New Anti-terrorist measures

[Ghazala]

http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflic...istan_2775.jsp

[voltaires_priest]

Link doesn't seem to work.



V

[Ghazala]

I just clicked & it came up.

[voltaires_priest]

Sorry yeah I can see it now

As regards "Londonistan", I'm not sure just how far it was ever actually a coherent "policy" in the sense of a worked out strategy for asylum and immigration. More like a series of tactical decisions that backfired.

And as to what one does from here on in, I'm certainly not in favour of continuing to offer asylum to destructive criminals like OBM and Abu Qutada. However I'm very uneasy about the idea of deporting people on the spurious promise that they won't be tortured - after all the whole point of being able to claim some kind of legitimacy in the field of democracy, freedom (and all the other cliches) is that "we" do things in a better way than extremists and torturers do. I'm no more inclined to trust Mubarak's or Assad's promises not to torture people, than I am to trust OBM's or Qutada's protests about their so-called "human right" to be in the UK whilst calling for its destruction.



V

[Ghazala]

I've never understood the policy of allowing these people to remain and behave in this way. Freedom of speech is one thing but incitement is another is it not? How do they sit together? Are there absolutely no limits on freedom of speech? Like you said, the 'tactical decisions' have backfired. It is time to change the approach. I know that these decisions are polically motivated but what isn't now?

Re: Mubarak. No doubt the promises not to torture are empty promises but so what?! I have little sympathy for Abu Hamza etc. Let them go & exercise their 'human rights' in their countries of origin. I do not see how the UK should have to accommodate these people - even if only to show that things are done better here. They may have come to this country as asylum seekers and obtained refugee status on the basis that they were wanted in their countries. However, certain people are excluded from refugee status; eg. they are a danger to the host country. I think on a very strict interpretation, they could be deemed a danger. In any event, most of these people are now nationals rather than refugees (nationality wiping out refugee status). They do not require international protection.

This country owes them nothing. In the current climate, they will probably get nothing.....

[voltaires_priest]

I'm not denying you've got a point - I mean, I won't be joining any "Save Omar" campaign

I guess it's a case of trying to balance the freedoms and social protections (like the NHS, benefits for the unemployed etc) that we as a society value, with the fact that people like Omar and Abu Qutada are determined to abuse them (not to mention the repugnant Al-Masari). Which is an easy cliche to for me to roll off, but not one for which I've got a policy solution in mind.



V

[Ghazala]

Striking a new balance is something which worries me. By that I mean, the changes we can expect. Not just by the authorities - but changes in the people around you. Living in London, you are used to a multicultural multifaith society, where generally people are respected. Racist acts are not usual overt - in fact, people know better than to voice vile views in public because they know damn well it isnt tolerated here. Generally I mean. Since the bombings, things have changed. I really have noticed it, even in 'ethnic' areas...

Oh, btw the social security system - now that's something which could do with a major overhaul