What comments by Zakir Naik are you referring to specifically? And if you could give as much context as possible it would certainly be appreciated.
"every Muslim should be a terrorist", Supporting the death penalty for apostates, not denouncing Osama Bin laden actions, "If you ask my view, if given the truth, if he is fighting the enemies of Islam, I am for him" the list goes on..
Irrelevant. Rights are rights, justice is justice.
What rights has Zakir Naik lost. He's not even a British citizen
Here's another option-- don't rely on the state to fix these problems, being that its primary objective is to maintain itself and expand its powers, and when it does try fixing social problems often fucks up things even worse.
I think the state has other functions too, and protecting its citizens is one of them.
Messages can be sent and Islam openly & objectively criticized without your MPs and government ministers lifting a fucking finger. Of course that requires people to both recognize and act on their individual and collective autonomy.
Like I said, that would be great if religion wasnt so heavily protected here.
LAST POINT: I recognize that denying Naik a visa may not in itself be a violation of the right of free speech, since it could be credibly argued the UK simply exercised is national sovereignty in preventing his entry into the country, just as I don't have to let him in my house to preach bullshit. But what I'm talking about is about more than Naik and Wilders-- it's the fact that your government long ago decided it could violate the right to free speech whenever it deemed necessary, and the people have done nothing to challenge it. The US has its own problems of the people allowing the state to violate people's rights, that are arguably worse than the UK, but most of the time it's not the freedom of speech, except in times of war.
Not sure, particularly when it come to freedom of speech, I think you can get away with more in the US. But I dont really care. The UK needs to do something about extremism quick smart. Any action that shows they are taking it seriously is something I welcome with open arms. Religion has gotton away with so much for so long.
Again, the party in power is irrelevant as the UK state has already established their prerogative to censor speech and violate all sorts of other natural rights people possess. Forget about Naik and Wilders. The UK enforces censorship on its own citizenry. I'd name some examples over the last few decades up to recent years, but I simply don't have the time. Nick Griffin is a notable recent example though.
Now certain people in government may be more censorship happy than others, that much is true-- but the problem is that the conditions have been set to allow such people to do so once they are in office.
Perhaps, like I said earlier, the government was wrong to disallow Wilders - rightly or wrongly, UK is a nanny state when compared to the US. I was only discussing why I was glad the UK gov stood up to Islam for a change without fear of recrimination
Topic: Zakir Naik: Banned from UK