The criminalization of opinion in Britain.

[DinoDoc]

Here's a nice blast from the past for Zorba:

And if you bring this up in other threads or start a new one... you are toast.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by lightblue


In Germany IIRC "Mein Kampf" is illegal to posess without some kind of clearance. It is also illegal to posess other kinds of Nazi items, so if england does similar things with terrorist organisations, there's at least an European precedent for it.

Yes I agree with that.
Both are lesser forms of democracy though aren't they? Since they curtail the freedom of expression?
But Germany has at least a reason.

In Greece the media were absolutely free to publish 17N declarations. This is what democracy is all about, freedom of thought and freedom of expression wouldn't you agree?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by TheStinger
Does Greece allow terrorists to organise in their country.

Not anymore.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by TheStinger


you are intent on using the term books, it is far more likley there is a collection of articles that support a case that this chap supports or facilitates terror.

So books expressing opinions are deemed "dangerous" and must be stopped in the British "democracy"?

[MrBaggins]

No... thats not bottom line.

Posssessing a book is only grounds for a prosecution IF it can be viewed to facilitate or encourage a criminal act. Its nothing to do with 'an opinion agreeing with the British government'; its about the application of an existing law.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
No... thats not bottom line.

Posssessing a book is only grounds for a prosecution IF it can be viewed to facilitate or encourage a criminal act. Its nothing to do with 'an opinion agreeing with the British government'; its about the application of an existing law.

And it is the British government that decides what a book should and should not say, is that what you're saying?

[MrBaggins]

BTW... paiktis... stop using the term Democracy when talking about the UK... its not a Democracy, although it has some Democratic behavior....

Its actually a Parliamentary Monarchy

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by paiktis22


And it is the British government that decides what a book should and should not say, is that what you're saying?

No its a Jury.

[Ozz]

Wait til Tuesday, then we'll know, til then we're just
guessing.

Better to persume BOTH parties innocent until Wednesday.

I would guess IF GUILTY he was using his "Terrorism
for Dummies" book to tell other dummies how to make
bombs and maybe recuiting einsteins like that shoe
bomber to use them.

Edit: spelling

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
BTW... paiktis... stop using the term Democracy when talking about the UK... its not a Democracy, although it has some Democratic behavior....

Its actually a Parliamentary Monarchy

So in your parliementary monarchy a book is enough evidence to arrest a person and throw him in jail IF the book's opinions do not comform with what the British government deems "appropriate"?

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by paiktis22


And it is the British government that decides what a book should and should not say, is that what you're saying?

Nope... British law, not the British government decide what books are viewed as illegal...

The legality of SPECIFIC books is determined by a judicial process, interpretting said laws.

[Ozz]

Child Porn is a book that will get you arrested.
(and rightfully so)

[MrBaggins]

and bringing a prima facia case has less strict standards than bringing an actual conviction.

You don't need absolute proof that a crime has been commited to arrest someone, and put them on trial... merely a reasonable perception that they could be in violation of a law, given a broad interpretation. Its up to the court to decide whether an actual crime has taken place.

[Bereta_Eder]

The laws then.

Do these laws allow the British government to arrest a person based on wether his books' opinions please or do not please the "laws" of your parliamentary monarchy?

Your "laws" have the power to determine what one can and cannot read and if he does he is to be arrested and face the propability of 10 years in jail?

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
You don't need absolute proof that a crime has been commited to arrest someone, and put them on trial... merely a reasonable perception that they could be in violation of a law, given a broad interpretation. Its up to the court to decide whether an actual crime has taken place.

Another interesting matter then: In Britain you can be arrested for not having done anything? And that is perfectly ok?
Don't you think it leaves your country wide open for arbitrary prosecussions of opinions? (which are a democratic right in most european countries).