I agree, completely.

When it comes to banning hate speech that falls short of a conspiracy or incitement, the government should refrain from banning groups or censoring. I am not a supporter of the proposal to ban Hizb because I don’t think that they’re close enough to actual acts of terrorism. Al Muhaj I think is correctly banned (although that ban is not, in fact, policed – much like the ban on the funding of Hamas!)

Banning scum from entering the UK is a different matter. Entering this country is a right if you’re a citizen, and a privilege otherwise. Nobody who is not a citizen can complain if they’re banned.

However, there is an awful lot that politicians and indeed the rest of us can do when we find the likes of Awlaki speaking in public. Close all public venues to them. Inform private venues of precisely who they are hosting. Let Awlaki be as familiar a name as Griffin.

The point here is that Awlaki can back up his incitement to terrorism with scripture? Well any interpretation of any scripture that is used in that way should be countered with condemnation and rejection. Let the religious counter it with exegisis, and the rest of us by any way that we can.

whether or not what Awlaki says is backed up by his religion (there are many interpretations, his is the most extreme) is completely irrelevant, his conclusions (ie, kill non-Muslims) are unacceptable and the government must not be ashamed to say that. would the government take such a soft stance with a christian man who found justifications for killing homosexuals and jews in the bible? I highly doubt it. would the government not mind if its premises played host to neo nazis?

Awlaki is no different to a neo-Nazi who may use religion to justify his violence and bigotry. Islamist jihadists are no different either, and the government must realise this

“This type of decision is always a matter for the local authority, and we have contacted the authority to explain our concerns.”

This, for many of us, is precisely the problem. Such a decision should not be in the hands of local councillors and I think that this Awlaki business is a perfect example of how such decisions should be more centralised. If some concerned people had not flagged up the fact that an al Qaeda supporter and glorifier was to make an appearance at a government building, the Home Office and Westminster would never have even known that they were effectively hosting the man.

MPs would be better placed to deal with such issues as they are closer to those within the government that actually know a thing or two about hate preachers and their supporters. The Home Office MUST look at how they are still failing to prevent the poisoning of impressionable minds. Awlaki is a man who has DIRECT links with inspiring young Muslim men to fight violent jihad and this fact alone should change the issue from being a local authority matter to being a national security matter. things need to change, and fast!

Thanks for letting us know. However I’m not quite clear what your response means.

I therefore have several further questions:

- Is Awlaki going to speak at Kensington Town Hall or isn’t he?
- Does the Home Office intend to take any action to prevent him speaking? – Is the Home Office aware that Awlaki’s understanding of jihad is virtually indistinguishable from al-Qaeda’s?
- Is the Home Office aware that Awlaki’s recorded speeches have previously inspired a number of young Muslims around the world to commit acts of terrorism – as in the case of the US Somalis from Minnesota.

Thanks for your time.

Al-Masri.

Freedom of thought and speech are rights which are fundamental to our society; however the Government challenges views which fall short of supporting violence and are within the law, but which reject and undermine our shared values and jeopardise community cohesion.

Home Office spokesperson

If only the west wasn’t so evil. Of course we won’t torture anyone when we come into power, we’ll just behead anyone who disagrees.