Why Does The Uk Welcome Extremists Yet Ban Critics Of Extremists?

[Khandro]

In November, it was reported that the Pakistani Christian mother of five, Asia Bibi, was unlikely to be offered asylum by the British government due to concerns about "community" relations in the UK. What this means is that the UK government was worried that Muslims of Pakistani origin in Britain may object to the presence in the UK of a Christian woman who has spent most of the last decade on death row in Pakistan, before being officially declared innocent of a trumped-up charge of "blasphemy".


One person who has had no trouble being in London is Dr Ataollah Mohajerani, Iran's former Minister of Culture and Islamic Guidance. Mohajerani is best known for his book-length defence of the Ayatollah Khomeini's fatwa against the British novelist Salman Rushdie.


This week we learned that the UK government has allowed in a man called Brahim Belkaid, a 41-year old of German origin, believed to have inspired up to 140 people to join al-Qaeda and ISIS. His Facebook messages have included messages with bullets and a sword on them saying, "Jihad: the Only Solution".


It is almost as though the UK government has decided that while extremist clerics can only rarely be banned, critics of such clerics can be banned with ease. The problem is that the trend for taking a laxer view of extremists than of their critics keeps on happening.


Douglas Murray

[dannyk13]

Regarding Asia Bibi. I think the worry was that there was the possibility of her coming to some harm from UK based extremists.

[-Talbot-]

Think again, danny.

And your answer does not address the question.

[dannyk13]

Talbot, as you seem privy to Government thinking please enlighten me.

[dannyk13]

Talbot //And your answer does not address the question.//
I was referring only to that part regarding Asia Bibi, as my post made clear.

[Khandro]

danny; //I think the worry was that there was the possibility of her coming to some harm from UK based extremists.//

Are you saying the the British government didn't offer her protection for her own good !!!, yet can spend millions protecting scum like Anjem Choudary?

[dannyk13]

Khandro, No I am not saying that.I think it more probable that the Government were trying to avoid any embarrassment if she did come to some harm.

[dannyk13]

Khandro, as for the other part of your OP ,regarding extremists, I completely agree with you.

[Canary42]

The same reason it welcomes homosexuals but bans homophobics.

[Khandro]

danny; Understood.

canary; //The same reason it welcomes homosexuals but bans homophobics.//

My mind may be slow after the Christmas festivities, but I'm having difficulty understanding that analogy, - if that's what it is.

[naomi24]

I don't understand Canary's analogy either. It makes no sense.

[Old_Geezer]

The analogy is clear but flawed. Homosexuals are not considered a danger, or lawbreakers, extremists are. Homophobics, not that anyone really has a phobia about homosexuals, are critics of lifestyles that aren't any of their business, whist critics of extremists are bringing attention to genuine danger.

IMO the government finds extreme criticism to be unhelpful rabble-rousing, causing rifts in society, and hopes to nip it in the bud. Whereas extremeists aren't welcome anyway, but are harder to counter within the law. Extremist clerics should be banned but drawing a line on who qualifies, and ensuring banning doesn't give them more publicity that letting them in and monitoring does, is a difficult call.

[fender62]

Old_Geezer, interesting answer..so the public cannot criticize hate preacher being allowed into the uk, so as not to offend there muslim audiences, seems counter productive, as said audience becomes more radical and anti western, although living in a country who's system they despise...except free nhs schooling benefits housing and the plethora of other benefits, makes one think, there only here for one reason.

[Peter Pedant]

// I don't understand Canary's analogy either. It makes no sense.//

well done Canary - not for outfoxing Nigh - that happens every day - but a thoughtful analogy

[ suppose there are two sets A and B, and their names sound like each other ( homosexual and homophobe) it is quite possible to ban One (B) and not the other (A)

usual suspect - foo what dat den?]

[Old_Geezer]

One may criticize (free speech and all that) but it depends how. Some activities are seen as unhelpful. It's to do with accepting the realities of the situation. But suspect visitors need to be monitored to ensure they don't break laws, such as hate speech etc.. They try that and the situation has changed.