Home Secretary demands sweeping new powers to ban extremists.

[David Guyatt]

The problem is that you and I can be regarded as extremists. In fact, anyone who "opposes" democracy (or rather who opposes the current failed version of democracy), will be required to have anything they write on the internet subjected to prior consent.

How lovely is that.

30 September 2014 Last updated at 08:51

Share this page

• Email
  
• Print
  

• Share
  
• Facebook
  
• Twitter
  

May to call for new powers to ban extremist groups

Mrs May says the new strategy will address the "full spectrum of extremism"
Continue reading the main story

Conservative conference

• PM vows seven-day GP access by 2020
  
• Monday at Conservative conference
  
• Osborne proposes new benefits freeze
  
• Pre-paid benefit cards planned
  

A future Conservative government would seek new powers to ban extremist groups and curb the activities of "harmful" individuals, Theresa May is to say.
Banning orders and "extreme disruption" orders will feature in the party's 2015 election manifesto, the home secretary will tell the Tory Party conference.
People could be stopped from speaking at public events and their social media use limited under "extremism ASBOs".
Mrs May is also expected to promise police greater access to internet data.
She is among a number of high-profile speakers on the third day of the Tory conference, with Mayor of London Boris Johnson, Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt and Education Secretary Nicky Morgan also due to take the stage.
The home secretary will say her department will take responsibility for a new counter-extremism strategy across government to address "the full spectrum of extremism".
Prime Minister David Cameron told BBC Breakfast: "The problem that we have had is this distinction of saying we will only go after you if you are an extremist that directly supports violence.
"It has left the field open for extremists who know how not to step over the line. But these are people who have radicalised young minds and led to people heading off to Syria or Iraq to take part in this ghastly slaughter."
Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme, he said extremists "poison young minds" and encourage them to travel to warzones abroad.
The battle against extremism would be fought "for a generation", he said, with extremists coming out of Nigeria, Yemen and Afghanistan and young people being radicalised in universities and prisons.
Internet data 'vital'Among other things, the new strategy will seek to bolster Islamic institutions that operate in a way which is "compatible" with British values and look to improve vetting procedures to prevent extremists being appointed to positions of authority, including in schools.
Allegations that schools in Birmingham had been infiltrated by extremists led to a furious political row this summer between Mrs May and former Education Secretary Michael Gove over how best to deal with the roots of extremist ideologies.
The dispute led to the resignation of Mrs May's special adviser while Mr Gove - who has since become chief whip - apologised to his cabinet colleague for publicly questioning the action being taken by the Home Office.
Mrs May is also expected to pledge that a future Conservative government would give police and intelligence agencies more powers to access internet communications data, according to BBC political correspondent Carole Walker.
She said: "She has frequently argued internet data is vital for tackling terrorism and organised crime, and wants the police and intelligence services to access details of when and where phone calls and emails are sent - not their content."
'Hard end'Mr Cameron has warned the Islamic State insurgency in Syria and Iraq poses a direct threat to the UK, with 500 British jihadists believed to have travelled to the two countries, while the UK's threat level has been recently raised from substantial to severe.
Mrs May will tell activists in Birmingham that the government has sought to address the twin threats of violent and non-violent extremism since 2010, but the focus of its counter-radicalisation strategy has been on the "hard end" of extremism.
The new strategy will aim to prevent extremists being appointed to positions of authority, including in schools
The government's new approach, she will suggest, will be more comprehensive and focused on "undermining and eliminating extremism in all its forms".
It will bring together existing measures, such as the statutory duty for public bodies to have a counter-radicalisation strategy and enhanced powers for the Charity Commission to close down charities that are a front for extremist activity, with new efforts to improve awareness and training about the risks posed by extremism.
'Inciting hatred'The Home Office will take the lead across government by creating a central hub of knowledge and expertise to advise other departments, the public sector and civil society about the risks of extremism, particularly of infiltration.
But Mrs May will say a future Tory government will push for more powers to deal with extremist groups which spread hate but do not break existing laws.
At the moment, organisations can only be banned if there is evidence of links to terrorism.
Under the Tories' new proposals, groups that cannot currently be proscribed could be subject to banning orders should ministers "reasonably believe" that they intend to incite religious or racial hatred, to threaten democracy or if there is a pressing need to protect the public from harm, either from a risk of violence, public disorder, harassment or other criminal acts.
The granting of a ban, which would be subject to immediate review by the High Court, would make membership or funding of the organisation concerned a criminal offence.
Broadcasting banThe police would also be given new powers to apply to a Court to impose extreme disruption orders on individuals, using the same criteria.
This could result in those targeted being stopped from taking part in public protests, from being present at all in certain public locations, from associating with named people, from using of conventional broadcast media and from "obtaining any position of authority in an institution where they would have influence over vulnerable individuals or children".
Breach of the restrictions - which would be time limited - would be a criminal offence.
Liberal Democrat peer Lord Carlile, the former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme he did not think some of the measures were sufficiently tough, and called on Mrs May to reintroduce powers to relocate terror suspects to other parts of the country.
"I'm very surprised the home secretary is not announcing the introduction, or re-introduction, of relocation, which operated under control orders and which has been supported by David Anderson QC, who is now independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, and Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, among others," he said.
"It was shown to be both lawful and effective when the control orders regime was in place."
Labour has questioned the effectiveness of the Prevent strategy, saying all individuals returning from the Middle East should have to undergo a programme of de-radicalisation.
It has called for the government to reintroduce control orders scrapped in 2011.

[Magda Hassan]

Some how I don't think the Tories will be on that list of extremist organizations. But they should be. Slash and burn everything worthwhile in society, the cruelest attacks on the poor and disabled, corrupt, thieving, liars. The list is long and ugly.

[Magda Hassan]

I can see where this is going. Netanyahu is also trying to link ISIS with Palestinians (Hamas) There will only be one official meme allowed and no dissent or disagreement allowed. Any one with an independent thought will be taken off to the psych ward for that heretical 'terrorist' thought to be bleached and ironed out by Dr Cass Sunstein.

Meanwhile the extremists who bomb peaceful and already defeated and broken countries back to the stone age using lies of fake WMD; extremists who fund and nurture insane religious fascists to roam the country beheading infidels and take slaves; extremists who fund and control most of the 'free' press and its presstitutes; extremists who put billionaire first and bail out banks but let communities and people die these extremists are free to continue being extreme.

British PM David Cameron: "Non-Violent Extremists" Including "9/11 Truthers" and "Conspiracy Theorists" are Just as Dangerous as ISIL Terrorists

By Peter Drew

Global Research, September 29, 2014
Url of this article:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/british-pm-david-cameron-non-violent-extremists-including-911-truthers-and-conspiracy-theorists-are-just-as-dangerous-as-isil-terrorists/5405059


Dear Mr Cameron
I write this open letter to you in response to your recent speech at the United Nations calling for military intervention in Iraq and Syria over the threat of ISIL. In particular I would like to make mention of your reference to the so called threat to society of what you have termed ‘non-violent extremists’, including those who are attempting to bring forward information and evidence about 9/11 which contradicts the official version of events.

Putting aside the direct issue of ISIL for a moment, I find this position on 9/11 evidence to be quite incredible. It is a position that is either extremely ignorant, or it is a position that goes against freedom and democracy in British society to such an extent that it is scarcely believable. Huge numbers of extremely credible and professional people across the world are now bringing forward incontrovertible facts and evidence showing us that the events of 9/11 have been systematically covered up, and that the public has been deceived and manipulated on this issue at a quite incredible level. Just like the public was deceived and manipulated about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

While you are labelling these people who bring this evidence forward about 9/11 as ‘non-violent extremists’, are you aware of what is currently happening in New York City regarding 9/11?
Are you aware that more than 100,000 New York residents have just signed the petition calling for a new investigation into the collapse of World Trade Centre Building 7 through the ‘High Rise Safety Initiative’?
Are you aware that through the fundraising efforts of public groups in the US, there is currently a massive digital screen in the centre of Times Square showing rolling video footage of the controlled demolition of World Trade Centre Building 7 to three million New Yorkers? This is footage of a collapse of a massive 47 story building (not hit by a plane) that most people have not even been aware of or seen before now. How can this level of information cover-up be possible in this day and age?
Are you aware that many members of US Congress are now demanding that President Obama release the 28 redacted pages of the 9/11 Commission Report because there is information in those pages that will shock the nation, according to the two members of Congress who have been authorised to view the pages?

But yet you have just stated to the world that you consider members of the public to be ‘non-violent extremists’ and a part of the ISIL challenge if they merely wish that these facts, evidence, and information about 9/11 be made available to the wider public and that appropriate investigations are held.
I repeat my previous point. To make that statement to the world as you did, you are either extremely ignorant about this issue, or you are attempting to take a position which is so at odds with a decent, free society that it beggars belief. I find it difficult to believe that the Prime Minister of Britain would be unaware of what I have stated here, and therefore I have to believe that it is the latter scenario that is most likely.

Just to reinforce my point here, according to what you have said, because of their views on 9/11, or because of the evidence they have brought forward, you consider the following people to be ‘non-violent extremists’ who are a part of the challenge that society faces with the ISIL threat:

· Members of US Congress who have called for the 28 redacted pages of the 9/11 Commission Report to be released

· 100,000 members of the New York public for formally supporting and requesting a new investigation into the collapse of World Trade Centre Building 7 on 9/11

· Dozens of first responder fire fighters who risked their lives on 9/11 and who lost 343 of their colleagues that day, including those who formed the organisation ‘Fire Fighters for 9/11 Truth’

· More than 2,200 professional architects, engineers, and demolition experts from the organisation ‘Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth’

· Norman Minneta – US Secretary of Transport during 9/11 who had his formal testimony to the 9/11 investigation panel stricken from the record

· Richard Clarke – US Head of Counter Terrorism during 9/11

· Numerous family members of the victims of 9/11

The above list is just a very quick start, but gives a feel for the type of people who you are now labelling as ‘non-violent extremists’ and a part of the battle against ISIL because of their views about 9/11 or the evidence they are bringing forward. According to your speech to the United Nations, we now need to bring in legislation that will be able to shut down internet sites that bring forward the information and the evidence that the people listed above have been trying to highlight for investigation. That to me sounds like extremist behaviour. In fact, that sounds to me like the words of someone who is supporting an attempted cover up of monumental proportions.

It seems that everyone now acknowledges that we were deceived and manipulated on the issue of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in order to take us to war. It also looks like we have been deceived and manipulated on a grand scale regarding the true facts about 9/11. So, on this basis, why should you or anyone else believe one word about what the United States is saying about the threat of ISIL?
You have already attempted to take the UK to war in Syria on the basis of alleged evidence against the Assad government that has since proven to be inconclusive at best. Now just a few months later you are once again attempting to take the UK to war with Syria, this time because you now have conclusive evidence of a new and different threat. Meanwhile, you consider anyone who holds views about 9/11 that are contrary to the official story to be ‘non-violent extremists’.

Putting aside the direct issue of ISIL, which seems to be clouded in uncertainties in terms of exactly who they are, who and how they have been created and supported, and what their wider threat is to the world, I find your comments at the United Nations about the other aspects of this issue to be quite incredible.
9/11 is the event that launched the so called global war on terror and military action in the Middle East. It is now incontrovertible that we have been deceived and manipulated on a large scale about the true facts of 9/11. Getting the true facts about 9/11 runs right to the heart of all the issues we currently see in the Middle East and the so called war on terror. For you to label ordinary, caring, and patriotic members of the public as ‘non-violent extremists’ simply for asking these questions about 9/11 and bringing forward this evidence, and to state that these types of internet sites should be censored, then I have to say that it is you who are the extremist, in the extreme.

The truth facts and evidence about 9/11 are now coming forward and there is a tidal wave of growing awareness as people are now getting to see this information, as shown by what is happening in New York City as we speak. It cannot be covered up by any crude efforts by the UK government to censor the internet or to give these people an extremist label. It is far too late for that. For anyone in office to continue to support the attempted suppression of this information will simply result in them being positioned on the wrong side of history.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Drew – MSc

UK Facilitator Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

[Albert Doyle]

CNN just did a piece showing how ISIS recruits on social media sites. They then told how the owners of those sites are removing the posts of terrorists. The obvious implication being how social media was now banning what it labeled "terrorism". It was very obvious to see how short a step it is from banning ISIS to banning those who voice deep politics. That was probably part of the purpose of the piece and was almost certainly straight from the Sunstein department.

[Michael Barwell]

Last weeks projected cost of air campaign against ISIL - £3Billion; this weeks savings made thru' welfare freeze targeting poor working families - £3Billion; projected military affect on ISIL - bugger-all.

[David Guyatt]

I can see where this is going. Netanyahu is also trying to link ISIS with Palestinians (Hamas) There will only be one official meme allowed and no dissent or disagreement allowed. Any one with an independent thought will be taken off to the psych ward for that heretical 'terrorist' thought to be bleached and ironed out by Dr Cass Sunstein.

I remember the cold war well - I even travelled through East Germany to West Berlin at the height of it, quite an eye-opener for the cheerless, drab, grey and terrified east germans I saw as compared to the otherwise contrasting vibrancy and openness of the then west Berlin. What you're describing was the system of suppression that Soviet Russia and East Germany was famed for. Now it's coming to the west.

In the Soviet Union and the East there was a controlled media that required state sanction to run news stories. Everyone was riddled with fear of imminent arrest by the KGB or Stasi.

The differences today are that non sanctioned news stories do run, occasionally, but not often, with liberal doses of "conspiracy theory" thought police unctuousness laced through it - letting readers know it is non sanctioned and thus open to ridicule and to be ignored. But that the whole truth is a dangerous thing and is not permitted.

Things in this respect are clearly getting worse and worse for us in the west.

But there is hope, I think, because tactics of this type and character always manifest towards the end game of a crumbling society, where the hidebound ones know of no other way to respond to the changes taking place around them.

That's my hope anyway.