"100man" wrote:

"yuit" wrote:

Unfortunately 100 I had first hand experience of the media yesterday, and just put it this way, they won't be getting my trust very quickly again. I hear them say all day on Monday that Omar seem a really nice bloke, tell us something about him, i remain quiet, after his statement the same person came up to me and said that Omar was a brillant bloke, only to hear the same person on ITV news say that the bloke apologies was fake, because now he be exposed as a drug dealer. It all about finding a story that sells. I also had newspaper asking question trying to lead me to say something against certain people, they scum IMO and i won't be using them to source my opinion of people. Never really trusted them before, but yeah this week, taught me a important lesson. Should i read the newspaper and form a opinion on someone i known for 18 years or so, or should i judge him on my interaction with him.

I know, when you're mate's a crack dealer and gets on TV dressed as a suicide bomber life can suck. It's a shame they didn't mention he's a brilliant bloke.

If you want to be a small minded person, you can look at it that way. But there always more to a situation and as you don't know the in and out of teh situation you speaking from ingorance. But of course to u i just sticking up for my muslim brother :roll:

Dave, I disagree. Incitement is not merely making militant speeches, and I can only assume you aren't familiar with the stuff. Additionally he is believed to have orchestrated terrorist attacks in Aden and Abyan, but it was established that if his time here had not been crime-free he should be prosecuted before being extradited.

Yuit, you are saying nothing substantial one way or the other. :?

"100man" wrote:

Yuit, you are saying nothing substantial one way or the other. :?

Just was vary of the way u play with words, at no time did i mention he was a mate, just someone i know. You mention he a drug dealer, basically he was found with a decent amount of drugs 4 years ago, he paid the price of that and is noway inclined to that way now. Dress as a suicide bomber, that still questionable IMO, afterall are we going to accuse all people wearing that vest which is on sale in the market of imitating suicide bombers. As far as i know his intention was to dress military which was stupid enough, but just because the media says something doesn't make it so, this story has show me so many limitation of allowing the media to dictate everything on anyone situation, there job is not to provide hard fact, just interesting ones. That all i willing to say on the situation.

"100man" wrote:

Dave, I disagree. Incitement is not merely making militant speeches, and I can only assume you aren't familiar with the stuff. Additionally he is believed to have orchestrated terrorist attacks in Aden and Abyan, but it was established that if his time here had not been crime-free he should be prosecuted before being extradited.

Yuit, you are saying nothing substantial one way or the other. :?

100 is sounds like you do not understand the thrust of my arguments, and I assure you as a law student and an active participant in the war on terror I know what I am talking about.

Perhaps it is my fault you are confusing what I am saying. I have two concerns, one is legal philosophic, the other is a point of Justice.

As a student of the law I am concerned that the [i]new[/i] laws against incitement, are written too broadly as to encompass what was traditionally protected speech. My concern is based on the American attempts to limit so called "hate speech" which produced a flurry of now abandoned court doctrines, only to result in the striking down of the law as too broadly written and too constrictive of civil liberties, a position I begrugedly agree with.

That is my jurisophic concern, and is completely academic.

As a brief former Defense department worker, whose uncle is the Vice Chairman of the 9/11 commission I am further concerned that [i]as far as I know[/i] a known terrorist, Abu Hamza, is being arrested for "incitement" under these measures I consider too broad and unworkable - rather than for his [i]actual[/i] criminal record which includes terrorist activities in Yemen.

Perhaps you are not aware - but the United States requires Hamza to be found guilty of terrorist activities to be extradited to the USA and tried - not of "incitement" a law which carries no weight in the States. The revised treaty requires that the law broken be a felony offense, incitement is not.

That is my concern regarding the concrete implications of this miscarriage of justice.

In this light perhaps you can now see my Al Capone reference - Al Capone was arrested on tax evasion, and not murder racketeering or alcohol smuggling; similarly arresting Abu Hamza based on "incitement to violence" when he is clearly guilty of terrorist activities is a breakdown in justice; even moreso when the law they are charging him under may in fact proove unworkable and unnecessarily constrictive of the right to speak freely in the future.

It sounds as though we are saying the same thing - though my concern for the future protection of civil rights is notably absent from your position.

100man once again u fail to think outside the box...

its very well the govt and various Islam haters do not hesitate when making demands from the Muslim community and make inhumane offensive statements about our religion.

but when it comes to reassuring the nation that we are equal.. 'don't owe you a thing'

mate, I wish.. I, or the Muslim community could believe you about our so called equality.. unfortunatly statements like that do very little to help us, feel equal..

The government may not owe me, but it definately owes the nation. After all itts these feeling of insecurities that give fanatics leverage to gain popularity.

khan,

This place is pretty secure, notwithstanding terrorists.

Dave,

Fair enough.

Yuit,

Fair enough.

I agree with Don for the legalistic point of view. The laws are a bit vague and over reaching. and why was this any diferent from Nick Griffin? More people take Griffin seriously in the UK than captain hook. and saying he will be retried is a cop-out. Nick got away with it.

But the system did us muslims a favour.

Not gonna complain this time. But itmay set a precedent which could be dangerous.

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4693540.stm]hmm...[/url]

I think it entirely appropriate that it's illegal to incite violence and solicit for jihad. It may be unfortunate that our incitment laws are not enough for extradition, but no doubt that is outstanding following this sentence.

If something is done in the UK, it should be punished in the UK under UK law.

"100man" wrote:

I think it entirely appropriate that it's illegal to incite violence and solicit for jihad. It may be unfortunate that our incitment laws are not enough for extradition, but no doubt that is outstanding following this sentence.

Right, it might be necessary - but does that diminish my argument that the ambiguous language of the law represents a possible threat to civil liberties?

And there IS enough for extradition - if they charge him for his "alleged" terrorist activities in Yemen and elsewhere - they already got his son.

"Dave" wrote:

Right, it might be necessary - but does that diminish my argument that the ambiguous language of the law represents a possible threat to civil liberties?

Not per se, and I don't know. I'm not really arguing, but I support the prosecution and I support the result. What's the deal with the ambiguous language?

"100man" wrote:

Not per se, and I don't know.

The problem is - at least from a western constitutional standpoint - there is always a "necessity" whether real or legitimate to allow government more control over civil liberties it's the Leviathon analogy. The problem is determining when that is prudent, and at least in the American example the people rarely find such instances prudent - for good reason, once a right is surrendured to the state it is very difficult to take it back. You give them enough rope and they will hang you.

Soliciting to murder though. "Using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with the intention of stirring up racial hatred" is vague, I'll agree, but I would think the thing to demonstrate then is intention, which was clear in this instance.

"100man" wrote:

"Dave" wrote:

Right, it might be necessary - but does that diminish my argument that the ambiguous language of the law represents a possible threat to civil liberties?

Not per se, and I don't know. I'm not really arguing, but I support the prosecution and I support the result. What's the deal with the ambiguous language?

Right - I support the prosecution for his links to terrorism - but that's not a charge on his indictment from what i've read. Instead it is on this fishy "incitement law" which uses ambiguous language like "hatred" "insulting words" and "incitement" (copy of the law [url=http://nwhsa.redblackandgreen.net/public_order_act_1986.htm]here[/url]) which imo is a dangerous law.

It seems to me like they are sacrificing civil rights needlessly with an unworkable law - when they could just go for the jugular and have the state present it's case of terrorism against him.

Thus making him extraditionable to the US or Yemen (who have his son).

It doesn't make sense.

"100man" wrote:

Soliciting to murder though. "Using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with the intention of stirring up racial hatred" is vague, I'll agree, but I would think the thing to demonstrate then is intention, which was clear in this instance.

The problem is intention is very much in the eye of the beholder. The world can't even decide if the Danish cartoons were really an exercise in freedom of speech like they say or an islamphobic tirade.

And as for the language itself - it's just unworkable, we've tried it here - it failed.

"Dave" wrote:

when they could just go for the jugular

I think it [i]was[/i] necessary to tighten laws against the promotion of violence and I guess this was a test of the law on a jihadi Imam. If the law is open to abuse that will no doubt be corrected.

"100man" wrote:

"Dave" wrote:

when they could just go for the jugular

I think it [i]was[/i] necessary to tighten laws against the promotion of violence and I guess this was a test of the law on a jihadi Imam. If the law is open to abuse that will no doubt be corrected.

But that was already done 100. The Terrorism Act of 2000, section 40 includes preparation for terrorism - which includes actively recruiting for it. The laws didn't need any more tightened, and it would seem that the 86 law as applied is redundant (and therefore even less necessary) in this case.

However this stuff about his militant speeches really isn't the interest with Hamza. There is substantiate evidence he played an active role in attempting to set up terrorist training camps in the UK and in Oregon. THAT's why he is wanted for terrorism - not because he makes pscyhotic speeches.

So why not arrest him with that law?

As for possible abuses in the law - I don't see how ambiguous language at the discretion of the government can be corrected without compromising the law to such a point it no longer functions.

I can buy what you're saying, but I can't marginalise the effects of his propaganda. I think it has had a serious impact.

"Dave" wrote:

As for possible abuses in the law - I don't see how ambiguous language at the discretion of the government can be corrected without compromising the law to such a point it no longer functions.

Refinement, not compromise! If it's vague it needs to specify is all.

But what about freedo... Oh.

:twisted:

I will let lawyers argue this out. I am just good at the incidental commenting.

The laws are too overreaching IMO.

I am so not a lawyer. Ah, but you are lovely. And it is time for me to go to bed.

"100man" wrote:

I can buy what you're saying, but I can't marginalise the effects of his propaganda. I think it has had a serious impact.

"Dave" wrote:

As for possible abuses in the law - I don't see how ambiguous language at the discretion of the government can be corrected without compromising the law to such a point it no longer functions.

It's refinement, not compromise!

Oh certainly he's had a tremendous impact - but the problem for me is when it gets down to the quid pro quo, it would require too much government intervention in free speech, with too much of its own discretion to be worth the price of [i]possibly[/i] controlling his dangerous rhetoric.

I feel like i'd be giving 2 apples for the possibility of getting just one.

And without real visable measures to put some meat on this "refinement" I don't see how the law could be workable in a way that doesn't significantly disrupt civil liberties.

But the Americans are different than the British.

"100man" wrote:

I am so not a lawyer. Ah, but you are lovely. And it is time for me to go to bed.

lol very good then - goodnight and if I don't hear from you before Saturday, Shabbat Shalom!

"Dave" wrote:

But the Americans are different than the British

and for a while everything was fine. Good night.

"100man" wrote:

"Dave" wrote:

But the Americans are different than the British

and for a while everything was fine. Good night.

lol revolutions pop up at the most inconvenient times

Secure..

Nick Griffin calls for the ethnic cleansing of Muslims. Everywhere the BNP show their faces racist crimes arise.

Nick's a hypocrite. He's a Hilter-loving Nazi who wants to recreate the Holocaust, but he pretends he's not even a racist.

The BNP are a bigger threat than AM. They're winning elections and encouraging others to play the race card. Abu Hamza represents a fringe group within a minority. Despite efforts to prove that he's behind 7/7, we've yet to see proof.

Again, the media are obsessed with Abu Hamza. If newspapers gave fuehrer Nick that much publicity everyone would think the 4th Reich was coming soon.

Equality

Again with Nick Griffin you are faced with the trade off - giving government wide discretion in controlling speech for the safety of [i]possibly[/i] reducing hate crimes by proscribing "hate speech." The language of the '86 statute can and does cover much of what Nick says. The problem it seems from your standpoint is that while there is legislation to control him, you believe the government is not doing so at some sort of racist discretion. This is the problem with giving government discretion to control speech - it might not always apply it fairly, at all, or it might use it for its own purposes. That's precisely why I don't think the citizens should surrendur their rights to the government at all in this example - even if that means allowing nut cases to encourage terrorism and the fourth reich in the middle of trafalgar square.

It's just not worth the trade for an unworkable law imo.

khan, nonetheless you are pretty secure. Racial tensions in some areas like Oldham are a particular phenomenon - if that is why you raise Griffin, what did you have in mind, that would reassure you?

btw if you do not challenge the grounds for conviction it seems strange to read discrimination into it. I would like to challenge the BNP as much as you, but it is obvious it won't be easy since unlike al Muhajiroun, who simply could not incite violence any other way, they pick their language carefully and are a political party, albeit one banned from non-elected public office. You cannot claim justice turns a blind eye. On the other hand Hamza widely distributed highly inflammatory speeches directly soliciting for violence, in writing, over the internet, on video and audio cassette, on campus, in jails, in seminars and public sermons. Whether there is evidence enough to prosecute for other crimes I don't know, but he was making quite a monkey out of Britain. I am sorry that it is from your religion that the habit of soliciting for jihad emanates, but prosecuting for that is not an issue of discrimination, unless you feel that Hamza was innocent and framed. Demanding a tit-for-tat with Griffin is trite.

Pretty secure? Maybe in the context if someone attacks you call the old bill, or if someone is talking of Jihad call 999, or if someone is talking of ethnic cleansing call 999.

All I am saying is that a call for ethnic cleansing should not be seen as free speech, especially when talk of Jihad is linked to terrorism.

Again I suggest that you think outside the box

Muslims are not secure when you've got looneys spreading hatred and talk of ethnic cleansing. Which in my opinion are directly responsible for acts of race hate crimes.

The growth of the BNP is dangerous because when they reach a critical strength they will begin physical (and eventual legislative if in government) attacks on ethnic minorities, trade unionists and any left-wing or anti-racist campaigners. If they gain state power they will enslave the population and enact their dream of ethnic cleansing.

You may feel that day will never come.. Seeing as though you're refusing to comment on the media's interest in these affairs. Do you not see how the media is not helping things either.

Allah (s.w.t) knows, how many people will vote for the BNP at the next elections. I mean the media is pretty much saying that Islam is the enemy.

Yea I don't think you can discount the BNP - racist nationalist groups manage to find a surprising amount of support sometimes.

The Klan under D.C. Stephenson had membership up to 4,000,000 in the early 20th century - in [i]Indiana[/i], that's not Alabama. Under David Duke their numbers swelled once more in the 80s.

And the fact that these groups can get into government is doubly concerning. If Britain is going to have these dangerous laws proscribing speech they absolutely must be applied equally to all dangerous speech - not just immediate threats to the largest constituencies.

However I would still argue the laws are too dangerous. Nick Griffin and Abu Hamza are provably guilty of crimes by action which do not limit civil rights - they should be charged with them.

Who is to say 10 years down the line a muslim simply voicing dissent against an unfair law couldn't be considered "seditious" or "violent" - or a British person concerned that immigration is changing British culture to it's detriment isn't "inciting hatred" - it would all be at government discretion... and I would never trust a government with my civil liberties unless I was sure they would solve the problem and it was absolutely necessary.