• Fomenting terrorism or seeking to provoke others to terrorist acts
• Justifying or glorifying terrorism
• Fomenting other serious criminal activity or seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts
• Fostering hatred that may lead to "inter-community violence" in Britain
• Advocating violence in support of particular beliefs

A member of the UN criticized Britain's plans to deport people to countries that may have committed human rights abuses in the past and despite Britain's attempt to seek agreements with those countries, to make sure deportees will not be tortured, there are very few guarantees.

At the moment, the list only applies to any non-UK citizen and is in respect of behaviors using any method, including writing, preaching, running a Web site or using a position of responsibility such as a teacher, community or youth leader.

Unfortunately, the list is still very vague and it is not clear whether a web site that is "critical" of a governments policy on terrorism, will be considered as a candidate for deportion? Charles Clarke said "Individuals who seek to create fear, distrust and division in order to stir up terrorist activity will not be tolerated by the government or by our communities". Would criticism be considered as creating "distrust" or "division"?

We wonder how this new list would apply to Pat Robertson in the U.S. who went on TV and said that the U.S. government should assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Isn't this "Advocating violence in support of particular beliefs"? Will Robertson be allowed into Britain after this, or does this new rule only apply to Muslims who might promote hatred?

One could perhaps accuse Tony Blair of breaking one of these new rules (Fostering hatred that may lead to "inter-community violence" in Britain). After the London bombings on the 7th of July, he placed the blame on Islamic terrorists before this was actually proved to be the case. Had this not been true (and it is still debatable), couldn't this have caused "inter-community violence" and claims that he was perhaps a racialist? Of course, with the attackers already "set-up", he knew who to blame without waiting for confirmation.

We should of course be careful about allowing people to promote violence of any kind (whoever is at the receiving end), but encouraging people to support the illegal war in Iraq is not so much different in our book. Unfortunately, there are two sets of rules to the game that Blair is changing.

News Feed