[b]Cartoon protester guilty of calling for murder[/b]
Press Association
Friday January 5, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
A Muslim demonstrator who took part in a protest march against cartoons of the prophet Muhammad was found guilty today of calling for the murder of American and Danish people.
There were shouts of protest from the public gallery as Umran Javed, 27, from Birmingham, was found guilty of soliciting murder and stirring up racial hatred during the demonstration in London last February. He was recorded on a police video shouting "Bomb, bomb Denmark. Bomb, bomb USA" to fellow demonstrators.
At the Old Bailey, David Perry QC, prosecuting, said that Javed used a megaphone to address around 40 people outside the Danish embassy in Sloane Street, Knightsbridge.
"He appeared to be one of the leaders," said Mr Perry. "He addressed the crowd in terms which encouraged killing and incited racial hatred."
Javed continued with his speech as the crowd were joined by 200-300 other Muslims who had marched from the central mosque in Regent's Park.
He condemned the cartoons as dishonouring Muhammad and accused "non-believers of declaring war against Islam and the Muslim community", said Mr Perry.
"He said disbelievers would pay a heavy price... and said Denmark would pay with blood," said Perry. In a reference to the dead Iraqi al-Qaida leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Javed told the crowd that Denmark should watch its back, because Zarqawi was "coming back". Javed also told his audience to take lessons from the slaughter of Jews and the murder of Dutch film director Theo van Gogh.
Mr Perry said the case was not about freedom of assembly or freedom of speech. "The words used were straightforward and plain. If you shout out 'bomb, bomb Denmark; bomb, bomb USA', there is no doubt about what you intend your audience to understand.
"The prosecution case is that the defendant was clearly encouraging people to commit murder - terrorist killing."
Javed told the jury: "I regret saying these things. I understand the implications they have but they were just slogans, soundbites. I did not want to see Denmark and the USA being bombed."
He remains in custody until April when he will be sentenced.
Al-Muhajiroon: All mouth and no trousers.
So let me get this straight... they [i]arrested[/i] him for shouting threats and insults (which I'm pretty sure is speech)... because he was protesting the Danish Cartoon artists who were "defending the Freedom of Speech" by... insulting and threatening Muslims...
Interesting continent...
well put!
He who sacrifices his conscience to ambition, burns a picture to obtain the ashes!
I understand where you're coming from but "bomb bomb USA" is a dangferous thing to be shouting, people will get heated up. (also notice how anything ending in "USA" makes a very catchy chant)
The sad thing is he may have actually have been just repeating the crowd's words back to them without giving those words the slightest consideration.
Gentleness and kindness were never a part of anything except that it made it beautiful, and harshness was never a part of anything except that it made it ugly.
Through cheating, stealing, and lying, one may get required results but finally one becomes
ironic really nick griffin got off scot free for his remarks about Islam and muslims, how did he manage that? Call me paranoid but is the law a farce or what? If they arrested every person who was a was anti american, anti british, anti muslim, anti black blah blah where would they put them? As it is criminals are being released early coz there is lack of space in prisons????
I like that.
He who sacrifices his conscience to ambition, burns a picture to obtain the ashes!
lol me too made me laff
nick the p**** was speaking to a private meeting of the horde of knuckle dragging thugs that make up his following…
i agree that he should have been send down to teach him and his ilk a lesson…
but, while he was spreading hate, he wasn’t calling for the murder of muslims….
the guy at the danish cartoon protest was actually shouting for blood and guts, demanding the bombing of those he hates…
thats a significant difference…
you cant call for murder and expect to go free….
They Vote To Send Us To War Instantly.....But None Of Their Kids Serve In The Infantry...
POWER TO THE PEOPLE....
Justice here, justice there, justice everywhere apart from where it really matters.
A legal system not worth the paper it is written on.
These people (judges) must be taking home some great bonuses in the "pay for a prison sentence" game. Generalising I know, as all are not like this but just the ones that deal with most cases involving muslims that are broadcast all over the media.
[img]http//i15.photobucket.com/albums/a351/fanafilllah/sig6.jpg[/img]
what do ppl think shud have happened to the guys who protested in such a way...calling for the murder of ppl?
shud they have been let off or made an example of?
Neither.
Been brought to justice. Not left, not made an 'example' of.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
I think they should be sent back to their own countries.
ye wan ou fram chippay!!
(^^btw that aint a racial slur to ppl who get that)
He who sacrifices his conscience to ambition, burns a picture to obtain the ashes!
So if they were born here?
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Oh you don't have to convince me that chanting "bomb bomb USA" is both catchy and dangerous. I completely agree, but it's still speech and it should still be protected... things are obviously different in Britain but in the United States we usually consider the civic implications of a ruling in almost every criminal act, since invariably we are setting a precedent that is either expanding or contracting government power.
Consider that on the one hand the legislation banning this kind of speech is for the public good of curbing racism, and on the other hand this comes at the expense of giving government the power to curb a human right.
My line of thought is that following the legislative attempt to its ultimate conclusion you are not gauranteed success - telling people they may not say certain things does not necessarily end racism, it just hides it from presenting itself publicly and it will always look for ways to express itself in ways the law has not yet thought of.
Whereas if you follow the empowerment of the legislature to its ultimate conclusion there will always be a precedent for the legislature to ban certain speech for "the public good" which very often is confused for the government's good - even though the two are not the same.
How easy is it for a legislature at some future date to ban "defeatist or demoralist comments" during a war. Isn't it for the public good? Defeatest comments have a clear effect on morale, which hurts troop support and kills soldiers in the field.
What other things can be banned then?
I think the legislative intent is great! I just don't think the legislative solution is great, it is playing with fire in the promise that this [i]might[/i] work... and besides, is it the governments job to make britons like each other? Even more globally is it the governments job to make sure that westerners like each other? If a muslim hates the West so much he is chanting bomb bomb USA, or a white guy is shouting about Asians taking over isn't that a more significant problem than government is capable of addressing?
I mean we establish governments as people, the people of Britain established a government, the people of America established a government - but to me it sounds like we are almost back to square one. The people? What people? They hate each other! How can they very well have a government by and for them if they don't even consider themselves one cohesive unit, but rather a thousand fragmented antagonistic ones?
This is all just to say, government should concern itself with rule of law. As applied here - don't damage anyone or anything and you're good. But morals, culture, social bonds and integration I'm afraid are issues of personal responsibility that the citizens themselves must work out, the government can't and shouldn't help them. It is inequipped, and will only abuse the power it is given.
So I appreciate the legislative intent, but this is just bad policy. Telling Danes they can't draw offensive cartoons and telling muslims they can't shout bomb usa isn't going to make these clashing people get along.
Wow rereading that last sentence... I can't believe how childish the world is.
Take Care
Dave
Why not?
Should Eminem be arrested for threatening to kill his ex-wife?
Should [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_a_President"]Gabriel Range[/url] be arrested for threatening to kill George W. Bush?
Both of these are threats, clear threats, so clear they even go into detail what their plans will look like when they unfold. But why is it that Gabriel and Eminem are not in prison for threatening to kill these two people?
I don't think it was ever even discussed, although people were talking about how distasteful both were.
The fact of the matter is defining an actual threat does have a lot to do with the time and place it occurs - if Eminem for example said everything he just said above to his wife privately in the course of a heated fight, had his fists clinched together and was screaming at the top of his lungs, Kim was being threatened.
But as a song, on stage for the whole world to see? Well there is something a little more publicly speechy about it, I don't know what that fine line is... I would venture a guess that such determinations are largely subjective, isn't it lovely that we have judges to make those kinds of determinations.
But one major difference is that song is a recognized form of public expression, so is film - these are basically sacred, and you should have a damn good reason, such as an imminent threat (clenched fists after an argument with a knife in his hand) to go after that kind of speech.
I would suggest that protesting is another kind of speech that is like this - an exercise of a fundamental right in a fundamental way. The point is there has to be more than just content for government to start arresting people. Unless he was strapping a bomb to himself and waiving tickets in the air I couldn't care less what he was shouting, from a legal standpoint, he has got the right to say it. - Idiots dont lose their rights just because they are stupid.[/b]
hello dave,
i do appreciate ur point and i accept that its important to observe the legal niceties and make sure that noble princibles r upheld, but u have to see this type of pro-murder swagger in the current political context…
there is a big difference btw a rap song or a horror flick and a frenzied political protest…
its not ok for right wing nazis to take the streets of london and urge the forced deportation of foreigners or their sons…
its not ok to be so consumed with hate and anger that u justify murder, and encourage others to glorify in killing random civilians….
u have to be held to account for your speech and ur actions….
so there have to be limits to free speech…
the guy who wanted to “bomb bomb denmark/usa” fully deserved to be prosecuted by the state…
so did the despicable nick the p****….he and his support are enemies of peace….
that type of “protest” is not acceptable in light of the current situation…
we don’t need this type of hate filled “us and them” oratory….
i don’t want any more unnecessary wars…
[b]Jesus Our Lord[/b] said [i]“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God" (Matthew 5:9).[/i]
i agree with the sermon on the mount...
They Vote To Send Us To War Instantly.....But None Of Their Kids Serve In The Infantry...
POWER TO THE PEOPLE....
THE MAN IS AN DIOT HE SAID TO MUSLIMS IN THE NO WAR ON IRAQ PROTESTS THAT U ARE NOT MUSLIMS BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT YOU ARE PROTESTING WITH NON-MUSLIMS. HE IS A SMALL MAN WHO DOESNT KNOW ALOT HOW DO I KNOW BECAUSE I DO HE IS ONE OF THOSE ODD FEW WHO GIVE THIS GREAT RELIGION A BAD NAME I TRIED TO DEFEND HIS ACTIONS BUT YET I CANT THE ONLY THING I CAN SAY IS THAT ISNT THAT FREE SPEECH OR IS IT ONLY FOR NON-MUSLIMS OH YES IT IS INCITING VIOLENCE BUT WHAT ABOUT THE BNP/ HMMM well its a case if one rule for us another for them ahh well its the western way :roll: :roll:
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane, by those who couldn't hear the music...
You didn't get it.
He who sacrifices his conscience to ambition, burns a picture to obtain the ashes!
And Admin I see you have replied in the girls section. hmmmmm
I haven't have the bravery to trek such a forum post as to my fear of what may lay within there, I assume much barbarity and extreme sports talk. But you my friend have surpassed all manly boundaries and are now bordering on madness of the most brilliant kind!
He who sacrifices his conscience to ambition, burns a picture to obtain the ashes!
???
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Yeh I was talking crap there, thought it would make sense to you!
JUST JOKING!!!!!!!!
He who sacrifices his conscience to ambition, burns a picture to obtain the ashes!