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.
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.
May said: Numerous comments made by Dr Naik are evidence to me of his unacceptable behaviour. 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.
Naik is based in Mumbai (Bombay) where he works for the Peace TV channel. 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.
The Indian Muslim preacher banned by the home secretary from entering the UK for his unacceptable behaviour is to challenge the ruling in the courts.
The Islamic Research Foundation said in a statement: In the wake of the exclusion order and based on legal advice, Dr Zakir Naik intends to bring the matter before the High Court ... and request a judicial review to have the exclusion order
Simplification of Criminal Law: Public Nuisance and Outraging Public Decency
Public consultation open until 30 June 2010
The Law Commission are consulting on the catch-all laws that allow police and the authorities to make it up as they go along. They have dismissed more fundamental limitations on the law claiming that case law has tightened up its application. Try
arguing case law with a policeman bullying you over a minorly insulting t-shirt.
Obviously catch-all laws are useful to the authorities, and are unlikely to be removed from their armory (as they put it), but at least they could offer some sort of statutory compensation when police and the authorities are found to be misusing
the laws for their own convenience or even maliciousness.
Anyway the Law Commission have at least suggested improvements to some of the more grand scale injustices incorporated into the current common law mess.
The Law Commission write:
Is it fair for a person to be liable for an offence that can carry a life sentence, if they didn’t intend to cause harm and weren’t reckless?
In a consultation, the Law Commission is asking whether the common law offences of public nuisance and outraging public decency are in need of reform.
Recent case law has tightened up the application of these historically broad and unclear areas. But the Law Commission is suggesting that clarity is still required around individuals’ intention to cause harm.
It is currently possible for someone to be guilty of causing public nuisance or outraging public decency without intending, or even being reckless as to, the effect of their actions on others. And the maximum penalty is life imprisonment.
In line with its aim to ensure that the law is fair, modern and accessible, the Law Commission is seeking feedback on the suggestions that:
clearly defined fault elements should be introduced to the offences of public nuisance and outraging public decency,
the prosecution must prove that the accused intended that their actions would cause damage or outrage, or were aware of the possibility and recklessly went ahead, and
the offences should be given proper statutory definitions.
Professor Jeremy Horder, the Law Commissioner leading the project, said: For the law to be fair, it must be readily understood by ordinary people. We believe that the reforms we are suggesting would bring these offences
into line with other crimes of similar gravity, make the law fairer and help people understand when they may be at risk of breaking the law.
Ofcom's budget for 2010/11 is 142.5 million GBP. That compares to the legacy regulators' combined budget of 118.3 million GBP in 2002/03. Now that's a significant nominal increase, but perhaps a real decrease if you fully buy Ofcom's spin. It
also depends on whether you consider Ofcom's duties to have changed much since 2002/03. My take: Ofcom still spends far too much for this digital era. The regulator has achieved some easy efficiencies but needs to make much harder choices to
lower its total cost to regulated firms and the public.
The grand, withering vision. After the 2005 general election Lord Currie, then chair of Ofcom gave a speech where he stated:
In practice a bias against intervention means that we will try to get out of the way. I have also said that we must encourage innovation and investment in the sector, and the best way to achieve this is by being
somewhere else. In essence, an effective regulator must aim to regulate itself out of a job. This withering of regulation will be seen by some as a threat. But I see it as a proper ambition.
Let's face it, Ofcom appears to have quietly abandoned its ambition. In some respects, the fault lies with Parliament, the government, regulated firms (and even the complaining public). But in many important respects, Ofcom has shown a desire to
intervene even where there was no statutory duty and the evidence showed it might have very little real impact with its actions (eg, junk food advertising).
Broadcast magazine writes that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is to have its budget trimmed by £88m and Ofcom is preparing to have its powers reigned in under the new coalition government's public spending cuts.
Ofcom is bracing itself for a significant reduction in its powers. Officials are still waiting to hear how the details of the cuts will impact them, but are expecting some of its current responsibilities to be brought into central government in
line with the Tories' pre-election pledge.
Insiders do not expect the body to be scrapped altogether.
One of the great pleasures of last week was hearing Jack Straw speaking on the Today programme in that patient, reasonable way of the true autocrat, and suddenly realising that I never have to pay attention to him again. Nor for a very long time
will I have to listen to Mandelson, Campbell, Clarke, Smith, Reid, Falconer, Blunkett, Woolas or Blears: they're history and the New Labour project to extend state control into so many areas of our lives is incontestably over.
The Queen's speech, now being drafted, will establish a Freedom or Great Repeal bill – the title has not yet been chosen – as a major part of the coalition's legislative programme. All the areas detailed in the agreement
between the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives, such as the abolition of ID cards and the children's database (ContactPoint database??), the further regulation of CCTV and the restoration of right to protest will be in it. Measures that weren't
in the published agreement will reassert the right to silence and protect people against the huge number of new powers of entry into the home allowed by Labour.
Separate from this will be a complete review of terror legislation that will assess 28-day detention, control orders, section 44 stop and search powers, the harassment of photographers, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers
Act, and its amendments, which sanctioned 650 agencies and local authorities to carry out undercover surveillance operations on, for example, people suspected of making dubious school applications for their children, eel fishermen in Poole
harbour, punt operators in Cambridge, depressed police officers and malingering council workers.
Dangerous Pictures...Dangerous Cartoons...Dangerous Prostitution...and many more. Perhaps it would be more efficient to list Labour's laws actually worth keeping. (Repealing betting tax is one that springs to mind).