Blair looks to deport "extremists"

Tony Blair announced plans to do what probably isn't possible in the United States: send home foreigners -- and revoke the citizenship of British citizens -- who promote violence or extremism.

While specific hate speech is prohibited under U.S. law, the definition has been the source of many contentious court cases. And Blair mentioned mere membership in an "extremist group" as possible cause for deportation.

He said the Human Rights Act might need to be ammended.

Here is some gray-area activity that might complicate legislation or enforcement, or at least could be cited by civil rights activists:

*Will extremism and violence of, say, racist soccer hoodlums be cause for deportation as well?

*The mayor of London said bombings in his city woulldn't have happened if it weren't for British policies in the Middle East. He qualified his comments by saying he opposed the violene and had no sympathy with the bombers. But what if a Muslim cleric of Pakistani descent made the comments? (BBC)

*Jokes about terrorist attacks, such as comedians showing imagines of the WTC towers collapsing to the tune of "It's Raining Men." (PDF article about the comedy show.)

*A more classic example might be Gilbert Gottfried's joke about Sept. 11, delivered just a few weeks after the fact. He said he couldn't get a flight to California because "the said they'd have to stop at the Empire State Building first."

###

It's a tough pass, a crackdown on "extremism." Of course jokes and equivocation are different from telling people "go kill infidels," but a government must remain vigilant, policing itself, to ensure its policies truly are working for the greater good.

On one hand, there are Orwellian concerns about pre-crime, thoughtcrime, etc. Slippery slope arguments have a historical basis, and democracies have traditionally sought to err on the side of too much liberty than too little.

However, Great Britain, and the West in general, faces a serious threat from Islamic extremists. This threat has manifested itself into terrorist attacks throughout the world during the past four years. Thousands of civilians have been killed.

The concept of martial law exists for a reason. The United States considers itself at war, even though no European states consider themselves in the same status. War that is not against a state or group of states is a concept new to us. It creates new legal conundrums, evident from the handling of prisoners to the very tactics with which the battles are fought.

While Europeans have thus far chosen to handle the situation in a non-warlike manner, perhaps as attacks on Western Europe continue, that stance will change.