Latest Entry: American Pravda and New York's Sixth Crime Family     Latest Comments: Talk Back Here

« The 9/11 Commission, What Did They Know And When Did They Know It? | Main | Smoking Women Married To Smoking Men Have Higher Stroke Risk »

August 11, 2005

Britain struggles with how to prevent terror legally: More on the dangers of judicial activism

Topics: War on Terror

We're now hearing that the U.S. isn't the only country in the Free World to be placed in danger of destruction by judicial activism, something that conservatives here in America have been made so much aware of. The Conservative leader in Britain is warning that 'judicial activism' is hindering antiterror tactics.

"Government plans to stop people actively encouraging terrorism were in disarray after the Deputy Prime Minister admitted he was powerless to prevent radical cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed from re-entering [Britain] whenever he chooses," reports The Independent.

Mr. Bakri, who praised the London suicide bombers as the "fabulous four," fled on Saturday to Beirut. "If there is a crime in the UK and my name has been mentioned I will be the first one to return to challenge all these allegations. There is no treason. I am not a British subject and I never committed any form of crime whatsoever," he said from Beirut. "I am going to return back in four weeks unless the Government say we are not welcome, because my family is in the UK." ...
Omar Bakri Mohammed is the so-called "Tottenham Ayatollah", who sparked a firestorm last week by saying he would not inform police if he knew Muslim extremists were planning a bomb attack in Britain, claiming it would be "forbidden" by Islam. And, if teaching and/or encouraging hate, violence, and the overthrow of a nation's form of government, especially a host nation to a non-resident, isn't already a crime that results in immediate deportation or more, it damned well should be!

First of all let's recognize that most of us non-Muslims, are learning more than any of us ever wanted to know or even hear about regarding the sick perversions of a religion called Islam. I have no doubt that there are many peace-loving Muslims, but they are followers of a religion badly in need of reform that was founded by a human being, not God, whose teachings have easily been construed to make him appear to be much like a terrorist that advocating killing for political and religious purposes, that now facilitates the support of terrorism and violence - particularly against non-Muslims, but also against Muslim women, and frankly, is an embarrassment and disgrace to the very word religion, and the many peaceful Muslim followers that support it, not really knowing the truth about what it has become. And with this in mind, why would any nation tolerate hateful dribble from violence-spewing clerics, and especially, allow them into the country in the first place? Furthermore, if they are already in the country by the good graces of the people of the host nation, why is it such a problem to throw the terrorist-supporting jerks out forever? Isn't about time that democratic nations slap a few judges around by legislating the jerks out of office, and slam activist judges for what they are - liberal, egotistical, agenda-driven, self-centered, anti-democratic, socialistic, jerks that are hell-bent on the destruction of any hope that common sense will somehow prevail in order that we turn back the Islamic threat to the free world?

Apparently, conservative leader Michael Howard isn't any happier with Britain's activist judges than conservatives in America are with activist American judges, and on Wednesday warned that "aggressive judicial activism" could hinder the country's ability to combat terrorism. In an opinion piece in The Daily Telegraph, Howard writes that judges must bow to the will of Parliament if terrorism is to be combatted effectively.

Britain faces great changes. We all have a duty to play our part in dealing with the threat of terrorism and those who foment terrorism. That includes both Government and Opposition. It should also include the judiciary. ...

Parliament must be supreme. Aggressive judicial activism will not only undermine the public's confidence in the impartiality of our judiciary, but it could also put our security at risk - and with it the freedoms the judges seek to defend. That would be a price we cannot be expected to pay.

Meanwhile, Londoners are hearing from commissioner of the City of London Police, James Hart, that a terrorist attack on the City, London's financial district, is only a matter of time!

Sobering background and opinion:
Sir John Keegan is wrong: radical Islam could win

Posted by Hyscience at August 11, 2005 7:49 AM



Articles Related to War on Terror: