Are Human Rights 'seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK'?
Klevius answer: If Sharia is the 'vital interest' then yes!
The Home Secretary has tabled a last-minute change to the Government's Immigration Bill so people whose conduct is deemed 'seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK' can be deported and even stripped of their British citizenship, if they have one, and even if it leaves them stateless.
OIC has now via UN made EVERY muslim a violator of Human Rights. But how many muslims (and normal people) are aware of it? And what about Theresa May?! And, more importantly, how many muslims bother about it? But people critical of this fact are chased by every means!
Media Hawk on 27 June 2013: Home Secretary Theresa May recently banned Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller from the United Kingdom, claiming that their presence would not be “conducive to the public good.” May cited Spencer and Geller’s views on Sharia and Jihad as the reason for the ban. By banning people for criticizing Sharia and Jihad, Great Britain has just enforced Sharia blasphemy laws.
Britain likes to trumpet itself as a 'tolerant' country. The government and politicians certainly do. It sounds lovely, doesn't it? We're incredibly 'tolerant' over here, don't you know?
But not so much that we can tolerate people who have a critical reading of Islamism and Islam, it seems. No. That'd be too much. Deport the atheists (like me) while you're at it. Because we think all religions are cuckoo. So perhaps the Home Secretary's rationale for banning Gellar and Spencer (being 'not conducive to the public good') would extend to all of us, too?