Home Secretary Charles Clarke has published criteria outlining the grounds on which foreigners who promote terrorism can be deported or excluded from the UK.

The finalised list will define "unacceptable behaviour" by those who indirectly threaten public order, national security, or the rule of law.

Human rights groups are concerned that deportees could be subject to torture in their native countries.

Do you agree with the government's new guidelines? Should people be deported based on this list? Or should they be tried in the UK?

This debate is now closed. Read a selection of your comments below.

The following comments reflect the balance of opinion we have received so far:

For once in my life I actually disagree with the human rights lobby Adam, Stoke, UK

For once in my life I actually disagree with the human rights lobby. If foreigners come to the UK promoting violence against UK citizens and interests then they should be removed. If we've given them a safe haven and then they've abused it, then tough, they pay the penalty. Likewise we need to be tougher on UK citizens doing the same, like the BNP for instance.
Adam, Stoke, UK

People ought to be tried in the UK based on this list. Then, if found guilty, I don't see why the British taxpayers should pay to put them up in our overcrowded jails. Just send them back where they came from and prosecute anyone who continues preaching their garbage.
Christine, UK

It is important to keep a careful balance between 'national security', 'personal security' and liberty. While these measures may well boost 'national security', in light of recent events, including the shooting of Mr de Menezes, the perceived loss of 'personal security' resulting from further authoritarian measures may outweigh the benefits. And so this should be considered very carefully, before proceeding.
Steven Jones, Oxford, UK

The rules are not strict enough, for those who want to live a normal life. Human rights exist when we have a society that is free from crime against humanity. Those who kill innocent citizens should be excluded from the normal society and let them go back to where they came from.
Yila, Abuja, Nigeria

The decisions should honestly reflect the consensus of public opinion Miland Joshi, UK

The problem is not so much the principle of deportation as the decisions that are taken by officials. The decisions should honestly reflect the consensus of public opinion, not merely the expression of some 'message'. Would the majority of the public really want women who have fled from abuse to be forcibly returned? A smaller number of rejections carried out more efficiently would be better,
Miland Joshi, UK

I cannot see the logic in seeking to deport those who are already here and already fomenting violence. In my view, we have a responsibility to the other countries to prosecute, convict and imprison dangerous criminals within our territory, instead of just sending them somewhere else to stir up trouble.
Terry Gilbert, Constituent of Mr Clarke!

I think this may be pretty much counterproductive. What happens to the Brits who express unacceptable opinions? It will breed a new kind of "ideological hero" and home grown radical commentators who cannot be deported.
Tsatsu, UK

These measures appear to be vague, ill-defined and potential to abuse. And I don't believe in hopping aboard the moral bandwagon when it comes to the issue of "terror" - Western states have been supporting terrorism for decades (And it's well documented!) I'm not particularly fond of the democratic system as it is. Can one expect to be deported for harbouring merely "damaging" views?
Anon, Aberdeen, UK

Secular and liberal Muslims have been warning the West for years to take a tougher stance against extremist Muslim groups living in both the West and in the Muslim world. It is a shame that it needed the loss of innocent lives in London to wake the British government from their human rights slumber.
Nadeem Khan, Dhaka, Bangladesh

All that will happen is that the radicals deported will be hailed as heroes Mohammad, London

This is counter-productive. All that will happen is that the radicals deported will be hailed as "heroes" (like martyrs). It will also reinforce their assertion that Muslims are being persecuted and may bring more disaffected British Muslims under the wings of the psychotics who seek to bomb innocent Britons.
Mohammad, London

I cannot understand the argument by civil liberty groups that these plans are wrong. Surely they should be campaigning for the safety of the majority of people who risk getting blown up by extremists goaded by the people the rules will affect? This is definitely a case of the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few. The safety and security of society as a whole should be the main priority, rather than of dubious individuals.
Andy Padgham, London

If people can be deported for 'fostering hatred that might lead to inter-community violence', can we please deport the leaders of the BNP? If we can ban Hizb-ut-Tahrir on the basis of the views that underlie what they say in public, why not the BNP?
Ruth, Reading, UK

For a genuine asylum-seeker to promote terrorism in the country sheltering him/her seems absurd and contrary to all sense and reason. Is it not likely that some, even many, of those who would stir up dissent are using the poor reputation of their home-nation as a legal shield to remain in the UK?
Martin, Coventry

The test of any democracy is whether it tolerates anti-democratic beliefs Alex, Leicester, UK

The test of any democracy is whether it tolerates anti-democratic beliefs. I have no real problem with expanding the definition of 'incitement to violence' (announcing "I smell smoke!" in a crowed theatre is also dangerous), but it takes a very authoritarian government to persecute non-violent groups such as Hizb ut-Tahrir or to extend deportation to suspects.
Alex, Leicester, UK

Surely somebody seeking residence or asylum in Britain should be obliged to abide by our rules and be prevented from undermining our society? I would like to see the list expanded to include a contract between the UK state and those seeking the right to live here or the protection of our state. This should include provisions on public order, a commitment to abide by our laws, and basic residence requirements. Breaching that contract should be grounds for immediate deportation to the country of origin. That is not to say that we should not assist people, but rather that we should assist them on our terms.
Mike, London, UK

I feel that should Charles Clarke be able to push through these laws, Civil Liberties will, as usual think of the criminals rights, and not of the law abiding publics right to be able to walk, take a bus or train without fear of someone trying to kill them. They then take the government to court who in turn make the laws of this country.
Kevin Spring, Rushden Northants.

What is terrorism? When is an act terrorism? Is it only when it is carried out against British or Western civilians? Why are we still calling the terrorists in Iraq insurgents? Would these same people, if operating in the UK be called terrorists? We need to be very clear about definitions before we legislate.
David, London

I support the deportation rules. People prepared to risk their residency in the UK obviously do not value it. Why should we continue to provide a tolerant location from where they can advocate the destruction of it?
Andy Vernon, Derby, England

I agree with the deportation of those who spread hate within the UK, but what about "homegrown" suspects (from any race). They can't be deported as they are British.
Lee, Manchester

Too little, too late. This has been going on right under our noses for too long now. Only when an atrocity like the July bombings happens do we take action. We have been too afraid of our over the top human rights policies and are now only doing something about it. I welcome the new policy, let just hope they put it too practice.
Anne, Chester

I think they should be tried in this country Malcolm, Warrington

I think they should be tried in this country. Once they are deported you have lost control of them but they could still cause trouble.
Malcolm, Warrington

I am an Iranian living in Britain for the last 30 years .I think it's very important to love and look after the country we live in. We are all exposed to danger no matter what colour, religion and background we came from. I am grateful for the tolerant and the kindness of the British nations. We all have to fight the terrorism hand in hands with one voice, Those who do not like this country should go back to where they came from. I think Mr Clarke is very wise.
Layla, London, England

Surely individuals that preach terrorism or incite terrorist views being sent back to a country where they themselves may be attacked for their views clearly demonstrates that they expect to get away with it in this country. If it were made clear that anyone found guilty was to be deported regardless of safety - maybe they would think twice about upsetting the harmony of this already fragile country.
Darren Adlington, Watford, Hertfordshire

I feel that if anyone is a potential threat to our country then yes, they should be deported. If they are in our country they should respect that we want to live in peace and not be held hostage by these terrorists. If they are here to get away from fighting and killing, then why do it here? We don't want to live like that.
Mrs Davies, Coventry, England

I for one am thoroughly fed up with these so-called civil rights people criticising the government for doing something to protect our civil rights. If they are so concerned about these individuals and the treatment they may receive in their own country perhaps they should get on the same flight out and do something for them out there.
Dylan, Pwllheli, Wales

It is just another knee jerk reaction to another high profile problem Bryan, London

What is the point? It is just another knee jerk reaction to another high profile problem. Will they be enforced? I doubt it very much.
Bryan, London

I am a devout Muslim who has grown up in this country. I practise my religion with ease in a country that allows considerable freedom of religion. We must not allow extremists to take advantage of the freedoms within this country and preach and propagate extremist views. This should apply particularly to those that have been granted safe asylum here. As guests they should respect the hospitality offered by the UK and I am therefore supportive of the recent measures, provided that it does not lead to an unnecessary witch hunt of those expressing innocent, albeit unpalatable, views.
Yusuf, UK

These new deportation rules are decidedly on the blurry side. Clarke is fully aware that anyone challenging them in Brussels for contravening the Human Rights Act will win hands down. It's solely a populist measure for the government to be seen as "tough on terrorism" - nothing else.
Michael V., London

I applaud Mr Clarke for taking a step that has been long overdue; however, I need to be reassured that measures to curtail nationalistic parties will be just as forthright.
Richard Burkitt, South Yorkshire

As usual, the problem with legislation like this is not the short term effect but the possibility of misuse in the long term. The problem of who defines "unacceptable behaviour" is central to this issue. It is not woolly minded liberalism to be concerned with current changes in legislation and it is imperative that we, as a nation, do not walk blindly into a world where a persons opinion dictates whether he or she should be in prison or deported.
S.Meredith, Salford

I absolutely agree with the government's new guidelines, as acts of terrorism must not be tolerated anywhere in the world. We need to be able to wake up each day and live our lives in peace and not be terrorised! If those people don't want to be tortured, then they should consider not causing torture to any human being.
Anon

I think we need to be careful that we do not indulge our feelings of disgust and righteousness at the expense of these heralded ideals Ben Lewis, London

It is difficult to feel sympathetic towards someone who could fall foul of these rules. But if we are to lead the way on human rights, freedom of speech and democracy, then I think we need to be careful that we do not indulge our feelings of disgust and righteousness at the expense of these heralded ideals. This is an incredibly complex issue and needs to be treated as such.
Ben Lewis, London

If an individual is infringing the rights of another individual, group or society, then I believe it is justified to infringe their rights in order to protect those who respect human rights. Deportation is a risk associated with terrorism and terrorists, and human rights groups, should accept any consequences for the terrorist as a result. It is not a burden for us to bear.
Dan Stevens, London, UK

Good, but not far reaching enough. In a digital era you do not have to be physically present to ignite hate and/or terror. Therefore I am not convinced that the absence of Omar Bakri Mohammed (and/or others) in the UK will become a significantly safer place. Radicals have many followers and they are in sufficient numbers to cause trouble.
Mary McCannon, Budapest, Hungary

This legislation sounds a bit like our Public Order and Security Act (POSA) that Mugabe introduced. This evil bit of legislation is often used to silence opposition to the government - because the crimes are so vague that virtually anybody can be charged with it. The UK Government must realise that, although these rules may serve a real purpose now, 120 years from know, they could help keep a corrupt dictator in power.
Anon, Harare, Zimbabwe

These people who seek to undermine the stability of our country and communities are only here because the law currently allows them to get away with things that they couldn't elsewhere. It's about time we tightened up our leaky legal system. Freedom of speech doesn't mean a license to offend or incite criminal/terrorist activity.
Liam, Reading

It is important to distinguish between opinions and actual acts Megan, Cheshire, UK

It is important to distinguish between opinions and actual acts - while someone who engages in actions that support terrorism should be prosecuted and/or deported; legislation against the holding of certain views is unacceptable. This is not "1984" but a free country in 2005.
Megan, Cheshire, UK

Surely it is the right of people who live in Britain not to have to travel to work in fear each day. Send these radicals back to where they came from, why should we use our taxes to pay to have them tried here?
Paul Jones, London

Why is the UN complaining about the UK deporting undesirables back to countries that are known to practice torture and not criticising those countries that practice torture?
Paul, London

I think the government doesn't go far enough. It should strip naturalised persons of British citizenship. If they advocate terrorism they should forfeit the right to stay. Also why should the taxpayer foot the bill for trials? The government should decide if someone should be kicked out of the UK not the UN.
Andrew, England

Quite frankly these powers are years overdue James Buchanan, Helston, UK

Yes, it is time we protected ourselves. Terrorists and their supporters should be deported, and quite frankly these powers are years overdue. Our government has tolerated these people far too long. If tried here they should be automatically deported anyway at the end of their sentence, so immediate deportation is a better option for the taxpayers.
James Buchanan, Helston, UK

The guidelines don't matter. This government doesn't run the country - the judges and the human rights circus does.
Derek S, UK

They are fine by me. What I wonder have they been doing in their native country to warrant torture anyway? Our public safety comes first - full stop.
Tom, Ipswich, UK

If a person comes to this country requesting asylum and approved, then it should always be dependant upon that person acting and thinking as a responsible [quasi] citizen of this country. If that person chooses not to respect that then they should be aware that they will be sent back to the country from which they came, irrespective of the treatment which they might or might not receive on return. It is their responsibility to comply or risk the consequences, not ours. The choice is clear: behave or get out.
Stuart Lee, Princes Risborough, Bucks

If these potential deportees fear torture in their own country then they should not have promoted terrorism in the UK. These human rights groups need to reassess their values. This is another case of more consideration being given to the criminals than to the victims.
Dave Jones, Wrexham

Let's not forget what Livingstone calls the 'Mandela test' Jack, Essex

Let's not forget what Livingstone calls the 'Mandela test' - would the laws when in place mean we could not have supported Nelson Mandela in the 1980s? Mandela, after all, was convicted of using violence for political ends and has never said sorry for it. I supported him then and I support it now - this probably makes me and many millions of others (including most of the Labour ministers) around the world 'terrorist supporters' and would therefore fail the new laws.
Jack, Essex

The majority of the population are in total support of the home secretary. As usual the human right groups are up in arms. The individuals who are going to be deported are a threat to this country and what ever happens to them when they are back home is not our problem.
Mike, Surrey

We've been much too generous, much too long. If the UN finds this policy unacceptable, let them find another refuge for these people. The fact they've taken refuge here would suggest their activities at home were just as unacceptable. One suspects the UN will get very few takers.
David Anderson, Wakefield, West Yorkshire

Surely if these foreigners have been given citizenship here, then it is the UK's responsibility to deal with them. It is not acceptable to deport the problem elsewhere, especially in places where human rights are known to be violated.
Abdullah, Rochdale