Aressting because of hate speach

[Lord Winter]

This left a bad taste in my mouth. Even thou the aresstees were saying the UK, denmark, US and compeny should have be bombed four years is to heavy a price for not even plaining a crime.

Four men jailed over cartoon demo
Umran Javed, jailed over Muhammad cartoon protests
Umran Javed was one of the men jailed over the protests
Four men have been jailed for their part in protests outside the Danish embassy in London, against cartoons satirising the Prophet Muhammad.

Mizanur Rahman, 24, Umran Javed, 27, and Abdul Muhid, 24, were each jailed for six years for soliciting to murder after telling a crowd to bomb the UK.

A fourth man, Abdul Saleem, 32, was jailed for four years for stirring up racial hatred at the protest in 2006.

The men, from London and Birmingham, were convicted at the Old Bailey.

Judge Brian Barker said their words had been designed to encourage murder and terrorism.

About 300 protestors marched outside the Danish embassy in February last year after cartoons satirising Muhammad were published in newspapers in Denmark and other European countries.

Outside the sentencing hearing, a group of around 40 demonstrators waved placards with slogans including "Muslims Under Siege".

'Blood running'

Rahman, from Palmers Green, north London, was filmed at the rally talking over a loudspeaker and calling for UK soldiers to be brought back from Iraq in body bags.

He said: "We want to see their blood running in the streets of Baghdad.

Mizanur Rahman
Mizanur Rahman called for the deaths of UK soldiers in Iraq

"We want to see the Mujahideen shoot down their planes the way we shoot down birds. We want to see their tanks burn in the way we burn their flags."

Javed, from Birmingham, was filmed by police shouting: "Bomb, bomb Denmark. Bomb, bomb USA."

Father-of-five and BT engineer Saleem was cleared of soliciting murder at his trial in February, but convicted of stirring up racial hatred.

Saleem, from Poplar, east London, chanted, "7/7 on its way" and "Europe, you will pay with your blood".

Finally, Abdul Muhid, 24, said to be the leader of the demonstration, chanted "Bomb, bomb the UK" and waved placards with slogans such as "Annihilate those who insult Islam".

The men had denied having extremist views and said they were simply following others rather than leading the protests.

After the case, Chief Superintendent Ian Thomas, of the Metropolitan Police, said: "We have a long history of facilitating lawful demonstration, taking into account freedom of speech.

"However, these people stepped over that line and broke the law."

[Kralizec]

I can't say I feel bothered by this in the slightest.

[Scurvy]

Mizanur Rahman, 24, Umran Javed, 27, and Abdul Muhid, 24, were each jailed for six years for soliciting to murder after telling a crowd to bomb the UK.

A fourth man, Abdul Saleem, 32, was jailed for four years for stirring up racial hatred at the protest in 2006.

seems fair to me...

[Husar]

after telling a crowd to bomb the UK.

That, my friend, is where the limit of free speech lies and it's the reason why words can kill, even if indirectly. It's forbidden here as well, hate speech and nazi propaganda are not allowed. Otherwise I'd say you could allow even the planning of an attack since a plan doesn't hurt anyone, right?

[Lord Winter]

What woorys me more here is the precedent. Under this precedent a few careless words could mean six years of your life gone. Under this prcedent someone could be aressted for saying that [insert facist regiem here] needs to bombed. Overall I have problemes with someone being given six years for a speach, not a bomb not even plans for building a bomb, but for the want to build a bomb. If this is the precendent then a lot more arrest should be made then just these.

[Scurvy]

Under this precedent a few careless words could mean six years of your life gone.

Rahman, from Palmers Green, north London, was filmed at the rally talking over a loudspeaker and calling for UK soldiers to be brought back from Iraq in body bags.

He said: "We want to see their blood running in the streets of Baghdad.

"We want to see the Mujahideen shoot down their planes the way we shoot down birds. We want to see their tanks burn in the way we burn their flags."

Javed, from Birmingham, was filmed by police shouting: "Bomb, bomb Denmark. Bomb, bomb USA."

Saleem, from Poplar, east London, chanted, "7/7 on its way" and "Europe, you will pay with your blood".

Finally, Abdul Muhid, 24, said to be the leader of the demonstration, chanted "Bomb, bomb the UK" and waved placards with slogans such as "Annihilate those who insult Islam".

a few careless words indeed...

--> I agree that care has to be taken when acting on such things, however freedom of speech is not limitless... when someone advocates murder or violence then they are commiting an offence, furthermore although they have not planned anything, their words and actions could lead to others planning attacks etc...

[InsaneApache]

They should have been charged with treason and the key thrown away.

[lars573]

They should have been charged with treason and the key thrown away.

Treason would require them trying to act on those words.

[InsaneApache]

Treason would require them trying to act on those words.

Nope.

A person was guilty of high treason under the Act if they:
"compassed or imagined" (i.e. planned) the death of the King, his wife or his eldest son and heir;
violated the King's companion, the King's eldest daughter if she was unmarried or the wife of the King's eldest son and heir;
levied war against the King in his Realm or adhered to the King's enemies in his Realm, giving them aid and comfort in his Realm or elsewhere;
counterfeited the Great Seal, the Privy Seal or any of the King's money (reduced to felony in 1861);
imported counterfeit English money (also reduced to felony in 1861);
killed the Chancellor, Treasurer (this office is now in commission), one of the King's Justices (either of the King's Bench or the Common Pleas), a Justice in Eyre or an Assize judge, while they are performing their offices.

Interestingly, if they had been charged with treason in the UK before 1998, theoretically, they could have been hung drawn and quartered.

[lars573]

Words aren't really aid or comfort. It would take a lot of legalist hoop jumps to make it seem so too.

[InsaneApache]

William Joyce would have agreed with you. Alas, they hanged him for treason.

[Whacker]

I can't really say anything better than what Scurvy already said.

Careless words are one thing, solicitation of violence another. Some of the statements those men made were a *bit* grey, others were plainly calls for violence. As such, they get what's coming to them. If I stood outside my town hall and called for people to bomb the nation's capital, you could be sure I'd be spending some time in a FPMIA prison.

Further I couldn't agree more that we need to be careful about what types of speech aren't 'free', esp. in today's age where paranoia and risk avoidance is rife. This however seems to be a somewhat fair implementation of the law. Calling on people to 'organize' and 'march' are clearly peaceful means of protesting and trying to bring about change, and clearly are not the same as calling for blood to flow in the streets.

[Husar]

Well, I think there is a difference between a few careless words in private and shouting around in front of an embassy so that everybody shall hear it. Just like there is a difference between peeing on your kitchen table in your home and peeing on a table in a restaurant.

[HoreTore]

6 years? Are you kidding me?

I'm lucky I don't live in the UK, I'd be arrested every other week.

[Don Corleone]

6 years? Are you kidding me?

I'm lucky I don't live in the UK, I'd be arrested every other week.

You actively encourage people to ignite incendiary devices and kill innocent civilians? Perhaps you should be.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot for a moment. Let's pick a group that you personally and other Leftys don't feel a need to defend. What if I walked around saying the KKK was right, and there was nothing wrong with America that a few lynchings couldn't cure.* What if I then threw a rally and actively encouraged people in the audience to go home and lynch a few Jews, African-Americans (except I wouldn't use that term), and Irishmen? Then, what if all of a sudden, a few Jews, Irishmen and African-Americans started turning up swaying from ropes in towns where I visited and held rallies (though I could prove I had nothing to do with the act itself). Do you think you'd still be so blase' about the affect of hate-speech and incitement to violence?

*Note: My apologies to Jews, Irishmen, African-Americans and people of good taste everywhere for the ugliness of this analogy. While distateful as I find the Klan, I do believe my comparison frames the issue where it belongs: a question of responsibility and inciting violence, not muzzling of free speech.

[Milovan]

Giving someone six years for something he said is not right, since nobody acted on this. Average Joe Sixpack can say that nation X should be bombed, that doesn't make him a criminal, just a first grade . If someone had actually performed attacks on UK, Denmark or whatever, then those men who were jailed would bear a part of the guilt and should be put away. Otherwise, those are just words. Did jailing the men have any effect on the security of UK citizens? Such acts can only make things worse. If a man can be jailed for six years for saying "Bomb the UK!" what should then be done about the original author of those offensive drawings of Muhammad? Luckily, Denmark seems to be a bit more democratic than UK.

[HoreTore]

You actively encourage people to ignite incendiary devices and kill innocent civilians? Perhaps you should be.

Shouting at a demonstration? How is that "actively encouraging"?

Btw, is this the same as support your own troops in a war(like Iraq)? After all, they are "igniting incendiary devices and killing innocent civilians"...

[Don Corleone]

Shouting at a demonstration? How is that "actively encouraging"?

Btw, is this the same as support your own troops in a war(like Iraq)? After all, they are "igniting incendiary devices and killing innocent civilians"...

I edited my post above, to further expand my thoughts on the matter. Please treat that as a response.

[HoreTore]

How many bombs have blown up in Denmark lately?

Anyway, I do not have a problem with what your analogy, I see that as part of the free speech thingy. Solutions to that problem would be:

1. Debating against you/educated the people to believe that you are wrong.
2. Safety measures towards those who would be affected by any violence.

I won't under any circumstance support punishing people for what they say. That goes for the KKK, Al Qaida wannabes, Nazi's, red brigades, etc. too. I don't like them or their views, I may even hate them both, but I won't support legal action against their ideas. There are two reasons for this:

1. I don't think it's effective(unless, of course, we're talking in a big brother scale, but I certainly don't want that).
2. It's a principle thing.

[Don Corleone]

How many bombs have blown up in Denmark lately?

Anyway, I do not have a problem with what your analogy, I see that as part of the free speech thingy. Solutions to that problem would be:

1. Debating against you/educated the people to believe that you are wrong.
2. Safety measures towards those who would be affected by any violence.

I won't under any circumstance support punishing people for what they say. That goes for the KKK, Al Qaida wannabes, Nazi's, red brigades, etc. too. I don't like them or their views, I may even hate them both, but I won't support legal action against their ideas. There are two reasons for this:

1. I don't think it's effective(unless, of course, we're talking in a big brother scale, but I certainly don't want that).
2. It's a principle thing.

Aaah, but there was an attack planned for Britain, correct? Personally, I think you're guaranteeing yourself a hatful of trouble if you codify your laws such that inciting violence is only a crime if you're successful.

That being said, I salute you for your Voltaire like absolutist view of free speech. I assume you are okay with yelling "Fire" in a crowded movie theater as an expression of free speech?

[Kralizec]

Well HoreTore you're entitled to your opinion, but I think what you're saying is absurd. Even moreso than in the other thread where you supported anybody who'd commit treason against *any* government. Limiting people on what they can say or do is dangerous, but laissez-faire just as much. Finding a good ballance isn't easy but dropping the ball altogether is asking to be bombed.

How long would a nation last that lets people say "Bomb [insert country]" unpunished? If Norway was threatened by terrorism as much as the UK or the US wouldn't you want it to protect itself (that is, her citizens)?

[HoreTore]

Aaah, but there was an attack planned for Britain, correct? Personally, I think you're guaranteeing yourself a hatful of trouble if you codify your laws such that inciting violence is only a crime if you're successful.

That being said, I salute you for your Voltaire like absolutist view of free speech. I assume you are okay with yelling "Fire" in a crowded movie theater as an expression of free speech?

That's public disturbance and being an idiot, it has nothing to do with the political debate and as such isn't part of free speech. Remember, free speech protects political statements(yes, bombing a place is political), not whether you can yell "LALALALALA" into the ears of strangers for hours.

Back on topic, I'm mostly concerned with where this may lead. Let's take an example:

I'm reading the paper at work, and it says that Bush has been an idiot again. I say that somebody ought to whack that idiot(both things happen far too often), and we all laugh at the president. However, one of the guys I work with turns out to be an idiot too. And he doesn't like Bush either. So, at that moment, he decides he should whack Mr. Bush. He kills him, gets caught, and the police ask him where he got the idea. He says that he got the idea when I said that someone should do it. Suddenly, I'm stuck behind bars for 100 years.

That's not a world I want to live in.

[KafirChobee]

I could see these fellows being busted for inciting to riot, and maybe given a few months in jail and probation - but, 6 years seems a bit extreme. Of course in the USA they'ld have found themselves living in Gitmo without the opportunity of a trial. So, I suppose it is something that they had a trial. Pity they didn't have a decent legal team to stress the freedom of speech thingy. By the standards used in this one a number of Bushys could be prosecuted for fear mongering and the spreading of hate against all Muslims.

Then again, some have the right to spread hate - others don't.

[Adrian II]

I don't get a bad taste in my mouth at all. Not when I think of the consequences of such insane incitements to violence. In fact I am slowly waxing militant on the issue. Guilty as hell. Fair sentences. Good show. Rah rah.

[Don Corleone]

KC has a good point. I wouldn't argue whether these jokers should have been convicted and sentenced, but the extent of the sentence.

[HoreTore]

How long would a nation last that lets people say "Bomb [insert country]" unpunished? If Norway was threatened by terrorism as much as the UK or the US wouldn't you want it to protect itself (that is, her citizens)?

It would last forever. Terrorism isn't capable of bringing down a nation, an invasion is. And I'm not too concerned about Iranian soldiers marching to invade us....

Spend the counter-terrorism money on finding a cure for cancer, aid against aids and starvation in africa etc. It'll save QUITE a few more lives.

[Don Corleone]

It would last forever. Terrorism isn't capable of bringing down a nation, an invasion is. And I'm not too concerned about Iranian soldiers marching to invade us....

Spend the counter-terrorism money on finding a cure for cancer, aid against aids and starvation in africa etc. It'll save QUITE a few more lives.

HoreTore, I urge you to consider the ramifications of a view such as this. Your view with regards to terrorism is that we should simply ignore it and it will go away?

[HoreTore]

HoreTore, I urge you to consider the ramifications of a view such as this. Your view with regards to terrorism is that we should simply ignore it and it will go away?

It's quite hyped, yes. I'd worry more about cancer or getting in a car crash with a drunk idiot. Both are FAR more likely.

We're not threatened much by terrorism. Seriously. Our nations can stand more bombs than Al Qaida can make. They WILL need a land invasion to beat us. The best they can do, is whack of a few thousands of us. A drop in the ocean compared to the people dying of aids and starvation.

We can safely ignore it, and it wont affect us much. The pre-9/11 security was more than enough, we should spend the money on saving lives in africa instead, that'll give a lot more bang for our buck.

[Don Corleone]

It's quite hyped, yes. I'd worry more about cancer or getting in a car crash with a drunk idiot. Both are FAR more likely.

We're not threatened much by terrorism. Seriously. Our nations can stand more bombs than Al Qaida can make. They WILL need a land invasion to beat us. The best they can do, is whack of a few thousands of us. A drop in the ocean compared to the people dying of aids and starvation.

We can safely ignore it, and it wont affect us much. The pre-9/11 security was more than enough, we should spend the money on saving lives in africa instead, that'll give a lot more bang for our buck.

Throughout history, everytime somebody has advocated ignorning a known threat with the assertion that given time, it will diminish of its own accord, its been a disaster for mankind. Ask ole Neville Chamberlain how well that approach worked for him.

[Milovan]

we should simply ignore it and it will go away?

Of course! Where do you think the word 'terrorist' comes from? If you let him scare you , he won.