Yesterday afternoon, Home Secretary Charles Clarke issued a much-anticipated list of “unacceptable behaviour”, legally empowering the UK government to kick out those accused of:
• Fomenting, justifying or glorifying terrorist violenceOddly enough, The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) criticized the list as being too wide and unclear. It suggests reducing the defintion of “unacceptable behavior” to “those who…incite hatred or advocate violence, support acts of violence in the UK, or in some way violate any UK law.”
• Seeking to provoke terrorist acts
• Fomenting other serious criminal activity
• Fostering hatred that might lead to inter-community violence
The operative phrase, of course, is “violence in the UK”. We can therefore presume that any “unacceptable act”- a.k.a terrorism- not directed towards the UK should be dismissed. The MCB’s suggestion certainly implies this. We can further assume that there must exist groups and individuals supporting terroristic violence who should not automatically fall under the list’s all-encompassing umbrella.
Naturally, I was intrigued. Everyone knows that the jihadist network is anything but unique to the UK. Its insidious and global reach means authorities must increasingly work across borders. I therefore ran a check on the MCB’s past activities, press statements and interviews. This little transcript of an interview with the MCB’s media secretary, Inayat Bunglawala, proved most useful in explaining his organization’s otherwise baffling suggestion.
If you would like to make a comment, please fill out the form below.
I would like to see someone explain to me why right-wing neo-fascist groups such as the British National Party aren’t targeted as vigourusly. Or for that matter, so-called “animal rights” activists who often advocate a form of terrorism as well.