The government has seen fit to ban the organisation Islam 4UK after they initiated protests at Wootton Bassett. There is rumour that the organisation set out for the town on Sunday, triggering the mobilisation of a counter demonstration. This site points to a media black-out of the event. However, Islam 4UK are hailing their ban as a victory. On their web site they argue that the government is undermining freedom of expression, damaging democracy, instigating a type of apartheid against Muslims and showing its self to be hypocritical.
Does the government think that by banning the organisation they can somehow ban the idea that it represents?
Freedom of expression, it seems to me, is crucial for democracy. However, there's a time and a place: most people would feel outrage at the disruption of a funeral by demonstrators; they would feel outrage if political graffiti were daubed on their property or community buildings; they may even feel outrage if their organisations (and heartfelt convictions) were banned.
Interactive Democracy provides a system - a time and a place, as it were - to express a political point of view and call for change. It could provide a pressure release valve for the frustrations of many different sections of society. And it facilitates proper measures to maintain law and order without destroying the tolerance and freedom that are necessary for a progressive and democratic society. Interactive Democracy is a fair and civilised way to demonstrate.
(By the way, just to provide some context, I am a disbeliever.)