UK: Tougher measures against 'hate preachers' announced

Tougher measures to prevent extremists entering the UK have been announced by Home Secretary Jacqui Smith.


They are designed to stop people - including so-called "preachers of hate" - stirring up tension.


The names of some of the people being excluded will now be published. There have been 230 people barred since 2005.


Ms Smith said there would now be "a presumption in favour of exclusion" for those people "fostering, encouraging or spreading extremism and hatred".


The changes mean it will be up to the individual concerned to prove they will not "stir up tension".


'Privilege'


Ms Smith added: "Through these tough new measures I will stop those who want to spread extremism, hatred and violent messages in our communities from coming to our country.


"Coming to the UK is a privilege and I refuse to extend that privilege to individuals who abuse our standards and values to undermine our way of life. "


The 230 previously blocked have included neo-Nazis, holocaust deniers and animal rights activists. About 80 of them have been religious extremists.


(more)


Source: BBC (English)

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

That's good because they aren't being deported. Jihad Watch, citing the Telegraph, says that one one preacher of hate has been deported.

Joachim Martillo said...

Are not David Horowitz (Islamofascism Week), Daniel Pipes, and all the people associated with the distribution of Obsession extremist hate-mongers?

Jeffrey Goldberg just made his accusation against Aish haTorah in The Jewish Extremists Behind Obsession. (See also Jeffrey Goldberg, Another Walt, Obsession.)

Shouldn't such people be banned from entering the UK (or the USA) to spread their extremist incitement?

Today the world's most dangerous extremists and hate-mongers are practically all Jewish and a threat to the entire human population because so many have so much access to immense amounts of money or to high government officials especially in the UK and the USA

Either the regulations apply the same to Muslims and Jews, or there is something seriously with the application of laws in the UK (and the USA).

USA and UK citizens need to address whether the USA and the UK are to be Rechtstaaten, where laws are enforced according to a regular, predictable and non-descriminatory system, or Judenstaaten, where Jews are privileged over non-Jews.

There is probably no more serious issue in our countries today.

Esther said...

Joachim Martello,

I started answering you, but then realized there's no point, is there? You don't see the difference between people who want to kill you and people who might disagree with you? Pretty sad, if you ask me.

Joachim Martillo said...

If you were Muslim, you would have to conclude that Horowitz, Pipes, Steyn, Aish haTorah, etc. at the very least want to deprive you of civil rights, probably want you driven from the country, and certainly wouldn't mind a little genocide directed your way.

Molding Islamophobia according to the Pattern of Classic Anti-Semitism describes exactly what extremist Jewish hate-mongers are trying to do as they shield themselves from scrutiny by flinging scattershot charges of anti-Semitism. The quote from Mark Steyn is particularly telling.

Yet, in truth this behavior is not the worst of Jewish extremist hate-mongering. Jewish Zionist Neocons acting as a Jewish special interest have manipulated the USA (and to a lesser extent) the UK into killing at least a million Arabs and Muslims and dislocating an order of magnitude more.

Identifying Jewish Zionist hate-mongering and extremism as perhaps the greatest threat to the world today is completely reasonable analysis.

Over at Mondoweiss Philip Weiss has been discussing Jewish exceptionalism and possibly missing Yuri Slezkine's main point in The Jewish Century, but the real issue is power as I discuss in Jewish Exceptionalism or Jewish Domination.

Esther said...

Joachim Martillo,


If you were Muslim, you would have to conclude that
...

I'm sorry, could you bring proof? Many Muslims also concluded that the CIA brought down the World Trade Center. Am I supposed to follow their logic?

Joachim Martillo said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Esther said...

Joachim Martillo,

I supposed I asked for this, and so I apologize for censoring you anyway. You see, I thought as somebody who claimed to be a researcher, there would be no way you would believe 9/11 conspiracy theories. My mistake.

Joachim Martillo said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Esther said...

Joachim Martillo,

Please don't post any conspiracy theories on my site. Not Zionist, not Jewish, not American etc.

Joachim Martillo said...

Should I be surprised that you are unable to distinguish between discussing conspiracy theories and proposing a conspiracy theory?

Did you say you were in a PhD program?

Esther said...

Joachim Martillo,

I find it very difficult to see the difference in your comments. Particularly since you declare yourself to be a person who does believe in some conspiracies.

I never said anything about my academic qualifications.

To get back to the original point, I'm still waiting for the proof of your accusations against Pipes et al. Saying that Muslims 'have to conclude' something doesn't say much. I brought up 9/11 as something else they don't "have to conclude" and you said that many non-Muslims also concluded the CIA was involved. Ok, so what? Again you went off topic, and this time I made the mistake of following you.

Joachim Martillo said...

There is a tremendous amount of literature that documents in detail how David Horowitz, Daniel Pipes, and Aish haTorah staff are extremist hate-mongers.

Smearcasting is one such text.

Jeffrey Goldberg (of the Atlantic), James Carroll (Constantine's Sword, David Shasha (Center for Sephardic Heritage, Brooklyn, NY) and many others have analyzed the nonsense these people spew in gory detail in order to demonstrate how it is filled with hateful extremism.

It boggles my mind that you even would suggest that there is a dispute whether Daniel Pipes is a hate-mongering extremist.

In Pipes's case there is even a generational aspect to his disinformation and propaganda.

Solzhenitsyn and I could agree on very little about Russian politics, but we did agree that Daniel Pipes's father Richard Pipes maliciously misrepresented the history and politics of Russia.

As far as I can tell, Daniel Pipes is still in the family business.

Are you suggesting that all conspiracies are fabrications?

I am sorry, but Billington has an excellent book entitled Fire in the Minds of Men that discusses conspiratorial activities all over Europe.

Many people have written about The Protocols of the Elders of Zion without believing in the text. I have done so.

Yet, Iran-Contra was a recent important conspiracy that involved elements of the US Army, the CIA, the Israeli government, and the Iranian government.

To believe that the CIA could not possibly have been involved in some way with 9/11 is to ignore the historical pattern of CIA behavior since its founding.

Do you have access to top secret CIA archival information? I don't. So what can I say except that I can't rule it out.

In any case, I have documented on my web site a David Project-organized conspiracy against rights, i.e., the Roxbury Mosque Controversy , and I have included information on the involvement of the Israeli government. (See Subjugating American Muslims to Israel.)

Former US diplomat J. Brady Kiesling has an interesting passage in his book Diplomacy Lessons. He confesses on pp. 107-108:

Most Greek bookstores carry Greek translations of all the latest books by Noam Chomsky, an American intellectual gifted at connecting all the dots of U.S. behavior into a tidy picture. In 2001 I assured Mr. Tegopoulos, the publisher of Athens’ most popular leftist newspaper, that his favorite American philosopher was clinically insane.” Chomsky, I said, had deduced a vast, invisible mechanism of systematic U.S. oppression and exploitation, one that was not true to human nature and could not have operated over decades without becoming visible to its employees. I reassured Tegopoulos that the U.S. foreign policy apparatus could not conspire its way effectively out of a paper bag.

I feel more charitably disposed toward Chomsky now. The Iraq War proved that the United States does have a small group of extremely intelligent, disciplined, highly competitive individuals competent enough to mobilize the U.S. bureaucracy around a single mission such as regime change in Iraq. Chomsky’s favorite conspirators, the former Troskyites turned neoconservatives, might even have read Chomsky in their youth. Certainly they made the same mistake he did. They confused mastery over the U.S. bureaucratic system with U.S. power to triumph over the real world.


I can empathize. I used to be highly sympathetic both to the American Jewish community and also to the State of Israel until Israeli behavior in the Occupied Territories as well as the policies of the second Bush administration forced me to reevaluate my original assumptions and to study issues relating to the Middle East in more detail.

Despite Kiesling’s statement above, describing Neoconservatives as Chomsky’s favorite conspirators is questionable. They do not even figure Chomsky’s Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel, and the Palestinians[117] with the exception of Richard Perle, who receives brief mention on p. 450 of the updated edition. If anyone is thinking of Neoconservatives as conspirators, that person is Kiesling and not Chomsky.

Esther said...

Joachim Martillo,

I still didn't hear from you anything about how they are extremist hate mongers. You know.. like give examples? Don't give me what other people have said. Don't tell me what you accuse somebody's father of doing. Just give me examples of their hate mongering.

Remember, you started off by saying that the world's most dangerous extremists and hate-mongers are practically all Jewish and a threat to the entire world population. So once you explain what they said that caused you think that, we can start looking at what extremist Muslims say. Or the Hindu attacks against Christians. Or the Chinese oppression of their minorities. And other such threats, so that we can see if the people you mentioned are really the biggest threat there is.

I do believe that governmental bodies can do things without the public's knowledge. I don't believe a governmental body in the US will kill its own citizens. Please do not continue discussing conspiracy theories on my site.

Joachim Martillo said...

Here is David Shasha on Obsession (and therefore on Aish and Daniel Pipes):

And we cannot forget while watching this execrable piece of propaganda, a work that is as unhelpful pedagogically as it is dangerous, that the dual logic of contradiction is continually at play: we are TOLD that Islam is not like what is being shown on the screen and yet this is what is being SHOWN to us with a relentlessness that puts the rhetoric of Islam as a peaceful religion to the lie. After a steady diet of one solid hour of seeing images of Muslims juxtaposed - LITERALLY - with those of Hitler and other Nazis, I am not sure if it takes a genius to figure out that we are being browbeaten into capitulation to hate all Muslims.

And to make sure that we do not forget this fact, we are treated to an extensive set of interview clips with an old man named Alfons Heck - a now-reformed former member of the Hitler Youth!

The "obsession" of this film is to turn the current situation with what are admittedly some very dangerous people - all of whom it must be honestly stated are religious Muslim fanatics who twist the words of their traditions and promote ideas of hate and violence that have continually been spread throughout the world over the course of the past century - and make it into a primordial battle being waged between absolute good and absolute evil.

Now it is not at all necessary for us to demand that "Obsession" be fair, or that it present the socio-political and historical contexts that have created this mess. Having said this, it does seem more than curious that the producers of "Obsession" make this demand of the Muslims themselves. And indeed, the visual techniques used in the film are eerily similar to those used by the Muslim fanatics themselves: the endless repetitive barrage of flashy and shocking images presented in a de-contextualized atmosphere smacks of what we might best call hypocrisy. But I think we would more accurately understand the rhetorical mechanisms of "Obsession" as a form of PILPUL; the attempt to speak out of both sides of one's mouth while not-so-subtly railroading home a single, obsessive mono-causal point.


He seems to be describing extremist hate-mongering to incite war or genocide on all Muslims.

I am not sure which Arabic propaganda material Shasha viewed, but I have watched both Faris bila Jawad and the Hezbollah production of The Elders of the Protocols of Zion, and a few Syrian propaganda films. The Arabic stuff was laughable by comparison with Obsession, which really seems to have been modeled on Der ewige Jude and similar German Nazi propaganda -- apparently a consensus opinion among those of us familiar with German Nazi materials.

Esther said...

Joachim Martillo,

I don't follow what you are saying. Can you please tell me what specific scenes in Obsession were hate mongering?

I understand from what you write that you object to seeing Muslim jihadists? I don't see why a movie about Muslim jihad should focus on anything but.. Muslim Jihad. My blog is actually meant to focus on (you guessed it) Islam in Europe. I therefore don't usually post stories about Christians, or Hindus, or Sikhs, not in Europe and not elsewhere. I'm not allowed to do that?

Shocking, really, that you compare a film about Muslim jihadists, which happens to use real live footage of Muslim jihadists, to films created by the Nazis to demonize Jews. Did Obssesion show Muslims as rats or snakes? Did it talk about racial purity? I really fail to see the comparison you find so obvious.

This comment is not meant to start a discussion about Nazis. I'm just waiting for you to bring an example of the vile hate mongering you say Daniel Pipes does.

When a Muslim imam says something outrageous you start by talking about how bad Jews are and how Muslims are just being targeted by the Great Zionist Conspiracy. After jumping at me when I wrote Fawaz was a radical, you never did answer my question about whether you think Fawaz is an average Muslim. I don't know why. Either you think he's radical or you think he represents the average Muslim. Which one do you prefer?