Abu Hamza extradition halted .. again
Discussion
PRTVR said:
eharding said:
PRTVR said:
A treason law existed for many years without abuse, I do not see why it could not again, I do not remembering in the 60s or 70s political opponents being thrown in jail.
Which "treason law" are you referring to? When was it repealed?In any event, what is the totemic power of calling something treason? Do you fondly suppose that a would be terrorist will stop and say "Oh, I'd better not do this, as if I do I may be done for treason" if he is not already deterred by the large body of law that makes killing people and blowing stuff up illegal?
Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 11th January 07:00
Breadvan72 said:
PRTVR said:
eharding said:
PRTVR said:
A treason law existed for many years without abuse, I do not see why it could not again, I do not remembering in the 60s or 70s political opponents being thrown in jail.
Which "treason law" are you referring to? When was it repealed?
, I did not feel the Need expand on it any more, from what I remember the treason act was watered down during Tony Blair's reign, if I am wrong please correct my failing memory.Breadvan72 said:
PRTVR said:
eharding said:
PRTVR said:
A treason law existed for many years without abuse, I do not see why it could not again, I do not remembering in the 60s or 70s political opponents being thrown in jail.
Which "treason law" are you referring to? When was it repealed?In any event, what is the totemic power of calling something treason? Do you fondly suppose that a would be terrorist will stop and say "Oh, I'd better not do this, as if I do I may be done for treason" if he is not already deterred by the large body of law that makes killing people and blowing stuff up illegal?
Edited by Breadvan72 on Sunday 11th January 07:00
Treason remains an offence in English law, but no one has been charged with the offence since William Joyce (Lord Haw Haw) just after WW2. All that happened in 1998 was that the penalty for treason was amended to life imprisonment.
There are several statutory offences relating to the incitement or encouragement or support of terrorism, and quite a few people have been imprisoned for those offences. One bloke was imprisoned for being found in possession of a magazine that favoured Al Qeda. I wouldn't like to see any more curbs on free speech than we already have (and think we already have too many, with people being arrested for wearing sweary t shirts or making jokes about blowing up airports). Calling for the government to be overthrown is not the same thing as bombing Parliament.
There are several statutory offences relating to the incitement or encouragement or support of terrorism, and quite a few people have been imprisoned for those offences. One bloke was imprisoned for being found in possession of a magazine that favoured Al Qeda. I wouldn't like to see any more curbs on free speech than we already have (and think we already have too many, with people being arrested for wearing sweary t shirts or making jokes about blowing up airports). Calling for the government to be overthrown is not the same thing as bombing Parliament.
Breadvan72 said:
Treason remains an offence in English law, but no one has been charged with the offence since William Joyce (Lord Haw Haw) just after WW2. All that happened in 1998 was that the penalty for treason was amended to life imprisonment.
There are several statutory offences relating to the incitement or encouragement or support of terrorism, and quite a few people have been imprisoned for those offences. One bloke was imprisoned for being found in possession of a magazine that favoured Al Qeda. I wouldn't like to see any more curbs on free speech than we already have (and think we already have too many, with people being arrested for wearing sweary t shirts or making jokes about blowing up airports). Calling for the government to be overthrown is not the same thing as bombing Parliament.
OK, what is your answer to the problem, we can not go on as we are, allowing people who would do harm to us just to live amongst us, and pay for them to stay here, the majority of the population views this as madness.There are several statutory offences relating to the incitement or encouragement or support of terrorism, and quite a few people have been imprisoned for those offences. One bloke was imprisoned for being found in possession of a magazine that favoured Al Qeda. I wouldn't like to see any more curbs on free speech than we already have (and think we already have too many, with people being arrested for wearing sweary t shirts or making jokes about blowing up airports). Calling for the government to be overthrown is not the same thing as bombing Parliament.
The starting point is to get a sense of perspective. The threats that we face are no way nearly as serious as those that the UK faced in the twentieth century. The Islamists are way less dangerous than the Nazis were, and still have a way to go before they can rival the danger that the Irish terrorist groups once presented. You are still more likely to die because of bad weather, careless doctors, car crashes and so on than you are to die of terrorism. People have a tendency to think that their own times are the worst of times and that their sufferings and risks are unique, but this is rarely so. As recently as the 1970s the USA, for example, was facing armed radicalism from Black Panthers and small groups of middle class student crazies, while the UK faced armed paramilitary groups. Neither the USA nor the UK collapsed.
The second point is that the police and intelligence agencies already do good work in detecting and foiling plots. I would add to their powers by allowing phone tap evidence to be used in court.
I would prohibit any state funding of any religious education or other religious activity at any level. I would not offer any privileged or protected status to any religious ideas. I would put State resources into educating every child about the values of civil society. Border controls mean little if, as has been the case, people born here decided to embrace radical ideas. Benefits may also be irrelevant if the terrorist has a job, as some do. Simply assuming that the problem is all to do with migrants on benefits is short sighted.
What I wouldn't do is turn the clock back by returning to the eighteenth century position in which statements considered seditious by the Government would land you in jail. Look at the sort of countries in the world that still do that. Do you want the UK to be one of those countries?
The second point is that the police and intelligence agencies already do good work in detecting and foiling plots. I would add to their powers by allowing phone tap evidence to be used in court.
I would prohibit any state funding of any religious education or other religious activity at any level. I would not offer any privileged or protected status to any religious ideas. I would put State resources into educating every child about the values of civil society. Border controls mean little if, as has been the case, people born here decided to embrace radical ideas. Benefits may also be irrelevant if the terrorist has a job, as some do. Simply assuming that the problem is all to do with migrants on benefits is short sighted.
What I wouldn't do is turn the clock back by returning to the eighteenth century position in which statements considered seditious by the Government would land you in jail. Look at the sort of countries in the world that still do that. Do you want the UK to be one of those countries?
Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 11th January 13:20
I add that in general we don't need more laws as we already have far too many. We need effective enforcement of extant laws. Killing people and planning to kill people have been against the law forever. Blair, contrary to what you suggest, didn't water down the criminal law but instead added endless new criminal offences to the law. That may appease the tabloids and look tough, but is in fact ineffective, as all you end up with are rafts of badly drafted, conflicting and confusing legislation.
Given that you raised this point...
Welcome to the EU, a world where seditious libel is alive and well.
On-topic and back to the point of not using any similar stifling pernicious nonsense in the context of the thread...agreed. It would be unhelpful.
Breadvan72 said:
What I wouldn't do is turn the clock back by returning to the eighteenth century position in which statements considered seditious by the Government would land you in jail. Look at the sort of countries in the world that still do that. Do you want the UK to be one of those countries?
The UK already is, via the EU, in terms of prosecution/persecution more than the particular sentence handed down.Article on the Connolly case said:
The greatest threat to free speech and civil liberty in Europe may not, however, be national governments infected with extreme political correctness, but the European Union. On 06 March 2001, the European Court of Justice provided the British people with a vision of things to come, when it rendered a ruling in Connolly v.Commission that, in essence, resurrected the legal monstrosity of seditious libel.
Mr. Connolly had been an E.U. staff official, working on monetary policy. During a three-month unpaid leave from his position, he published a book entitled The Rotten Heart of Europe : The Dirty War for Europe 's Money. After Connolly had initially returned to his E.U. post, the book was serialized in the Times of London , and Connolly gave interviews as part of the publicity campaign for the book, during which he remarked that:
"My central thesis is that the ERM [Exchange Rate Mechanism] and EMU [European Monetary Union] are not only inefficient but also undemocratic: a danger not only to our wealth but to our freedoms and ultimately, our peace. The villains of the story—some more culpable than others—are bureaucrats and self-aggrandizing politicians. The ERM is a mechanism for subordinating the economic welfare, democratic rights and national freedom of citizens of the European countries to the will of political and bureaucratic elites whose power-lust, cynicism and delusions underlie the actions of the vast majority of those who now strive to create a European superstate. The ERM has been their chosen instrument, and they have used it cleverly."
In retaliation, Connolly was fired from his EU job and his pension was taken away for violating regulations governing EU employee conduct, which forbid employees to publish material without permission.
The unanimous four-judge court acknowledged that Connolly had free-expression rights and that the European Union's rule that permission be obtained before employees publish anything had to be interpreted in light of freedom of expression. But the right of freedom of expression, the court asserted, may only be exercised in a manner consistent with "the protection of the rights of others." Connolly's book had interfered with the "rights" of the European Union itself, the court explained, because the book "damaged the institution's image and reputation."
My emphasis. Mr. Connolly had been an E.U. staff official, working on monetary policy. During a three-month unpaid leave from his position, he published a book entitled The Rotten Heart of Europe : The Dirty War for Europe 's Money. After Connolly had initially returned to his E.U. post, the book was serialized in the Times of London , and Connolly gave interviews as part of the publicity campaign for the book, during which he remarked that:
"My central thesis is that the ERM [Exchange Rate Mechanism] and EMU [European Monetary Union] are not only inefficient but also undemocratic: a danger not only to our wealth but to our freedoms and ultimately, our peace. The villains of the story—some more culpable than others—are bureaucrats and self-aggrandizing politicians. The ERM is a mechanism for subordinating the economic welfare, democratic rights and national freedom of citizens of the European countries to the will of political and bureaucratic elites whose power-lust, cynicism and delusions underlie the actions of the vast majority of those who now strive to create a European superstate. The ERM has been their chosen instrument, and they have used it cleverly."
In retaliation, Connolly was fired from his EU job and his pension was taken away for violating regulations governing EU employee conduct, which forbid employees to publish material without permission.
The unanimous four-judge court acknowledged that Connolly had free-expression rights and that the European Union's rule that permission be obtained before employees publish anything had to be interpreted in light of freedom of expression. But the right of freedom of expression, the court asserted, may only be exercised in a manner consistent with "the protection of the rights of others." Connolly's book had interfered with the "rights" of the European Union itself, the court explained, because the book "damaged the institution's image and reputation."
Welcome to the EU, a world where seditious libel is alive and well.
Definition of Seditious Libel said:
Written or spoken words, pictures, signs, or other forms of communication that tend to defame, discredit, criticize, impugn, embarrass, challenge, or question the government, its policies, or its officials.
Breadvan72 said:
Look at the sort of countries in the world that still do that. Do you want the UK to be one of those countries?
Do you?On-topic and back to the point of not using any similar stifling pernicious nonsense in the context of the thread...agreed. It would be unhelpful.
At what point do we consider it to be bad enough ? Is not a soldier having his head hacked of on the street bad enough, if the law does not deal with the problem it will be seen as part of the problem,all your solutions are long term, the problem is now, as I have said before if its not dealt with now, gradually our freedom will be eroded in the name of security,
For me we have two choices, have strong political leadership coupled to robust law, or carry on as we are and have our freedoms gradually removed, in this respect UK law is a disgrace, the French coined the phrase Londistan, it indicates how they see our lack of ability to deal with the problem.
For me we have two choices, have strong political leadership coupled to robust law, or carry on as we are and have our freedoms gradually removed, in this respect UK law is a disgrace, the French coined the phrase Londistan, it indicates how they see our lack of ability to deal with the problem.
Breadvan72 said:
I would prohibit any state funding of any religious education or other religious activity at any level. I would not offer any privileged or protracted status to any religious ideas. I would put State resources into educating every child about the values of civil society . . .
What I wouldn't do is turn the clock back by returning to the eighteenth century position in which statements considered seditious by the Government would land you in jail. Look at the sort of countries in the world that still do that. Do you want the UK to be one of those countries?
The funding of religious schools is something that really irritates me. It is not, honestly, about the money. It is the status that this gives to groups which openly admit to, in fact boast about, being discriminatory against women, gays and, most ferociously, those who don't believe in their particular sect. I do not want to give any support to these groups. The fact that they gain tax relief in a number of ways, have access to governments, sit in the HoL, and have legislation there to protect them against ridicule, not only for their (stated) belief in the miracle of the pilchards, but against their fear of gays, women and others who might threaten them, is illogical and worrying.What I wouldn't do is turn the clock back by returning to the eighteenth century position in which statements considered seditious by the Government would land you in jail. Look at the sort of countries in the world that still do that. Do you want the UK to be one of those countries?
If they don't conform to the mores of society, and few religions do, then they should be marginalised until they become moral.
Let any group believe what it wants to believe. There should be no thought police. But religion should be treated the same as astrology, astral projection and homeopathy. Or rather treat them like airplane spotters at airports. If they don't get in the way, they are left alone. Become a bit of a pain, and they are moved on.
(No offence to airplane spotters.)
Most importantly, if we react to the horror of what went on in France with restrictive laws and draconian punishments, we will turn into what the terrorists want us to be.
PRTVR said:
At what point do we consider it to be bad enough ?
Consider what is bad enough?PRTVR said:
Is not a soldier having his head hacked of on the street bad enough, if the law does not deal with the problem it will be seen as part of the problem,
What response would you like the law to take? That behaviour is already murder. PRTVR said:
all your solutions are long term, the problem is now, as I have said before if its not dealt with now, gradually our freedom will be eroded in the name of security, For me we have two choices, have strong political leadership coupled to robust law, or carry on as we are and have our freedoms gradually removed, in this respect UK law is a disgrace,
Why need our freedoms be removed or eroded? And what is the "robust law" that will prevent this happening?PRTVR said:
the French coined the phrase Londistan, it indicates how they see our lack of ability to deal with the problem.
What's your point here? You're surely not suggesting that an anecdote about what some French people nickname London is a good basis upon which to legislate, are you?Edited by SamHH on Sunday 11th January 09:59
SamHH said:
PRTVR said:
At what point do we consider it to be bad enough ?
Consider what is bad enough?PRTVR said:
Is not a soldier having his head hacked of on the street bad enough, if the law does not deal with the problem it will be seen as part of the problem,
What response would you like the law to take? That behaviour is already murder. PRTVR said:
all your solutions are long term, the problem is now, as I have said before if its not dealt with now, gradually our freedom will be eroded in the name of security, For me we have two choices, have strong political leadership coupled to robust law, or carry on as we are and have our freedoms gradually removed, in this respect UK law is a disgrace,
Why need our freedoms be removed or eroded? And what is the "robust law" that will prevent this happening?PRTVR said:
the French coined the phrase Londistan, it indicates how they see our lack of ability to deal with the problem.
What's your point here? You're surely not suggesting that an anecdote about what some French people nickname London is a good basis upon which to legislate, are you?Edited by SamHH on Sunday 11th January 09:59
This thread is about an Islamic Preacher, who in most peoples opinion are a problem,
A problem that over a long time we have struggled to deal with, these people sow the seeds that lead to violence, it has been recognised the world over that we have a problem, a problem that will not go away unless something is done, the more we do nothing the more our freedoms will be removed under the banner of protecting the public.
PRTVR said:
I am unsure what you are on about,
This thread is about an Islamic Preacher, who in most peoples opinion are a problem,
A problem that over a long time we have struggled to deal with, these people sow the seeds that lead to violence, it has been recognised the world over that we have a problem, a problem that will not go away unless something is done, the more we do nothing the more our freedoms will be removed under the banner of protecting the public.
Can you respond to any of my questions? How, for example, ought the law to respond to "a soldier having his head hacked of on the street" other than by making that murder?This thread is about an Islamic Preacher, who in most peoples opinion are a problem,
A problem that over a long time we have struggled to deal with, these people sow the seeds that lead to violence, it has been recognised the world over that we have a problem, a problem that will not go away unless something is done, the more we do nothing the more our freedoms will be removed under the banner of protecting the public.
What mechanism do you think will lead to freedoms being removed or eroded, and what are the "robust laws" that will prevent that from happening?
SamHH said:
PRTVR said:
I am unsure what you are on about,
This thread is about an Islamic Preacher, who in most peoples opinion are a problem,
A problem that over a long time we have struggled to deal with, these people sow the seeds that lead to violence, it has been recognised the world over that we have a problem, a problem that will not go away unless something is done, the more we do nothing the more our freedoms will be removed under the banner of protecting the public.
Can you respond to any of my questions? How, for example, ought the law to respond to "a soldier having his head hacked of on the street" other than by making that murder?This thread is about an Islamic Preacher, who in most peoples opinion are a problem,
A problem that over a long time we have struggled to deal with, these people sow the seeds that lead to violence, it has been recognised the world over that we have a problem, a problem that will not go away unless something is done, the more we do nothing the more our freedoms will be removed under the banner of protecting the public.
What mechanism do you think will lead to freedoms being removed or eroded, and what are the "robust laws" that will prevent that from happening?
Do you not think things have changed under due to the security situation and do you not think there will be more changes?
Good thread drift, tb, but perhaps even here not every thread can become a UKIP thread. One crazy decision in 2001 leading to… er, nothing. The forecasts of doom that you quote didn't come true. 14 years on, and we remain free to say rude and nasty things about the Government and even about the EU. All of this is as it should be, but if we are to be allowed to say all the stuff that we want to say, we have to put up with some real hateys saying some really hatey stuff too.
Breadvan72 said:
Good thread drift, tb...
Following from your own comment objecting to the prospect of seditious libel and not wanting to be anywhere near it (yet you already are, courtesy of the EU). Threads have an O/T icon for this reason, and I used it as intended both then and now 
Breadvan72 said:
...perhaps even here not every thread can become a UKIP thread.
Perhaps not, and there was no mention of UKIP in my post. Breadvan72 said:
One crazy decision in 2001 leading to… er, nothing.
Ask the defendant about that.
Breadvan72 said:
The forecasts of doom that you quote didn't come true.
Yet. Have we reached the end of all time or even the end of the EU?! Breadvan72 said:
There are several statutory offences relating to the incitement or encouragement or support of terrorism, and quite a few people have been imprisoned for those offences. One bloke was imprisoned for being found in possession of a magazine that favoured Al Qeda. I wouldn't like to see any more curbs on free speech than we already have (and think we already have too many, with people being arrested for wearing sweary t shirts or making jokes about blowing up airports). Calling for the government to be overthrown is not the same thing as bombing Parliament.
Well said. Tb, that rubbish decision did not lead to any EU wide ban on free speech or resurrection of seditious libel. It is about as relevant as that ancient paper you endlessly cite in any speeding thread. Why not try extending those calls for rigour and evidence that you use in climate threads to your other hobby horses?
From the shooting in Paris thread.
Why is this allowed?
"Cleric Mizanur Rahman, of Palmers Green, north London, defended the brutal murder of 12 people at the Charlie Hebdo offices, saying ‘insulting Islam…they can’t expect a different result.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2905075/Ha...
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook"
Why is this allowed?
"Cleric Mizanur Rahman, of Palmers Green, north London, defended the brutal murder of 12 people at the Charlie Hebdo offices, saying ‘insulting Islam…they can’t expect a different result.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2905075/Ha...
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook"
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff