a climate of fear and suspicion of a real and persistent threat, which is exactly what any terrorist wants.
Well done Alan Johnson. You're a greater threat to freedom than Islam4UK ever were.
See also: Septicisle - The impossibility of freedom of speech
No related posts.
Buy my book, it’s great
Switch site
Donate
Recent Posts
- Cheerio, cheerio, cheerio…
- Children died
- The letters you never get around to sending
- Applying again
- I just sent Robin round – 2
Most Commented On
Recent Comments
- Iain on Applying again
- Roger on The letters you never get around to sending
- Dave Hodgkinson on The letters you never get around to sending
- droid on The letters you never get around to sending
- Rogue_Leader on The letters you never get around to sending
About Me
Hello. I'm a Bristol-based writer and soon-to-be-redundant journalist. You can read more about me and the Enemies site here, or follow me on Twitter. Email me if you like - antonvowl at live dot co dot uk
If you're struggling to read the site please use the drop down box below to increase the text size.
January 12th, 2010 - 10:32
Agreed. The government's strategy seems to be completely failing:
http://blog.matthewcain.co.uk/islam4uk-is-the-government-strategy-flawed
January 12th, 2010 - 10:34
I understand they will individually be free to speak, but not to organise to incite breaches of the peace, or prevent local traders in Luton from earning a living.
I was threatened in a UK factory by a couple of islamo-fascists prior to 9/11 as friendly muslims confirmed.
If they were boozed up teenagers causing the same sort of trouble some sort of ASBO would not be questioned.
It does seem that all that is requited is for someone to say "Liberty" and every libertine will parade to order.
January 12th, 2010 - 10:35
I understand they will individually be free to speak, but not to organise to incite breaches of the peace, or prevent local traders in Luton from earning a living.
I was threatened in a UK factory by a couple of islamo-fascists prior to 9/11 as friendly muslims confirmed.
If they were boozed up teenagers causing the same sort of trouble some sort of ASBO would not be questioned.
It does seem that all that is requited is for someone to say "Liberty" and every libertine will parade to order.
January 12th, 2010 - 10:58
I completely agree. Extremists of any kind can be shown for what they are by way of reasoned argument.
Banning them or allowing them no platform allows them to portray themselves as martyrs, and gives them and their followers the impression that they are much more powerful than they are.
Nick Griffin on question time was a hoot. He showed himself for what he is: A buffoon with next to no grasp of basic history, who can barely string an intelligent sentence together. Ripping him to shreds was like taking candy from a baby. His nasty ideas were shown to be baseless. That, in my opinion, is the way to deal with these people.
January 12th, 2010 - 10:59
As you note, these people would have no voice without the media. The government react to the media (badly). So why blame only the government?
It's the media who are doing the fearmongering. Doesn't that literally make the media the terrorists here?
January 12th, 2010 - 12:26
Well said! Those were pretty much my thoughts on hearing they've been banned as a terrorist group. I mean, if they actually were terrorists then they'd be in prison, right? Banning them no doubt gives them a nice feeling of martyrdom, and makes them seem so much more important than they are.
January 12th, 2010 - 13:06
Don't you see, he is trying to protect us from our freedoms? Or trying to protect our freedoms by rescinding some freedoms in order to ring-fence the other freedoms…or something like that…
January 12th, 2010 - 13:25
Quite right!
There has been a merry dance between the New Labour government and the press – although it has changed to a very awkward one since Gordon Brown became PM. (I think it's quite easy to imagine Tony dancing better than Gordon – although neither would be as good as John Sergeant).
Unfortunately, the government has to be seen to be doing something – especially because it has become such a big issue in the press and because we are approaching a general election.
January 12th, 2010 - 13:47
I just heard Choudhary on ITV news, stating 'I do not believe in freedom, I do not believe in democracy, I do not believe in freedom of speech. I believe in divine law'. It is utterly laughable that they come out with these statements and then criticise the UK government for doing exactly what they propose!
Quite frankly, I can criticise the UK government for this policy – because I DO believe in freedom of speech!
January 12th, 2010 - 23:04
As I understand it, this group have called for the country to be run under Sharia law. They should be banned for that? I mean the country is already run under Church of England law. Does this mean the CofE will be banned and we will finally get secularism in the UK?
"Don't you see, he is trying to protect us from our freedoms? Or trying to protect our freedoms by rescinding some freedoms in order to ring-fence the other freedoms…or something like that…"
Nah, Daniel. The refrain goes, "They hate us for our freedoms". So if we have less freedoms, they'll hate us less, right?
January 13th, 2010 - 09:25
Oriel Boy:
First up, I don't buy that the UK is ran under Church of England law, because there isn't such a thing and the power of the C of E church in the UK is weak at best, so by all means we should defend the rights of the Islamic bigots but not for that reason.
And the freedom riff I was on was a joke.