Liberal that I am, I support Britain’s expulsion and banning of entry of religious extremist demagogues and hate-inciters.
If you come into my house and start to stir sh*t I would kick you out too. If you want to protest my behaviour and actions, that’s fine, but to agitate and instigate my household members into attacking and destroying things in my house, that’s going too far. A line has to be drawn in the sand. After all, the English has always said, "A man's home is his castle."
Britain's ban on firebrand cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed returning from Lebanon has been supported by British media in the aftermath of the London bombings.
Britain’s Home Office has made a decision not to re-admit a Syrian-born cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed because his presence had been deemed as not conducive to the public good, in other words, Omar is an agitator of the worst kind, probably urging his followers to violence. Omar is currently on holiday in Lebanon, but he might as well stay there for good now that he is barred from re-entering Britain.
Omar is not the only one targeted for banishment as 10 more foreign Islamists remained in detention and would be expelled, but this second part is still subjected to legal considerations.
As I have often stated, the non violent path is the best, and preaching or perpertuating violence is not the civilised manner to exhibit.
But what’s good for the goose ought to be good for the gander. The same standard applies to the Americans and British too. They cannot knock down people’s door, force their way in and start to rearrange furniture as if that’s their grandfather’s home. Only the law can access a man's home to check for illegal substance, and even then, with a legal warrant. The UN is the only legal authority in the world to approve such a police action. In this sense the USA and Britain are just as guilty as those Britain-based Islamist clerics of untoward behaviour. Same goes for Israel in the land of the Palestinians.