Labour4Authoritarianism


Alan Johnson has been fairly quiet since Gordon Brown killed off his leadership ambitions by giving him the hospital pass that is the Home Office.

But yesterday, Postman Pat leapt back into the limelight with an astonishing decision, a directive that may well win him - and will certainly win this woeful Government - a minor place in the history books.

Just as the furore over Islam4UK and their preposterously offensive coffin-waving ideas was dying down, The Government have blundered in, late to the party as ever, and deftly fucked it all up.

In their usual authoritarian left fashion, the Government have once again decided that the best way to deal with something they don't like or understand is to ... err ... ban it.

Postman Pat, visions of Daily Mail headlines doubtless whirling in his brain, said:

"I have today laid an order which will proscribe al-Muhajiroun, Islam4UK, and a number of the other names the organisation goes by ...

Proscription is a tough but necessary power to tackle terrorism and is not a course we take lightly.


Way to go guys! Fucking genius.

In one stroke, you have given these idiots huge publicity, a sense of martyrdom and a damn good reason to be a lot more fucking secretive in future.

You've also, yet a-fucking-gain, used the terrorist bogeyman, and the knee-jerk, draconian laws you flung together after you'd invented him, to lazily deal with something - anything - that upsets you.

Yes, these guys are fully-fledged foaming fuckwits, but are they actully terrorists? No.

As the contemptible Islam4UK spokesman Anjem Choudary, gulping down the oxygen of publicity on the Today programme, said:

"I challenge anyone to authentically prove that any of our members have been involved in any violent activities or promoting violent activities or asking anyone to carry out any sort of military operations.

"We are always at pains to stress that we are an ideological and political organisation.


You know what? No-one will, because no-one can. The nutter is fucking right.

For the benefit of those who don't - or don't want to - understand how democracy should work, the crazed extremist kindly, patronisingly explained:

: ".. if you don't agree with the government and you want to expose their foreign policy, then freedom quickly dissipates and turns into dictatorship."


You know what? This swivel-eyed, bearded hate-monkey is actually right, for fuck's sake.

The banning of a political organisation? The threat of 10 years in prison for joining? No Free Speech for those the Government don't agree with?

Jesus Christ, how the fuck did we come to this?

.

17 comments:

Cosmic Navel Lint said...

I have to agree with at least some of the tone of this piece: most reasonable people would see banning only as a last resort, i.e. when you've run out of options and ideas (alas, both signal qualities of this gov't), and, importantly, when the nature of the threat is verifiable, clear and present, say as with the IRA/PIRA/INLA et al. To the best of my knowledge, and apart from holding (depending on your point of view) objectionable opinions, Islam4UK meet none of the above criteria and, whilst being largely political agitators, do not qualify, in the strict sense of the term, as 'terrorists'.

Sadly, as rightly you point out, this band of comparative nobodies, Islam4UK, have now been gifted a massive boost to their 'cred', certainly in extremist circles, thanks to this one action by Alan Johnson (a man who, rather regrettably, never fully explored or realised his true vocation as a postman).

Being realistic, how many of us had actually heard of Islam4UK before they threatened to waltz through Wootton Bassett? They were just a bunch of opportunistic chancers and Wahhabi-wannabes - even the Muslim Council of Great Britain treats them as a joke and were/are quite happy to declare against them, insisting that we "deny them the oxygen of publicity".

So, as deliberately intimidatory and reprehensible as their Wootton Bassett stunt was no doubt designed to be, they are not, not by a country mile, on a par with the the threat faced from the various Irish republican terrorist groups - who, and leading by example, have at least managed to transmogrify into something resembling 'an assembly' of politicians at Stormont.

Either way, in the dying embers of this loose melange of petty-minded, sixth-form idealists masquerading as the UK gov't, it would appear that not only can they not run a piss-up in a brewery (or a leadership coup d'├ętat worth a toss), but that they only appear to open their mouths to change feet.

Roll on the general election.

JuliaM said...

It's almost as if there's some kind of strange symbiotic relationship between NuLab and Islamist whackjobs. And that one can't exist without the other....

Captain Haddock said...

Something needed & still needs to be done about Mr Choudary .. He said in Monday's Daily Mail .. "I believe there are two types of people in the world .. Muslims and non-Muslims and I believe Islam to be superior" ..

To develop that one stage further .. If, for example a white person made the same comparison with black people & arrived at the same conclusion .. That white person could most certainly expect to be hounded by every man & his dog and to be eventually crucified ..

I see from today's Mail that the Met Police are providing Choudray with 24/7 protection .. making checks on his empty, benefit-funded house a priority over any other matter requiring Police attention ..

Surely this is just plain WRONG ?

Whether Johnson handled the matter correctly is a matter for debate .. but something needed to be done ..

This man & his looney associates simply cannot be allowed to get away with saying what others would be arrested for .. Level playing field & all that ..

mungle said...

They may well try to use the banning of this group of head bangers to justify the banning of "extremist" off message parties? The precedent has been set. If the clock could be turned back and the BNP hadn't already gained significant support it would have been used to justify their banning I suspect,

Jill said...

Merci bien and agreed.

My understanding of the Wootton Bassett parade is that it was called off because Choudary couldn't get 500 people to carry his 500 coffins. That's how out on a limb he is. One supposes he knew that anyway, just wanted the headlines. Crazy in the coconut, but definitely not for banning. Let him out in the sunlight where he can sizzle to nothingness all by himself.

On a related note, I would actually like to see a non-provocative peace vigil - outside of Wootton Bassett! - where we could also remember that thousands of innocent civilians have died in our Afghan misadventure/defence of freedoms/fight against terrorism/gas pipeline grab*.

*Delete as appropriate.

aljahom said...

It's worth noting that the Tories are in agreement with Postman Prat on this.

Some alternative, huh?

JuliaM said...

Captain Haddock, Choudhary can say what he likes. It doesn't make it true. Why should anyone require the full weight of the law to prevent them from hearing 'offensive' opinions?

Captain Haddock said...

Whilst you raise some interesting points Jill .. some of which I'm in agreement with ..

I still feel that Choudary needs to be dealt with in the same way that you or I would be dealt with, were we to make similar inflammatory and hate-filled statements ..

The fact that instead of being arrested & charged .. he receives personal Police protection shows just how seriously this Government have lost the plot ..

Captain Haddock said...

"Captain Haddock, Choudhary can say what he likes. It doesn't make it true" ..

Indeed Julia that would seem to be the case .. not only can he say what he likes but with apparent immunity too ..

I'd bet my next month's pension that if I were to stand up & start spouting anti-Islamic crap .. I'd damned soon get my collar felt ..

All I'd like someone to explain is why should he be able to get away with it, when someone else would be arrested ? ..

The Government are seriously talking about introducing legislation which will provide for prison sentences of up to 7 years, for telling politically incorrect jokes ..

I was under the impression that what Chowdray said was already covered under the various "hate" headings .. obviously not in his case .. Is he someone "special" & if so, why ???

JuliaM said...

You don't really need me to answer that, do you?

Of course he's 'someone special' - it's written on his face...

Jill said...

Captain - with respect, what you say assumes Julia and I are quite content with the other anti-freedom of speech laws as they currently stand. I can't speak for Julia, but I know I am not.

I don't see how I can argue against anything I'm not allowed to hear - and I really couldn't care less what ethnicity or religious creed is talking rude or offensive bollocks, I still want the opportunity to hear it. I don't think it's any of the state's business.

Mind you, I also think swearing is cool, so you're not necessarily talking to someone of the greatest maturity in me!

Captain Haddock said...

Like you Jill .. I don't really care what crap Choudray or his type are spouting either ..

I personally don't want to listen to it ..

But I do want there to be equal opportunity for everyone to have their "spout" without fear of arrest .. or is that concession only granted to those of certain religious & racial persuasions ?

If that's the case .. I'd damned well like to know why ??

woman on a raft said...

It is covered by the maxim "Something must be done. This is something. This must be done."

The reason it's such a waste of time is that banning it won't change anything. Soundbitery.

What I'd most like to be seen done about Mr C is to stop his benefits. I can't think of any reason my this family's tax money should go to keep him in the manner to which we've been stupid enough to accustom him.

That goes double for his chums. Let them do their politicking on their own dollar, not mine.

Anonymous said...

First they came for the Tories, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Tory;

Then they came for the Islamists, and I did not speak out—because I was not an Islamist;

Then they came for the Libertarians, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Libertarian;

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out.

(with apologies)

banned said...

Woman On A Raft, they can't stop his benefits, even HMRC can't do that even if they prove a case.

Captain Haddock, banning his organisation, while looking good in the redtops, is no more effective than banning tsunamis or CO2; the way forward should have been to arrest Chowdray for incitement or any number of 'hate' laws introduced by this evil government of numpties.

Kevin Monk said...

Captain Haddock - I'm in agreement with Jill. I'm not content with the other anti-freedom of speech laws.

"I'd bet my next month's pension that if I were to stand up & start spouting anti-Islamic crap .. I'd damned soon get my collar felt .."

and if you were to do this, I don't think you should have your collar felt either.

I can't see how it makes sense to outlaw opinion; however misguided those opinions may be.

Anonymous said...

this guy is protected by the state and media -makes you think.... -his islamist agenda obviously serves some useful purposes for them