Leaving aside the ease with which the ban can be circumvented (change of name being an inconvenience for the Islamists perhaps only to the extent that it necessitates fresh website design), banning an organisation because of what its members think is inherently bad.
Banning Muslims against Crusades will not alter the way its members feel. What kind of democracy is it where the majority can make illegal being a member of any group it feels is beyond the pale? It may seem OK if you don't like the people on the receiving end (and I revile the poppy-burners as much as anyone), but what if it's your group that's getting the ban?
The intellectual stimulus behind this anti-democratic move seems to me to date from Mrs Thatcher's decision to ban the broadcast of IRA leaders' voices. We were reminded of how ridiculous this was every time the actors reading transcripts of their words appeared on News at Ten. Muslims against Crusades are entitled to their views. I find them offensive, but that's the price I pay for my right to be offensive too. Prosecute them for what they do, not what they say or what organisation they belong to.
Gosh. I have come over all liberal. And about Islamists to boot.
