There is a story in the UK which seems to have been running here all summer.

An organisation has been declared a “terror organisation” by our parliament, and subsequently banned.

Now, in the UK, there is a law which says that it is illegal to show support for a terror organisation. Fair enough, you’d think, wouldn’t you? But as a result, hundreds of people have since been arrested for showing support for this organisation.

The weird thing is that the people being arrested have tended to be nonviolent. Clergymen, for example. Not your average terrorist, or terrorist-supporter. People who would not otherwise “rock the boat”.

So to a bystander, it begs the question why. Why are these people putting their necks on the line in order to support this terror organisation? After all, this is something which can carry a six-month prison sentence. That’ll mean losing your job, maybe losing your home when you can no longer pay the mortgage… serious consequences.

It’s certainly something I ponder, anyway.

I think part of the problem is that our lawmakers have banned this organisation, but have not really said why. I can accept that under certain circumstances, for example state security, these reasons must be kept hidden, but this should be the exception rather than the rule, and even then, it should be explained why the evidence can’t be disclosed. Credibly.

At least, to the point where a vicar can sit back, take another mouthful of corn flakes at breakfast, and think fair enough, rather than deciding I’m going to go out and get myself arrested. So it feels like Parliament is essentially expressing an opinion “they’re banned because we say so”, and I’m not sure “… because we say so” carries much weight these days.

It’s funny, because UK politician Nigel Farage has also been in our news this last week or so, comparing the UK to North Korea in terms of freedom of speech, in an address to the US Congress. I’m no great fan of Farage, but “because I say so” sounds exactly like something Kim Jong Un might say.

In an era of people being generally autonomous – by which I mean that they can go where they want, when they want, and meet whomever they want, this seems to me to be dangerously authoritarian.

So was this ban justified? The short answer is that I don’t know. I doubt many of us do. I’ve heard various people make various allegations, and other people make counter-allegations. I’m not sure which of them has been proven yet. I’m wary, though, because there is a tendency, especially among politicians, to wrongly present a belief as a fact. Politicians today complain that they are distrusted, and I think this is one of the reasons.

In any case, the banned organisation operates in the area of Israel’s attack on Palestine, so I guess people will think in terms of “justified” or “unjustified”, according to their politics, rather than “guilty” or “innocent”. In other words, their personal view will trump whatever a court has to say. (Although interestingly, there is a “public interest” defence in the UK, so I guess that’s how a “justified” view would translate into Legalese.)

But either way, I don’t think “because I say so” really cuts it in this day and age. Not if you expect to carry public opinion along with you. We’re all grown-ups here.