Posted on 07/11/2016 4:53:21 AM PDT by naturalman1975
During the London riots of 2011, Theresa May ruled out the use of water cannons to quell the rioters, stating that “The way we police in Britain is through consent of communities.”
For her to take such a squishy position in response to such a dire crisis does not inspire confidence in me that she will be firmer in guiding Britain through Brexit. I’ll admit that I’ve not kept tabs on her in the five years since then, so maybe someone can fill me in on what she’s been up to that would give me more confidence.
They really need a man.
If there's one left in Britain.
Other then Jeremy Clarkson, James May and Richard Hammond you may be correct.
I would hope it would be a lot sooner than the end of the year.
Why wait once she is PM?
What in the British law would justify banning Geller and Spencer?
She has said that ‘Brexit means Brexit’, Britain is going to leave the EU.
You need to understand the context. The Home Secretary does not make decisions on issues like this or adopt positions on things like this by themselves. They are made collectively by Cabinet and the Home Secretary is responsible for putting that collective decision into place. The Home Secretary can argue whatever position they like in Cabinet and they do have influence, but at the end of the day, they have to go out and sell the collective decision, and the Prime Minister has more influence on this than they do. Theresa May has been Home Secretary to a Prime Minister considerably less conservative than she is.
She also had to work within the constraints of Britain's membership of the EU which meant cutting immigration from EU countries was very difficult. One of the big problems with Britain's membership of the EU is that it reduced the status of Commonwealth citizens residents within the EU. That can now change, but it really couldn't change previously. And Britain's membership of the ECHR (which May has opposed for a while although it looks like that will be on the backburner while she is dealing with leaving the EU) has a big influence on why it is very difficult to remove those or refuse those who do have a claim to refugee status.
People seem to want to hold May responsible for the consequences of decisions taken years earlier that she has to live by. And she's always followed that practice as she is supposed to, which is one of the reasons why I am confident she will put Brexit into effect.
Why wait once she is PM?
Because once Article 50 is invoked, Britain loses a lot of power to negotiate the terms of its exit from the EU and those terms matter a lot. Britain has poured billions of pounds into the EU over the last few decades and is entitled to try and get generous terms on trade and other issues before leaving. The reason some of the European countries are trying to pressure Britain to immediately invoke Article 50 is because they do want Britain to throw away its negotiating power.
The Public Order Act of 1986, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, the Racial and Religious Hatred Act of 2006, and the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act of 2008. All of which were enacted before Theresa May became Home Secretary, and which she is obliged to follow. The Home Secretary is not above the law but must follow it.
Thank you for the explanation.
But I still don’t see why telling the truth about Islam would be inciting religious hatred, or why moslems are allowed in who incite religious hatred (and violence) against non-moslems. Doesn’t that seem like a huge double standard?
The legal issue isn’t really ‘inciting religious hatred’. The issue is one of ‘public order’ - the potential for demonstrations to occur that have the potential to turn violent. In many cases, it isn’t the speaker that is the problem - it’s the people who might demonstrate because of what they say (whether in support of it or against it).
Personally I believe Britain’s current public order laws go way too far and have the effect of imposing unreasonable limitations on freedom of speech that are contrary to the principles of Common law. But that doesn’t allow the Home Secretary to ignore them. They are the law whether they should be or not. I want to see those laws changed - but part of the reason the UK has those laws is because of pressures from the ECHR that have the tendency to supersede the Common law. One of the reasons I want to see the UK out of the EU is because foreign conventions should not supersede the Common law within the UK and now there’s a better chance of that being corrected.
But May had to work within those laws.
Unfortunately the nature of the laws give special protection to religious speech that have been exploited by some Muslim ‘clerics’. It is a double standard, but it’s a double standard currently written into the laws.
Just like Cameron forcing gay marriage on the UK was “the express will of the people”?
So you’re supporting illegitimate British “law”?
No, I’m supporting the Home Secretary obeying the law.
The alternative to that is people like Hillary Clinton who as Secretary of State seems to have decided that laws were only for little people. That really is a pretty good equivalent here.
If a law is a bad law, it should be changed. But you don’t get to ignore it just because you don’t like it. Not when it has been passed properly through the correct legislative processes.
No - different situation entirely. Cameron didn't have a referendum on that. Any statement he made about things being the will of the people on that subject were based on opinion polls at most. It's not the same thing at all.
How do you know any of them are telling the truth?
I don’t know if they are telling the truth, but on this issue, I don’t really need to.
The decision of the Home Secretary was appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the Home Secretary’s decision. That is a pretty clear indication that the decision was legally the correct one, the one she was supposed to make.
Well, we’ll see if she changes her mind on the status of members of the Commonwealth now that GB is out of the EU. I have friends who this will effect and they’re far from convinced they’ll no long be forced to pull up stakes and go home without spouses and/or children.
If and when you have time, I’d appreciate your take on this article below. I’m also wondering how Geller and Spencer could be banned, but so many radical imams and other radical Islamists who actually taught violence, would be allowed.
Theresa May forced to defend views on Sharia Law as she prepares to enter No 10
May sparked controversy when she spoke out in support of the Islamic courts operating in the country, telling the nation they could “benefit a great deal” from Sharia teachings.
The future Tory leader made the comments as she ordered a review into the system which are accused of ordering women to stay with abusive partners.
(Short snip above)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.