Is this man set to become a free speech martyr?

I suspect I'm not the only person experiencing a spot of far-right hatemonger déjà vu on account of the news that the (not-quite) Qur'an burning Florida pastor Terry Jones may be prevented from making a planned visit to Britain next February. The home secretary, Theresa May, has said she is "actively looking" at the possibility of banning Jones, who is scheduled to address as meeting of the anti-Muslim far-right English Defence League in Luton, which, as the Guardian reports, she has the power to do if Jones' "presence in the UK could threaten national security, public order or the safety of citizens, or if she believes his views glorify terrorism, promote violence or encourage other serious crime."

We have, of course, been here before when, in 2009, the then home secretary Jacqui Smith banned the far-right Dutch MP Geert Wilders from visiting the UK to attend a screening of his anti-Muslim film Fitna at the House of Lords, at the invitation of UKIP peer Lord Pearson of Ranoch. The ban on Wilders, which was later overturned, proved highly controversial even among those who oppose his politics, as it was viewed by some as an attack on freedom of expression. The Home Office stated that Wilders' visit would "threaten community harmony and therefore public security in the UK", but opponents of the ban argued that as long as he wasn't threatening or inciting violence, he had the right to come here and express his views, however distasteful they may be.

The visit of Terry Jones presents a similar problem. He says he is coming to talk about "the evils of Islam", which is something, as we see with the EDL, is something people are legally entitled to do. But the argument for banning Jones does seem stronger than that for banning Wilders last year, as EDL rallies have a history of turning violent. In a petition to the home secretary, the anti-fascist group Hope Not Hate make a convincing case for preventing the visit:

"...Pastor Jones wants to give a speech attacking Islam at an EDL rally in Luton. The EDL emerged in Luton in May 2009 and its first demonstration ended with 250 people going on the rampage through a predominantly Asian area of the town. Since then it has become a national organisation and is the single biggest threat to social cohesion in this country today.

Pastor Terry Jones’s presence in Luton will be incendiary and highly dangerous. He will attract and encourage thousands of EDL supporters to take to the streets, and cause concern and fear among Muslims across the country. Only extremists will benefit from his visit and, as we know, extremism breeds hatred and hatred breeds violence. For these reasons we are asking you to prevent Pastor Terry Jones from entering the UK."

Speaking to the Today programme this morning, Jones himself protests that he has no intention of inciting violence, saying that he would come bearing a "positive message" (his definition of "positive message" would appear to differ from most people's). Meanwhile, on Comment is Free, John Cruddas, the Labour MP for Dagenham and a seasoned anti-fascist campaigner, argues in favour of a ban:

"The refusal to ban the pastor of a hitherto obscure church with a following of fewer than 50 people does not represent a mortal blow to the debate about the merits of Islam. How many people can quote a single sermon of Jones's? How many can recount a single innovative theological, political or social contribution from him on this issue? Jones has nothing to offer except lighter fuel and malign intent.

But we know what sits on the other side of the debit sheet. Mass disorder. Communities divided on racial and religious lines. Intolerance. Violence. Entire towns rent asunder. Over the top? Just ask those people who live and work in those communities where the EDL roadshow has already rolled into town. They'll tell you. And they'll tell you what they think of the idea of a repeat appearance with Jones in tow."

It's a difficult issue – on the one hand, a combination of the EDL and the man who made the headlines worldwide for threatening to burn the Qur'an, speaking in a town with a large Muslim population, does seem like a recipe for trouble. On the other, it's hard to avoid the feeling that Theresa May would be giving Jones the publicity he craves by excluding him, making him a free speech martyr for those that share his extremist views. Is it not better to just let him come, on the logic that he will make far fewer headlines, and be denied the status of the silenced messenger, that way? He's already had far more publicity than he deserves on account of his aborted Qur'an burning stunt – do we really want to be giving him more on this side of the Atlantic?

But then again, if Jones comes to Luton and there is some serious trouble, then he and the EDL will make even more headlines, and the home secretary will have to explain why she didn't take the opportunity to stop it in the first place.

Not quite sure where I stand on this one – I'd be very interested to hear what people think. Please share your views in the comments.

Government bans Islam4UK

Let's get this straight – Islam4UK, which has just been banned by the government, is an utterly ludicrous organisation. In the past year it has announced, and then subsequently cancelled/failed to hold events with names like "March for Sharia" and "Jesus4Shariah". It has taken over Conway Hall, the home of British free thought, using its heavies to try and impose Sharia-style gender apartheid on the building for the duration of an event. Its leader, Anjem Choudary, who is also the self-styled judge of the "Shari’ah Court of the UK", has revealed his plans for London's landmarks once the UK becomes an Islamist state (presumably under his competent guidance), with Nelson's Column disappearing in favour of a large clock, and Buckingham Palace facing conversion into "a beautiful mosque" (pictured here). For all these reasons, we nominated Choudary for our 2009 Bad Faith Awards in which, following voting in December, he received a meagre 232 votes, or 3 per cent of the whole (to put that in perspective, 7,037 people voted, 2,282 of whom voted for the eventual winner, Pope Benedict XVI).

So far, so ridiculous. But then, last week, Choudary and his Islam4UK goons made their most deliberately controversial move to date – the announcement of a plan to march in protest against the war in Afghanistan through Wootton Bassett, the Wiltshire town where residents regularly turn out to observe the repatriation of soldiers who have died in Afghanistan, as their bodies are driven from nearby RAF Lyneham to the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford. Choudary stated that marchers would carry 500 coffins through the town in representation of Muslims killed in the war (as one wag noted, each Islam4UK follower would presumably have to carry about 10 coffins coffins to make up that number).

Cue, unsurprisingly, lots outrage, driven in no small part by the tabloid press (The Sun pointing out that Choudary is on benefits, and such like). The government joined in too, with Gordon Brown condemning it and Alan Johnson stating he would back measures to stop the march taking place. Meanwhile, counter-demonstrations were announced by groups such as Muslims for Secular Democracy. And then, just like with their Sharia march and "Jesus4Shariah", Islam4UK announced that the Wootton Bassett march wouldn't be taking place after all.

Because why would they bother? As Choudary himself stated, simply announcing a plan to march had "successfully highlighted the plight of Muslims in Afghanistan" (or rather, highlighted the existence of Islam4UK). Put in different terms, Choudary appears to have perfected the art of what we might call "The Fred Phelps Approach", after the tactics used by the equally ludicrous homophobic Westboro Baptist Church in the US, who picket the funerals of dead US soldiers in order to "highlight" the punishment apparently being inflicted on America by God because of its tolerance of homosexuality. Westboro's efforts, led by "Pastor" Fred Phelps, have earned them worldwide infamy, on a scale Choudary and his henchmen could only dream of. But their use of provocative tactics have earned them plenty of publicity here in the UK.

Clearly, it's difficult to fault a large part of the outrage surrounding Choudary's planned march – how can you expect the relatives of soldiers, or the people of Wootton Bassett, or soldiers themselves, to react? And it's inevitable that the tabloid press will fuel the disgust. But what we might expect is that our government wouldn't jump on the bandwagon and provide the desired publicity-boost for Islam4UK. Which is precisely what it has achieved by this morning announcing that the organisation will be banned under anti-terrorism legislation. Because here's a question – you're a crazed, publicity-hungry extremist dedicated (or so you claim) to toppling the established order in your country. The government are wondering whether to a) let you get on with your ridiculous schemes OR b) Ban you. Gag you. Make you a proscribed, illegal (did I mention BANNED) organisation. Which do you choose?

There's no need to answer that, of course. By banning Islam4UK, the government have played right into the hands of Anjem Choudary, who you can rest assured will be feeling rather pleased with himself this morning (it's a double-win too, with five of his supporters convicted in court yesterday over their "baby-killers" protest against returning troops in Luton last year). Just look at his website – he's already playing his "Crusade Against Islam4UK" card. And let's not forget that the government has already tried banning one of Choudary's organisations, Al-Muhajiroun back in 2005 (it was led at the time by another of the tabloids' favourites, the equally ridiculous Omar Bakri Muhammad). That ban really worked, didn't it?

When it comes to supplying the oxygen of publicity to ludicrous extremists, our government has surpassed itself in the past year. The banning of Islam4UK is reminiscent of last year's controversy over the banning of various foreign nationals deemed to be extremists, including the far-right Dutch MP Geert Wilders, US shock-jock Michael Savage and – yes, you guessed it – the Westboro Baptist Church. In each case, all the government succeeded in doing was providing each of them with a handy badge of honour. Wilders – a man who would ban the Koran in his native Holland – even became a poster-boy for free speech.

So what should be done when someone like Choudary announces a plan designed to cause controversy and attract maximum publicity? It certainly isn't easy, as clearly there was a compelling case for putting obstacles in the way of any march through Wootton Bassett, which would have caused a great deal of upset and would possibly have led to violence. But somehow the authorities need to strike a balance between maintaining public order and ensuring that groups like Islam4UK aren't given the publicity they crave. The government certainly needs to stop banning such groups, because that is precisely what they are hoping for when they hatch their half-baked plans (the fact that Choudary cancelled the Wootton Bassett march, saying it had already served its purpose, says it all really).

On that note, I'll leave you with David Mitchell's thoughts on the matter, from his Observer column last weekend:

The other great boon of that state of affairs [freedom of speech] – still nominally this state of affairs, let's not forget – is that we can reply. We don't have to show the slightest respect for other people's views – just for their right to hold them. Respect, after all, must be earned. It's only freedom of speech that's a right. When someone says something which you find stupid or offensive, you can say something back. You can tell them to fuck off. They don't have to, but they've still been told.

Maybe that's not your idea of utopia – millions of people screaming: "Fuck off" at each other – but it beats banning it, making an opinion against the law.

 Blunt, yes, but perhaps it's something we can all get behind.

Geert Wilders wins appeal against ban on entering UK

The right-wing, anti-Islam Dutch MP Geert Wilders has today had his ban on entering the UK overturned by the asylum and immigration tribunal. The ban was imposed back in February by the then-Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, in order to prevent Wilders attending a screening at the House of Lords of his film Fitna, which juxtaposes text from the Koran with newsreel footage of violence perpetrated by jihadists.

A Home Office spokesperson described the decision as disappointing, saying:

"The government opposes extremism is all its forms. The decision to refuse Wilders admission was taken on the basis that his presence could have inflamed tensions between our communities and have led to inter-faith violence. We still maintain this view."

So does this mean we can now look forward to a visit from Wilders? I wrote at the time that I found the whole banning affair regrettable, as it gave Wilders the status of a free speech martyr, which is something he quite frankly doesn't deserve (this is, after all, a man who would like to have the Koran banned in Holland). Even people who find his politics and his film Fitna repulsive (I happily include myself among those people) were forced to support him in relation to the government ban on the basis of free speech, which gave him a handy surge in publicity and allowed him to present himself as the great defender of Western values he likes to believe he is. In short, the government played into his hands.

Personally, I'd like to think we've heard the last of Wilders in Britain. It's right that he's no longer banned from the country, but wouldn't it be nice if he decided it wasn't really worth coming here
after all (or at least decided that if he does come, it'll just be for a quiet week in the Lakes or something).

Sadly, I don't think that's the man's style.

Update: And there we have it - he's on his way this Friday. Something for us all to look forward to, then...

Bozza on the government's ludicrous banning policy

I just wanted to share this quickly, in order to follow up on last week's news of who was on Jacqui Smith's "least wanted" list of people barred from entering Britain. Ever since Geert Wilders was banned back in February, we've argued that preventing controversial figures from coming to Britain is not the right approach for a democracy with a supposed commitment to free speech. The government's release of the list of who it has banned, consisting mostly of people who never even tried to come here in the first place, exposed just how ridiculous the policy is, and no one has made this point more effectively than Boris Johnson in this morning's Daily Telegraph. Love him or hate him, the man can write, and in this case he's spot on. In my opinion, here's the money quote:

The world is full of loudmouth media berks with views that we would all like to keep to themselves, but we can't ban them all from entering Britain.

I strongly urge you to read the full piece.

They shall not pass...

Remember the bans on Geert Wilders and the Westboro Baptist Church earlier this year? Well Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has just published the full list of those banned from entering the UK, and it reads like the guestlist for the world's most ill-advised dinner party. I can picture it now – there's Wilders tucking into some canapes, having an awkward just-met conversation with Hezbollah militant Samir Al Quntar and Hamas MP Yunis Al-Astal. Across the room, Fred Phelps is enjoying a glass of bubbly with ex-Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard Stephen 'Don' Black and Russian skinhead supremos Artur Ryno and Pavel Skachevsky. Meanwhile, the true gooseberry in the room is Jewish extremist Mike Guzovsky. Surrounded by Islamist extremists and neo-Nazis, this is one party where he's really struggling to fit in.

But on a serious note, this list poses some interesting questions for free speech advocates. Let's face it, those on the list hardly make up a desirable bunch, and we could certainly manage perfectly well without hearing what any of them have to say. But as I've said on here before, this idea that the Home Secretary acts as some sort of gatekeeper, deciding what views are acceptable and then keeping out any foreigners who don't hold to them, is incredibly discomforting. We should have some confidence in our ability to argue back against these people. It's not often that I find myself agreeing with Inayat Bunglawala of the Muslim Council of Britain, but what he is quoted as saying in the BBC article on this is spot on: "If they step over the line and break the law, it's at that moment the law should be enacted, not beforehand. If people are keeping their odious views to themselves, that's their business. We should not be in the business of policing people's minds."