I bet we weren’t thinking of these people when we were debating the hate law business. True, they’re terrorists of a sort but are they what we really were after when we wanted rules to keep the Islamic nutcases out? I mentioned this problem previously and it is a bit of a dilemma.

So using the laws intended for preachers instigating hatred and/or violence Charles Clarke has also banned Steven Best, an American professor, from coming to this country to speak on behalf of the Animal Liberation Front.

From The Guardian:

Steven Best, professor of philosophy at the University of Texas at El Paso, had intended to travel to the UK to take part in an event to celebrate the closure of a farm breeding guinea pigs for research.

The closure of the Newchurch Farm business following years of harassment and intimidation, including the theft of a grandmother’s ashes from the local cemetery, was widely condemned by scientists and politicians last week.

It seems he does fall within the boundaries of the legislation:

In the wake of the London bombings of July 7, the Home Office announced it would not allow people to enter the UK who “foment, justify or glorify terrorist violence in furtherance of particular beliefs; seek to provoke others to terrorist acts; [or] foment other serious criminal activity or seek to provoke others to serious criminal acts.”

What’s interesting is how quickly we can find that legislation designed with bearded hate preachers in mind also covers other, hitherto not discussed, groups.

In this instance, the ban seems reasonable. This is not a peaceful chap. From The Daily Telegraph:

Dr Steven Best told about 200 activists at the International Animal Rights Gathering 2005: “Now communism is dead, we are the new spectre in the world. We are named as the number one terrorist threat in the US and UK. Can you believe it?”

He added: “We are not terrorists, but we are a threat. We are a threat both economically and philosophically. Our power is not in the right to vote but the power to stop production. We will break the law and destroy property until we win.”

He compared the animal rights struggle to the fight against slavery. “We are abolitionists. We don’t want to reform them [vivisectionist companies], we want to wipe them off the face of the earth. We will fight, and die if necessary, to free the slaves.”

How much of this is a meaningful discussion of tactics and how much is just ra-ra-ra for the troops is debatable.

But it goes to show that we have to watch the government carefully. This legislation must protect us from people who intend to injure or kill or incite others to do the same. Once we become comfortable with its use in legitimate cases it is easy to not notice who else it’s being applied to. Therein lies the danger of its misuse.