Banned preacher address Oxford Union

14 February 2011 by

Controversial preacher Dr Zakir Naik has addressed the Oxford Union by satellite link, despite being banned from visiting the UK by the home secretary.

The Home Office has wide discretion to exclude radicals which it considers have displayed ‘unacceptable behaviours’ , and the preacher was excluded under this policy in June 2010. The exclusion is currently being challenged in the courts. The home office successfully defended the ban in the high court (see our post), but that judgment is being challenged by the preacher in the court of appeal.

Similar issues arose recently when Pastor Terry Jones, an American pastor who threatened to burn Korans on the 9th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, was banned from entering the UK “for the public good”.

Dr Naik’s talk, which can be seen on YouTube, has been portrayed as a “defiance” of the ban, which reflects a press release which I received from TM Media, who I assume are representing the preacher.

But, as the high court made clear, the ban only applied to his physical presence in the UK, not his appearance by video link. Interestingly, the Guardian report that invitation could provide an “awkward dilemma” for the Conservative party because former shadow home secretary Chris Grayling promised to ban the use of satellite technology to broadcast the views of excluded Islamist preachers based abroad. He told a US audience at the end of 2009:

If we are in Government, we will take further steps to outlaw such activity – and to prosecute those who organise the propagation of banned ideologies via video and satellite links in public places.

Although the ban has not been implemented, it is questionable whether it would be practically enforceable in any case. For example, would it extend to the delayed broadcast, perhaps via YouTube, of a preacher who is answering questions sent in advance?

From a human rights perspective, it would be far more onerous to ban a preacher’s views entirely than simply to exclude him physically from the UK. In the Naik case, the court not only considered the preacher’s human rights to freedom of expression under article 10 of the European Convention, which did not apply as he was out of the jurisdiction, but also the rights of his supporters to receive information.

The high court found that his supporters were entitled to the right to receive the information that Dr Naik would have given them during his public lectures, and

That is especially so in this case where it is apparent that Dr Naik’s question and answer sessions are significant to his public lectures. It is the ability to directly see, hear and interact that is a feature of Dr Naik’s attraction.

However, the interference with Article 10 could be justified under Article 10(2) as it was proportionate and in accordance with the law governed by the Immigration Rules and the published Unacceptable Behaviours Policy.

The court of appeal may have a different view. But if the ban were extended to satellite links too, the supporters’ article 10 arguments would be stronger. The court made much of the fact that Naik’s supporters could access his ideas elsewhere:

Dr Naik is not prevented from making or distributing his views through, for example, Peace TV. Those interested can obtain easy access to them through his broadcasts or the recordings of his public lectures. The limitation is that he cannot appear at public events in this country. The interaction with the audience in his public lectures is an important aspect in the expression of Dr Naik’s views. Those in this country will have to experience that second-hand, through watching it take place elsewhere.

It remains to be seen how the court of appeal will view Naik’s ban from the country. But, if the government is intending to ban public broadcasts of controversial preachers, of which there is no sign at present, it should pause before doing so as this may breach freedom of expression rights.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Read more

2 comments


  1. Ali says:

    he was banned because he said “every muslim should be a terrorist” but that was taken out of context. if you watch the video and take note of what was previously said you will notice he doesnt mean kill people. furthermore in that and other lectures he shows various places in the quran and hadith which talk about peace but why arent they highlighted by the media?and no way is he controversial, he gives references for everything he says and proves islam is the true religion as well as a bunch of other topics.

  2. ham says:

    hi,,

    plzzzz all watch his lecture delivered to oxford union[available on youtube]…then decide what r his views…?

    will you..?

    Trust ur mind not media.
    Research yourself.
    Will you..?

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: