Captain Hook to be deported!

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Rothy
Molly, at least those who 'abuse' Freedom of Speech in our country dont mysteriously go 'missing'. Over there they may be safeguards to protect Freedom of Speech, but there safeguards against it too (hint - The CIA).

Freedom of Speech is great, but you have to think about whether the consequences outwieght this individual right. Had Bin laden said in a public announcement to his 'people' that 'America is evil, and the Twin towers, A symbol of America should perish' on 10/09/2001 (or 09/10/2001 in yank terms?!) I dont think many would find the comment an acceptable use of Free speech.

There needs to be clauses in the Freedom of Speech for people like Hamza, and that's what's we're thankfully trying to do. Also, If Hamza was to litigate for assault by an American Patriot, I'm sure the Jury would be very sympathetic with him.

I'm a little unsure which people you think the C.I.A. have 'disappeared' in the United States. As far as I know, critics of American foreign policy and domestic affairs such as Noam Chomsky are still very much alive.

Which 'consequences' of the freedom of speech are you scared of? On those vague grounds the U.K. government could lock up the B.N.P. and throw away the key- I'm quite sure that more Afro-Caribbean and British Asian citizens have a greater right to fear the B.N.P. than anyone does a media scare figure and scapegoat such as Hamza. He hasn't so much as shouted 'fire' in a crowded cinema and already he's demonized.

Of course, the B.N.P. seem to be exclusively white, and non-muslim. So that may explain that...

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by molly bloom



And what the hell is 'conduct prejudicial to the country'?

Whatever the government of the day decides it is?

Harbouring terrorists, funding terrorists, inciting violence.

That sort of hing.

[*End Is Forever*]

who seem to think its o.k. to incite racial hatred and violence if you're white and in the B.N.P.

I don't think it's okay to incite racial hatred whoever it is. You have every right to say whatever you like, but when that freedom infringes on other peoples' freedoms (as Abu Hamza quite clearly does) then there is a line that should not be crossed.

Incitement to racial hatred and violence is a crime and should be treated as such.

Interesting that no-one has replied to my flag-burning comment yet. I am also certain that had he been a US resident Hamza would have been locked up without charge now.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by TheStinger


Harbouring terrorists, funding terrorists, inciting violence.

That sort of hing.

Or being Irish, like the Birmingham Six and some of the Guildford Four. Two well-known travesties of British justice where evidence was purposely withheld from the defence, forensic evidence of extremely dubious value used as 'conclusive' proof and a media smear campaign used in the conviction and imprisonment of innocent people.

If he has harboured terrorists and funded terrorists why hasn't he been arrested for the same? I wonder if a lack of evidence played a part....

Which specific acts of violence against which race of people or group of people are you citing, end is forever?

Whose freedom in Great Britain is being infringed? And how? If anyone calling for the destruction of America had used Iraq, instead, say, or North Korea, or Iran, would that be all right?

[Imran Siddiqui]

when that freedom infringes on other peoples' freedoms (as Abu Hamza quite clearly does) then there is a line that should not be crossed.

How has he infringed on peoples' freedoms?

Incitement to racial hatred and violence is a crime and should be treated as such.

If it IS a crime, then why isn't he in a courtroom?

Like molly says, it is probably because he hasn't committed a crime. He is just saying things that the government doesn't like.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Or being Irish, like the Birmingham Six and some of the Guildford Four. Two well-known travesties of British justice where evidence was purposely withheld from the defence, forensic evidence of extremely dubious value used as 'conclusive' proof and a media smear campaign used in the conviction and imprisonment of innocent people.

If he has harboured terrorists and funded terrorists why hasn't he been arrested for the same? I wonder if a lack of evidence played a part....

Which specific acts of violence against which race of people or group of people are you citing, end is forever?

Whose freedom in Great Britain is being infringed? And how? If anyone calling for the destruction of America had used Iraq, instead, say, or North Korea, or Iran, would that be all right?

There won't be enough evidence for a criminal conviction, there would be enough to deport him though.

They probably won't get to deport him though as he will be t risk of instant death in an arab country

[CerberusIV]

The point here seems to be to clamp down on people who seek refuge in the UK, either asylum or citizenship, and then, once they have that sanctuary, incite violence in the UK or in other countries and essentially hide behind UK citizenship to stir up trouble.

Essentially it is about whether someone is allowed to retain a UK citizenship they might not have been granted if it had been known how they would behave. If it isn't extended any further I would support what is being done in this case as Hamza is a disgraceful advert for Islam in the UK and should not be tolerated. I would not like to see it used widely and the current wording of the legislation does make that unlikely.

He allegedly has Egyptian citizenship so that is where he is likely to be sent, probably not an instant death sentence unless they then hand him over to the Yemenis.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Or being Irish, like the Birmingham Six and some of the Guildford Four. Two well-known travesties of British justice where evidence was purposely withheld from the defence, forensic evidence of extremely dubious value used as 'conclusive' proof and a media smear campaign used in the conviction and imprisonment of innocent people.

Hmmm the british "justice" has a "past" I see....

[TheStinger]

Which were appalling and hopefully we have learnt fromt that.

The confession evidence was the problemm IIRC.
The maguire 7 were convicted on made up forensic evidence

The problem was innocent people had just been blown up, and that puts pressure on the police. The laws as thay are now would prevent the police from obtaining the confessions they did back then.

[CerberusIV]

The record of the UK justice system hasn't been good so we have had to go through the painful process of facing up to that and changing things so it doesn't happen again.

An experience a few other countries have yet to go through (but they will eventually).

[Bereta_Eder]

Apparently you haven't learned. Your antiterrorist law is rather appaling today.

I can see you have a serious terrorist problem though. But it does infringe shockingly into personal freedoms.

[Bereta_Eder]

About the Greek student you arrested with laughable evidence and witheld for no reason at all, it was a failure of understanding how are things in Greece.
If you were to bust anyone who'd say Americans are terrorists you'd have your prisons full (if they arent already).

The problem is your law that gave your system the ability to witheld someone based on what he says.


As said I can understand you have fears of terrorism. But there is a fine line to be made.

[Bereta_Eder]

Having said that, the transparency and efficiency of the UK justice system is to be envied. However some of your laws arent.

If you could have our laws and we could have your efficiency it would be a great combination.

[TheStinger]

We've done this before bu here goes.

The Greek bloke will have a trial, if it is proved he helped provide support to terrorism he will go to jail if not good luck to him.

There are problems with the new laws infact all our criminal laws are giving more powers to the police to detain longer without charge or application to a magistrate.

However the courst on the whole are preppared to overturn the more unjust laws, which is one the good results of the implementation of the human rights act. Of cousre we have had Habeus Corpus for years which is also a good safeguard.

And our prisons are full, they have far too many drug addicts who wouldn't committ crime if they wern't addicited.

[Bereta_Eder]

The "case" of the Greek student is already dropped. His arrest is the shame of your system.