Paradox
6th August 2005, 16:47
I was watching Tony Blair's announcement from Friday on the proposed steps to combat extremism and terrorism in Britain, and I have some questions in regards to what he announced, as well as some of his responses to questions he took afterwards.
Blair said that they are planning for the deportation of "extremists." He said that anyone who 1) incites hatred, 2) preaches the use of violence, or 3) trys to justify the use of violence, shall be deported from Britain if they are a foreign national. If they are a British national they will be imprisoned. These measures sound strikingly similar to ones proposed in the PATRIOT Act II. So my first question is, and for some reason I never really thought of this until now, where are such extremists deported to? And what happens to them in the countries to which they sent? Are they imprisoned there? Or are they free in those countries? If so, that wouldn't make a lot of sense.
Following his announcement, Blair was asked a question in regards to an anti-terromism measure that proposed closing down terrorist websites. In his response, Blair said "And this is why I think it's a global problem." Blair made a comparison between the Islamic extremists and "revolutionary Communists." He said that they are very similar in that they both have "an ideology, and they are very extreme." This comparison leads to my next question... What is the definition of "extremist?" Looking at the 3 acts Blair outlined that warrant deportation, there is no definition of "extremist." And looking at his comparison involving the "revolutionary Communists," could not they be deported as well (if foreign nationals), or imprisoned (British nationals)? Do not Communists "incite violence?" Are they not "extreme?" This may all be pretty obvious I suppose, but I'm not sure to what extent of this will take place. Here in the US the same questions arose with the PATRIOT Act, as non-terrorist groups were targeted by authorities because of the broad definition of "terrorist."
Finally, I want to know what could be done to combat terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism in a way that does nothing to affect the majority of Muslims who are not extremists. Is that even possible (by this I mean that so far, all "anti-terror" legislation has been controversial and broad in definition. Therefore many questions have arisen as to the true aims of the proposed bills.)? I mean foreign occupation and imperialism in the Middle East is the major factor in the distrust and anger felt towards the west. But assuming that stopped, would the extremists stop? Also, how prevalent are the Islamic extremists in the Middle East? I remember seeing on The Daily Show, they had quest who's name I forget, who said that the extremists do very poorly in the Middle East, averaging barely 5% in elections if I remember correctly. So assuming foreign intervention in the Middle East ceased, they would die out fairly quickly, would they not? So is that all that needs to be done?
Blair said that they are planning for the deportation of "extremists." He said that anyone who 1) incites hatred, 2) preaches the use of violence, or 3) trys to justify the use of violence, shall be deported from Britain if they are a foreign national. If they are a British national they will be imprisoned. These measures sound strikingly similar to ones proposed in the PATRIOT Act II. So my first question is, and for some reason I never really thought of this until now, where are such extremists deported to? And what happens to them in the countries to which they sent? Are they imprisoned there? Or are they free in those countries? If so, that wouldn't make a lot of sense.
Following his announcement, Blair was asked a question in regards to an anti-terromism measure that proposed closing down terrorist websites. In his response, Blair said "And this is why I think it's a global problem." Blair made a comparison between the Islamic extremists and "revolutionary Communists." He said that they are very similar in that they both have "an ideology, and they are very extreme." This comparison leads to my next question... What is the definition of "extremist?" Looking at the 3 acts Blair outlined that warrant deportation, there is no definition of "extremist." And looking at his comparison involving the "revolutionary Communists," could not they be deported as well (if foreign nationals), or imprisoned (British nationals)? Do not Communists "incite violence?" Are they not "extreme?" This may all be pretty obvious I suppose, but I'm not sure to what extent of this will take place. Here in the US the same questions arose with the PATRIOT Act, as non-terrorist groups were targeted by authorities because of the broad definition of "terrorist."
Finally, I want to know what could be done to combat terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism in a way that does nothing to affect the majority of Muslims who are not extremists. Is that even possible (by this I mean that so far, all "anti-terror" legislation has been controversial and broad in definition. Therefore many questions have arisen as to the true aims of the proposed bills.)? I mean foreign occupation and imperialism in the Middle East is the major factor in the distrust and anger felt towards the west. But assuming that stopped, would the extremists stop? Also, how prevalent are the Islamic extremists in the Middle East? I remember seeing on The Daily Show, they had quest who's name I forget, who said that the extremists do very poorly in the Middle East, averaging barely 5% in elections if I remember correctly. So assuming foreign intervention in the Middle East ceased, they would die out fairly quickly, would they not? So is that all that needs to be done?