111111rony

yesterday we commemorated armistice day, a start to a weekend where we honour those who have given their lives for their country.
one of the reasons we commemorate this is because we see the battles of the world wars as being about our freedoms.
so it is ironic that theresa may has banned ‘muslims against crusades’. i can’t say i have any love for this organisation or its leader anjem choudary, who uses the very freedoms of the country to campaign to remove those freedoms (you have to love irony). they have been banned because they glorify terrorism. mr. choudary has form in this area as mrs. may says they are ‘simply another name for an organisation already proscribed under a number of names.’ so really what is the point of proscribing them again?
it is believed they will lie low for a few months and come back under another name with the same idea. in the ten years of the law against glorification of terrorism only 15 have been convicted of related offences.
if they really are a threat then bang them up inside, the only people who will shed a tear are their lawyers and it will be tears of joy at the fees they will be getting.
if you are not prepared to imprison them – don’t ban them. let them have they day in the sun, let them burn poppies, let them make their claims. for a democracy to work, for it to be vibrant it has to be able to cope with views it doesn’t like, arguments have to be made and won. you can’t ban an idea or an emotion.
in the same way that the english defence league and the british national party should be allowed to campaign and have their say so should muslims against crusades – because if their claims and their arguments cannot be refuted then what does that say.
if their voices are not allowed to be heard what does that say about democracy?
and what does that say about the sacrifices we are honouring this weekend?