Do not trust this person, or her party, with your right to free speech

There are many people who may have voted Conservative in the past, but will do so no longer. Ex-Tory voters are beginning to perceive Cameron’s Conservatives as a party that is Conservative-in-name-only. The Tories spinelessness in dealing with the problems that afflict Britain and also by allowing the Lib Dems to dictate so much of Coalition policy has put many voters off voting Conservative. If electors are looking for yet another reason not to vote Conservative at the 2015 General Election then Home Secretary Theresa May’s proposals to tackle extremism should goad voters into electing someone else other than the Tories.

There is an urgent need for the British government to bring in laws that specifically target the ideology of Islam because that is where the problems with terror and terror promotion are coming from. What we have got from Theresa May is nothing like what is needed and is such a woolly and ‘scattergun’ approach, that such powers are more likely to be used against those opposed to Islamic terror than the Islamic terrorists and those who assist them.

The Home Secretary’s proposals also could bring back, in another form, the hated and much misused 1986 Public Order Act Section 5 powers, where someone could be arrested not for inciting violence but merely for causing ‘alarm and distress’. What is worse is that the courts would judge alleged infringements of this new law under the lesser civil standard of proof which is ‘on the balance of probabilities’ rather than the criminal standard of ‘beyond reasonable doubt.’

Because these new proposals do not specifically target Islam but are focussed on a broad spectrum of what the Government defines as ‘extremism’ there is the very real prospect of people being arrested for pointing out that Britain has problems with Islamic sedition rather than the Muslim traitors themselves. This will further entrench the double standard in law that is enraging so many British people from across the political spectrum. Under May’s proposals we could see a situation where marching round Tower Hamlets proclaiming the values of an Islamic Caliphate is not an arrestable offence but pointing out that there is a bunch of Islamic thugs doing this would get the speaker opposing the Caliphate thugs arrested and excluded from public life and having their words censored by the authorities. Under these proposals would a journalist who uncovered Rotherham-style Islamic Rape Gangs be prohibited from publicising what was happening? At the very least it will make journalists even more wary of tackling stories which are critical of Islam.

Public criticism of these proposals, which to my mind are far too broad-brush to be anything but a way of shutting up critics of Islam, is starting to come from different quarters. The politics.co.uk website said:

“This is a clear attempt to degrade British legal standards. Groups which incite violence are already banned. This would apply bans to a lower standard, where a minister believes they might create a risk violence by virtue of their activity. Say Nigel Farage makes an impassioned speech against Muslim immigration. This might create a risk of violence among impressionable viewers fired up by his rhetoric. Should Ukip be subject to the orders?

The use of the phrases “public disorder” and “harassment” are particularly concerning. It is easy to imagine the use of banning orders against harmless groups like Occupy or UK Uncut ahead of a May Day protest. Anti-abortion groups, who often camp outside of abortion clinics trying to talk to women going in for a termination, often while holding graphic images of dead foetuses, could potentially be included in the harassment category.

The standard of proof for these initiatives is very low. There’ll be an immediate review by the high court, but ministers must only “reasonably believe” the group satisfies these criteria.

Extremism disruption orders – which would apply to individuals, not groups – would be issued by a high court judge on an application from the police on the lower legal test of “balance of probabilities” rather than the stronger test of “beyond reasonable doubt”. This means judges won’t even need to be sure before they strip British citizens of their rights of free speech.

Individuals would be banned from speaking at public events, protests or meetings, they’d have to inform the police in advance of a public event they planned to attend and could be barred from particular locations. They could not broadcast, associate with certain people, or post to social media without police authorisation.

Again, the high court would have to decide the individual was intending to spread, incite, promote or justify hatred on the basis of a person’s disability, gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation “for the purpose of overthrowing democracy”. But when Lord Carlile, the former independent reviewer of terrorism laws, was on the Today programme this morning, he suggested the legal standard would also include “alarm or distress”.

That’s a reasonable conclusion. ‘Alarm and distress’ are standard statutory categories added to ‘harassment’, for instance in Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. They are very broad and problematic categories and indeed have led to some quite perverse outcomes. Police often arrested people for swearing, for instance, by claiming to be personally ‘distressed’ by it. An Oxford student was arrested for saying a police horse was gay. The standard is slippery and problematic at the best of times. Applying it to anything as severe as extremism orders is asking for disaster.”

Read the rest of this piece from politics.co.uk here:

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2014/09/30/could-theresa-may-s-extremism-asbo-ban-the-socialist-workers

It is difficult to disagree with the opinion of politics.co.uk that such a policy would strip Britons who wish to point out the shortcomings of the ideology of Islam of their right to free speech. For example: I disagree vehemently with the politics of the Socialist Workers Party and their thuggish members, but I have no desire to see them banned. It is pretty obvious that although this policy is being sold to the public as a means of tackling Islamic extremism, in practise these new powers will be used against those who point out the dangers of Islamic extremism. This is a bad law proposed by a dying and discredited Conservative party that is no longer worthy of the description ‘conservative’.

These proposals are starting to be attacked by commentators from both the political Left and the political Right. I may disagree with Sarah AB of the Harry’s Place website on many things, most notably her almost pathological desire to be ‘fair’ and her support for the Tell Mama organisation, but her recent piece on May’s proposals deserves a read:

Sarah AB said:

“There is something alarmingly vague about some of Theresa May’s latest proposals to tackle extremism.

At the moment, organisations can only be banned if there is evidence of links to terrorism.

Under the Tories’ new proposals, groups that cannot currently be proscribed could be subject to banning orders should ministers “reasonably believe” that they intend to incite religious or racial hatred, to threaten democracy or if there is a pressing need to protect the public from harm, either from a risk of violence, public disorder, harassment or other criminal acts.

There are several layers here – there has to be a ‘reasonable belief’ that a group ‘intend[s]‘ to incite hate. And what is meant by ‘threaten democracy’ precisely? If a theoretical opposition to democracy, because it is perceived to be in conflict with Islamic teachings (or because Russell Brand thinks it’s a waste of time), is to be outlawed – does that mean iERA might be illegal? Would a reasonable belief that a group might be inciting religious or racial hatred be enough to proscribe the EDL or Britain First? I’m not a fan of any of these groups, but banning is a serious step.

Although there’s nothing wrong with any constructive group seeking funding or with extremists being scrutinised, this bald binary, framed as a two pronged policy on Islam, is rather disconcerting.

Among other things, the new strategy outlined by Mrs May will seek to bolster Islamic institutions that operate in a way which is “compatible” with British values and look to improve vetting procedures to prevent extremists being appointed to positions of authority, including in schools.

John Sargeant argues that these proposals are misjudged because, while the media hold extremists to account, the government refuses to acknowledge the links between terrorism and religion.  There’s certainly something in this, and non-violent extremism has too often been given a free pass. But although sections of the media may challenge extremists’ views, some offer them a platform while, at the other end of the spectrum, scare stories are spread and decidedly non-extreme Muslims treated with suspicion.  And inviting someone like Anjem Choudhary to speak, even where his view are challenged, infuriates many more liberal Muslims, and inflames (for different reasons) the Islamic and the conventional far right.”

Read the rest of this piece and the comments from Harry’s Place here:

http://hurryupharry.org/2014/09/30/proposed-new-measures-against-extremism/

Sarah AB is correct in describing these proposals as ‘alarmingly vague’ and as such appear to have massive potential to be misused by pro-Islam police, civil servants and politicians. Does anyone want to bet that some of the first uses of such new laws will not be against the Anjem Choudary’s or similar of this world, but will be used against those who campaign and demonstrate against Islamic sedition?

This comment from the Harry’s Place commentator Mettaculture was especially illuminating and shows where these new proposals could lead.

Mettaculture said:

“ Good God these are the broadest and most chilling proposals for a new Sedition and Seditious conspiracy law in UK history.

Since Elizabethan times sedition has required proof of a direct incitement to disorder and violence to convict a defendant it was necessary to establish that the accused “meant that the people should make use of physical force as their own resource to obtain justice, and meant to excite the people to take the power in to their own hands, and meant to excite them to tumult and disorder.”

The last prosecution for sedition in the United Kingdom was in 1972, when three people were charged with seditious conspiracy and uttering seditious words for attempting to recruit people to travel to Northern Ireland to fight in support of Republicans.

In 1977, a Law Commission working paper recommended that the common law offence of sedition in England and Wales be abolished. They said that they thought that this offence was redundant and that it was not necessary to have any offence of sedition. However this proposal was not implemented until 2009, when sedition and seditious libel (as common law offences) were abolished by section 73 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (with effect on 12 January 2010). Sedition by an alien is still an offence under section 3 of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act 1919.

In Scotland, section 51 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 abolished the common law offences of sedition and leasing-making with effect from 28 March 2011.

Yes huge own goal any person who believes in democracy and free speech and free assembly should oppose this abomination. Such a law would be instantly challenged under the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights where the doctrine of proportionality would not allow such an unfettered preemptive power by ministers.

Our problem in the UK is not the absence of appropriate laws but a failure to apply them non selectively.

I can see these laws being used to silence any kind of dissent (certainly the EDL) with no indication that they would ever be used against IS organising. Our problem is institutional cowardice in dealing with the problem we have.

Introducing draconian legislation that can only end in chilling free speech can only back fire.

I do not trust May to know a genuine threat to democracy if it bit her but I am sure she has lots of people she would like to lock up that she thinks she has a reasonable view that they are harmful.”

It is difficult to disagree with Mettaculture when they say that this is a ‘huge own goal’ by Theresa May. I would go further and state that May’s proposals will do very little to deal with the Islamic problems that we as a nation face, but will only silence those who wish to speak about the problems.

Those who still intend to vote Conservative at the next General Election should examine the Home Secretary’s proposals and what their effect will be on Britain, and vote for somebody else or some other party. If you want to see the last vestiges of free speech in Britain disappear, the go ahead, vote Conservative. These proposals are a wet dream for the Jihadists and Islamists of Britain and a smack in the mouth for those who oppose Jihadism.

It is disgusting that we have come to the stage where a vote for the Conservatives is a vote for the silencing of dissent at a time when dissent about the ideology of Islam is the very thing that is needed in order that our freedoms can survive.