Veiled Call for Attacks on No. 10 Downing Street

C

CarbineCaleb

New member
Now, broadly speaking, I believe in tolerance and trying to cool, rather than inflame passions... having said that, I think some more of these Muslim priests in England need to get the Royal Boot. Just as a practical matter, you can't have spiritual leaders calling for assassination of political leaders... some of the faithful may just follow up:

Greenock-born Yaqub Zaki, deputy leader of the Muslim Parliament of Great Britain and a member of Glasgow central mosque, was quoted as saying that he would be quite happy if Muslims were to mount rocket or bomb attacks on No 10 Downing Street.

"I say go ahead, I would be very happy. The IRA did it. They had rockets that were ready to rain down on No 10," Mr Zaki was quoted as saying. "It would be a shame because it's a beautiful Georgian property.

"I wouldn't like to see it destroyed but as for its inmates, well, I don't care much for what happens to them."

Asked if he was saying that he would not be upset by a bombing of Prime Minister Tony Blair's office and residence, he said: "No, I wouldn't be upset, no. But I'm not calling for his execution."
Click to expand...

Taken from "The Scotsman":
http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1821832005
 
Hmmm ... must have been mistaken about the Brits outlawing hate speech. Or maybe that only applied to WASPs.
 
From what I understood, they are cracking down on people like this. I might be mistaken, although I don't believe I am completely mistaken. Anyone from Great Britain?
 
They punted this guy "Omar Bakri Mohammed"... were discussing expelling him, when he fled to Lebanon... he has since been barred from returning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Bakri_Muhammad

Form what I understand, Prime Minister Blair has pledged to deport foreign nationals who encourage terror. There seems to be both legal and politcal debate regarding this. Apparently, they have laws protecting free speech there as we do here. At least in the US, I think it's illegal nevertheless to advocate violent overthrow of the government (still some limits to free speech).

According to:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050812/ts_nm/security_britain_dc
Some of Blair's anti-terrorism measures have angered civil liberties campaigners who fear they erode human rights and renege on international human rights commitments.

Blair has said he will override human rights laws if necessary in order to deport foreign nationals.

Senior government minister Lord Charles Falconer said Britain may reform laws to compel judges to give national security equal weight to human rights in deportation cases.

Judges have thwarted past government efforts to deport foreign nationals on the basis the European Convention on Human Rights -- enshrined in Britain's 1998 Human Rights Act -- guarantees deportees freedom from torture or ill-treatment.

"I want a law which says the home secretary, supervised by the courts, has got to balance the rights of the individual deportee against the risks of national security," Falconer, head of the judiciary, told BBC Radio.
Click to expand...

Personally, I think they should punt anyone who calls for terrorist attacks or government overthrow. It's basic self-preservation, and deportation isn't such a bad fate, after all. It's not like they are just debating policies, or criticizing the government, they are advocating criminal acts. Let them call for terror attacks from another country.
 
"Personally, I think they should punt anyone who calls for terrorist attacks or government overthrow. It's basic self-preservation, and deportation isn't such a bad fate, after all."

Very well said! Yet the debates come out about rights and blah, blah, blah, yet fail to mention that the fate being discussed by the government isn't about swift execution, or endless, painful torture like some countries, but ejecting someone who is often not even a citizen, or natural-born. To me, if you anger the locals, then you pay the ultimate price (in a civilized country) which is DEPORTATION!! Bye, bye, and don't let the door hit you on the way out!
 
I am puzzled that they are not "calling for" the demise of the major players and figureheads, commercial and business entities, at the upper echelon of their supposed ultimate arch enemy located in the U.K.

------------------------------------------
http://ssunitedstates.org
 
I didn't know Pat Robertson hung out in England.
Click to expand...
Yes, I noted that same parallel of radical priests calling for assassinations... apparently, the Reverend Robertson has a history of that, even calling for the US State Dept to be targeted. He is an "interesting" guy.
 
So what should we do to folks who advocate "voting from the rooftops" or "feeding the hogs" or say that we're "past that awkward stage"? Are they okay because we all know there's little chance of them actually doing anything?

Just askin' ...

I mean, when it comes down to it the "crime" (ignoring, for the moment, the relative goals and complaints of the Islamic militants and the Internet insurgents) is the same - speaking in thinly veiled threats against public officials. There was a time when I'm sure a good number of members of this very forum might have been heard to say that they wouldn't have cried too much if the occupant of the White House (or the Attorney General, or the head of the bATFE, or ...) had come down with a nasty case of death. Probably are a few who might say that today.

Heck if you played a little Madlib with Yaqub Zaki's little interview it would sound almost exactly like the kind of rhetoric we hear whenever our government puts another restriction on us.
 
From what I understood, they are cracking down on people like this. I might be mistaken, although I don't believe I am completely mistaken. Anyone from Great Britain?
Click to expand...


Great. They don't like them talking that way in England, so they send them back to some arab state where they can not only talk that way, they can have an easier time plotting and planning new attacks, this time without being under surveillance. :rolleyes:

What a wonderful plan. Bound to keep England safe. :rolleyes:



Ben Swenson brings up interesting points. Is it a crime to say that you wouldn't cry if someone you hate were killed? Forget about crime: is it even wrong?


-blackmind
 
When the guy says, "I say, go ahead," that seems to possibly cross a line into "inciting terrorism," instead of just saying that it would please him if someone did it.

This guy is viewed as some sort of leader of muslims, right?

-blackmind
 
Well, to me, if you urge people to do something illegal/violent, I do think that's wrong, and if you are serious, yes, think it should be a crime. Even our enemy #1, Bin Laden, from my understanding, doesn't carry out, or even plan all they do, just provides motivation, vision, executive direction.

Hiring a hitman is also a serious crime... although that's obviously a deeper level of involvement than verbally asking/telling someone to do it without financial reward - the only difference though, is the pay. I don't see how you can completely evade responsibility for an action if you press for it... even if you don't physically carry it out.
 
Personally, I think they should punt anyone who calls for terrorist attacks or government overthrow.
Click to expand...

Easy there. Government overthrow? We'd lose a few members on TFL. :rolleyes:

Suppose I've talked about gov't overthrow. Where the heck would they deport me to? Indiana?

Maybe they'd let me pick. I choose the Bahamas. :D
 
There is of course a difference between inciting and discussing - after all, I just discussed violent overthrow, but I was not urging anyone to do it...

I am no lawyer, but I found this so far in US Law on net:
Solicitation (aka Attempt to Conspire)

Common Law- Inciting, counseling, advising, urging, or commanding another to commit a crime, with the intent that the person solicited commit the crime. It is not necessary that the person solicited respond affirmatively.
(1)ACT- invite, command, request, employ, another to commit a felony or breach of justice of peace (ASKING is enough, no need for agreement);
(2) INTENT- that the person asked will commit the target crime.
Click to expand...

From what I can understand, there is in increasing order of severity:
solicitation < conspiracy < attempt < commit/consumate
 
Sure, it all comes down to a question of degree. But who decides the degree?

Inciting, counseling, advising, urging, or commanding another to commit a crime, with the intent that the person solicited commit the crime. It is not necessary that the person solicited respond affirmatively.
Click to expand...

I saw someone do that on a current thread. Not so much urging but advising, for sure. Carrying without a permit.

In Zaki's case, he was not specifically telling anyone to do it, and I don't see intent.

If it's all just talk, then I don't see deportation.

Were Zaki's remarks in poor taste? Yes. Did he tell somebody to do it? Not exactly. With the intent that they would? I doubt it.

I'm sure I've probably made similar remarks about our gov't in the past. Don't send me back to Indiana. Please.
 
Well, I am just quoting from a legal source above... but in a more down to earth scenario - you have two kids, one instructs the other to do something bad, and he does it. The first one says "I didn't do anything!"... do you buy that? To me, the principle there is the same being discussed here - if you cause or attempt to cause someone else to do something bad, you are also guilty of something there yourself.

As far as being arrested, if you are not doing that, I wouldn't worry at all. Police, judge and jury would all need to be convinced you were guilty. I think both Pat Robertson and Yaqub Zaki are trying to commit the crime without being found guilty. If you look at what the definition is there is:
a) Compelling
b) Intent to have the crime commited
...it's the second portion that both seem to seek a way out from with their words.
...But I'm not calling for his execution
Click to expand...
*lol* yeah, right. I think it's more than "poor taste". Leaders, particularly religious leaders, do influence behavior - it's kind of the definition of a leader - and anyone who is savvy enough to be a leader is well aware of that fact. Just my opinion, but essentially, I agree completely with the law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top