by James Ogunleye

LONDON (FinalCall.com)�A Court of Appeal sitting in London has reserved judgement in the UK government�s legal challenge to a High Court decision to overturn a 15-year ban on the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan visiting the United Kingdom.

After two days of complex legal arguments by the attorneys representing the Secretary of State for the Home Department David Blunkett and attorneys for Min. Farrakhan, the three Appeal Court judges�Lord Justice Potter, Lady Justice Arden and the Master of Rolls, Lord Philips�on March 13 deferred ruling until the end of the month.

The applicant in the latest court battle is the Home Secretary, who is challenging an historic High Court ruling in July 2001 by Justice Turner that the UK government imposed on the popular Muslim leader in 1986. The exclusion order effectively prevents the Nation of Islam leader from visiting the United Kingdom, which comprises of four nations�England, Scotland, Wales and the Northern Ireland.

Opening the case for the UK government March 12, lead attorney Monica Carss-Frisk offered reasons why the Home secretary, after a November 2000 "review," had decided to renew the exclusion order on Min. Farrakhan.

She said the outspoken leader�s "past views" on Jewish people and on White people in general is "particularly unpleasant and racially divisive" and that allowing the Minister to visit the UK will undo the on-going work to improve relationships between the Jewish and the Black communities.

Atty. Carss-Frisk quoted from a number of speeches made by Min. Farrakhan in the late 1980s and 1990s, which she held as "examples" of the Minister�s "anti-Semitism sentiments." She said the Home Secretary is "reasonably satisfied" that Min. Farrakhan still holds those views.

"A visit by (Min.) Farrakhan will inflame tension between the Blacks and the Jews (in the UK)," she told the court.

The Home Secretary, attorney Carss-Frisk continued, "has a duty to weigh the risk that (Min.) Farrakhan�s presence in the United Kingdom will give further publicity to his views and will lead to his opponents focusing on such views, rather than the purpose or aim of his visit."

She told the court that Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights�which Justice Turner took into consideration in his July 2001 ruling�did not guarantee the rights of Min. Farrakhan to enter the United Kingdom and neither does it extends rights to the Minister to express views in a particular manner.

She said: "What (Min.) Farrakhan is seeking is access to benefits (entry to the UK) which is denied by the Secretary of State, but not his freedom of expression. (Min.) Farrakhan also wants a particular platform (physical presence) to speak, but he has no right to that platform under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights."

The attorney added Nation of Islam members in the UK have no rights to insist that the Minister be physically present to deliver his message.

Challenged several times by judges to explain the logic of her arguments, attorney Carss-Frisk said the Home Secretary has "wide discretionary areas of judgement, being democratically accountable to the parliament," without having to give reasons for all his decisions. She said Justice Turner failed to take into consideration the Home Secretary�s discretionary powers in his July 2001 ruling.

Concluding, she said: "(Min.) Farrakhan�s presence in the UK will pose risk to public order and damage community relations. The freedom of expression of (Min.) Farrakhan should be balanced with the rights of others. These are the issues that Mr. Justice Turner ignored in his ruling."

In his response, Nicholas Blake, the lead attorney for Min. Farrakhan, picked holes in Ms. Carss-Frisk�s submission, insisting that Justice Turner was right to rule that there were no grounds for the exclusion order. He said the UK government did not present written explanatory statements�in the form of intelligence reports, police reports or Jewish community representations�to convince the judge of the substance of the Home Secretary�s decision to renew the ban in November 2000.

Referring to sections of Justice Turner�s ruling, attorney Blake said it is astonishing that in a case as important as this, the Home Secretary found it difficult to present hard evidence to support his decision beyond selected, out of context quotes from Min. Farrakhan�s speeches. He said all that Justice Turner asked of the Home Secretary was to review his decision in the light of court hearing.

Atty. Blake described Min. Farrakhan as an important figure in America. He said that since and before the historic 1995 Million Man March in Washington, Min. Farrakhan had "achieved a status of political leader in the U.S. and had become an extremely prominent spiritual, religious and social leader," who speaks to the pain of Blacks and other oppressed people throughout the world.

He told the court that Ms. Carss-Frisk�s submission that the Minister�s presence in the UK will pose risk to public order has no substance. He observed that no incidence of violence has been recorded at public meetings held by the Minister in almost 50 years of ministry in the U.S. Besides, the defense attorney added, Min. Farrakhan has travelled extensively to many countries throughout the world, including Israel, and there has never been a single incident of public disorder or police arrest at his meetings.

"It is absurd to say that he (Min. Farrakhan) is a rabble-rouser," he said. "He has never been convicted of any disorderly conduct and neither has anyone who has attended his meetings.

"Is the Home Secretary saying that the British people are so different from people from those countries where Minister Farrakhan has visited that they need to be over-protected because they cannot discern and take what they want from his (Minister�s) message?" attorney Blake queried.

Continuing, he said, Min. Farrakhan�s visit to the UK is "not about the Jewish people�of course he would be too willing to meet with the Jewish leaders in the United Kingdom. His visit is about promoting peace and reconciliation in the Black community (which is currently wracked by Black-on-Black killings). It is about promoting self-discipline, self-respect, self-dignity, self-empowerment in the Black community."

The Minister is not a separatist, but he is saying, "let�s sort out the problems in the Black community, let us make the Black people better citizens so that they can be an example for others," the attorney said.

"Put simply, the exclusion order is a slap in the face of the Black community in the United Kingdom," attorney Blake told the court.

After the hearing, UK representative Minister Hilary Muhammad, who led a team of Nation of Islam members and supporters to the court, told The Final Call that he was pleased with the defense arguments.