Thaindian News

London, July 23 (ANI): The official reviewer of the British Government’s anti-terrorism laws, Lord Carlile, has warned Prime Minister David Cameron to his attention instead to websites that openly advocate violence.

A Liberal Democrat, Lord Carlile, the terrorism watchdog, has suggested that outlawing an organisation just because their views are offensive is not going to help the struggle against international terrorism.

He was referring to Cameron proposed move to ban the Hizb ut-Tahrir, which describes itself as a global Islamic political party “devoted to cultivating a Muslim community that adheres to the rules of Islam”.

Lord Carlile has told government ministers to concentrate on more pressing threats.”The proscription of Hizb ut-Tahrir has been subject of political debate over several years. I doubt whether this would achieve anything that cannot be demonstrated more cogently in open debate with that organisation. Certainly we should resist strongly the temptation to proscribe organisations because we find their opinions and aspirations offensive,” The Independent quoted him as saying in a note to the government.

He went on to say: “On the internet there are numerous sites, some highly offensive to those who enjoy our relatively peaceful national political life; some openly encourage violent jihad; some praise the asserted heroism of suicide bombers. International apathy has meant it is extremely difficult to remove these sites, mainly because of jurisdictional issues and in part because providers of the worldwide web are unwilling to judge sites with rigour and remove them, even when they encourage what is serious crime.”

Lord Carlile also warned that there are too many dangerous individuals from overseas who are evading deportation from Britain because of the risk that they will be tortured or killed if they were returned home.

He called for a more “imaginative approach” which would ensure that suspects who are returned to their home countries are not ill treated.

“It is not acceptable for large numbers of persons to remain in the UK when their presence is contrary to the national interest and national security. More could be done to persuade home countries of the importance of ensuring that returnees are treated in accordance with human rights standards; and to ensure that case-specific, credible, realistic and verifiable evidence to support return is placed before the courts.” (ANI)