Indian preacher Zakir Naik is banned from UK

Post Reply New Topic

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/10349564.stm


An Indian Muslim preacher has been banned from entering the UK for his "unacceptable behaviour", the home secretary says.

Zakir Naik, a 44-year-old television preacher, had been due to give a series of lectures in London and Sheffield.

Theresa May said that visiting the UK was "a privilege, not a right".

The home secretary can stop people entering the UK if she believes there is a threat to national security, public order or the safety of citizens.

That includes banning people if she believes their views glorify terrorism, promote violence or encourage other serious crime.


However, somebody cannot be banned just for having opinions that other people would find offensive.

Ms May said: "Numerous comments made by Dr Naik are evidence to me of his unacceptable behaviour.

No entry: Theresa May has used exclusion power for first time "Coming to the UK is a privilege, not a right and I am not willing to allow those who might not be conducive to the public good to enter the UK.


"Exclusion powers are very serious and no decision is taken lightly or as a method of stopping open debate on issues."


This is the first person who has been excluded from the UK since Ms May became home secretary last month.

Mr Naik is based in Mumbai (Bombay) where he works for the Peace TV channel.

He was due to address events at Sheffield Arena on 25 June and Wembley Arena on 26 June.


The BBC's Sanjiv Buttoo says that he is recognised as an authority on Islam but also has a reputation for making disparaging remarks about other religions.

Peace TV itself describes him as "a medical doctor by professional training... and a dynamic international orator on Islam and comparative religion".

"Dr Naik clarifies Islamic viewpoints and clears misconceptions about Islam using the Koran," the channel's website says.

A spokesman for Mr Naik said it was "deeply regrettable" the UK government had "bowed to pressure" from certain groups to exclude him.

He said Mr Naik had been holding talks in the UK for 15 years and the decision to bar his entry was disappointing.

Lots of things are privileges, not rights, even if you are a citizen in the country in which you reside, for example, driving. There's lots of unacceptable behavior, bombings and whatnot, which gives one reason to want to keep it "over there", and no nation should be obligated to let it in. I don't see a problem here.

I agree. One of the proper functions of government is to regulate who crosses the national boundaries and under what conditions.

What makes a nation what it is, is who is in it, their values and what they do. If boundaries disappeared then many nations would also disappear even though the physical region of the earth they occupy is still intact.

ruveyn

The UK has a habit of banning people they find unacceptable. A few months ago, then Home Secretary Jacqui Smith banned Michael Savage from entering the UK. Savage has some unsavory views, but Smith's action contradicts the British value of free speech, and why it's a British value. Free speech allows for choice among the citizenry. People like Naik and Savage may advocate views that disturb harmony, but they do not instigate the action itself. Ultimately, it's the responsibility of the instigator, and not the advocate. I'm sure one can make a case for someone advocating violence, but even then, I do not see a problem with that speech unless the speaker has reason to believe his actions will incite violence. Regulating speech beyond that is the first step to regulating thought, and I fear that's the path the UK may go down one day.

Constitutional rights apply to citizens. If a citizen is expelled from his nation of citizenship or otherwise punished for speech only, then this is an infringement of free speech if the country has a free speech provision in its constitution, unless some other circumstance applies, for example, someone may be punished for yelling "fire" and causing panic, or pulling a fire alarm when there is no fire. Barring non-citizens from entry for the things they say, regardless of other circumstances, may not be an infringement because they're not citizens and the constitutional law of the respective country may not apply to them.

Yeah I agree.

So glad he was banned. About time the government grew some for dealing with people like this. Freedom of speech does not mean a country has to allow foreign known rabble rousers
in to stir up trouble for them. What a ridiculous notion.

Besides which, I've seen some of this guy's talks, he's one nasty manipulative so and so. Deeply, deeply unpleasant fellow, methinks. He says he's an islamic scholar but proper islamic scholars deny this and he's had more fatwas issued against him than Salmon Rushdie.

Freedom of Speech is too often used as a cudgel by those who would deny the rights of others.

"I have the freedom to demand that you all follow my religion, do as i say, and turn your nation into exactly the sort of nation that doesn't let ANYONE have the freedom to even dress as they will, never mind talk as they will."

Nice to see our government exercising our right to not have to listen to more of this hateful drivel.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

The religious duty of a proper Islamic scholar is to encourage the conversion or subjugation (rob, murder, enslave, rape) all non-Muslims and usher in an abominable theocracy. He sounds proper to me.

Usual disclaimer: don't take my word for it, read the Qur'an.

It's good that he got kicked out, and sent home.

I am not quite so full-throated in my support for this decision, for three reasons:

1) Administrative Law principles. The Home Secretary's jurisdiction is reviewable not only before the Courts of England and Wales, but also in the European tribunals (such as the ECHR). While it is true that the Minister has sweeping jurisdiction to deal with these cases, that jurisdiction must be exercised in a fashion that respects the rules of natural justice. I am not sure that this is the case that you want to hang your hat on to test the statutory jurisdiction.

2) Equitable application. I wonder whether this decision is rooted in a bona fide apprehension of a threat to public order and public safety, or whether it is rooted in the political sympathies of the government of the day. What constraint is there on the Government's ability to concoct excuses to exclude all people with political messages that they find objectionable? Threats to security are often, by the nature of the sources of information, kept secret from the public. But it is in precisely this situation that Government has an obligation to ensure that it's decision making is as transparent as possible.

3) Political practicality. By excluding an outspoken individual, the Government simply invites that individual and that individual's supporters to mount their bully pulpit, and to gain airtime for their views. If this person were to come into the UK, and simply, "preach to the converted," then there is little exposure to views that the audience did not hold already. By banning him, his message now touches a much broader segment of the population.

Consider the complete fiasco that Canada's Minister of Citizenship and Immigration made by banning George Galloway. Not only was it a news story at the time, but became a news story again when a judicial review of that decision began, and it will be again when the decision is handed down.