Anjem Choudary faces UK terrorism charges over Islamic State

Chagos said:

At the end of the day it isn't what I think and it's now what you think. Where the sentencing is concerned, it's what the court thinks.

As to being "arrested", I suppose that all those suspected of having broken the law at your end are simply requested by the cops to call in for an interview at their convenience? Beyond being suspected of a petty crime, that is. That's not how I remember it.

But that's irrelevant anyway, due process differs from country to country.

In the UK it lies within the discretion of the police to decide whether an arrest is necessary or not.

Beyond that it's already been pointed out that the lawfulness of "speech" in UK or anywhere else in Europe is up to the country's interpretations, respectively that of the law governing within.

Don't like it, don't go there.

Meanwhile "keep out of affairs not yours" would be my advice.

Click to expand...

"Meanwhile "keep out of affairs not yours" would be my advice" Where are you living again? Im sure the numerous people that post on this site from all around the globe will be glad to hear your suggestion.

And THAT is against the law is precisely the point of concern. But You ARE right...not my business. If thats what the UK is down for...good luck to them. Free speech...meh...who needs it. Point of fact you could say that about all of the EU that has excitedly embraced people intent on their destruction. To heed your counsel...**** em...

VanceMack said:

"Meanwhile "keep out of affairs not yours" would be my advice" Where are you living again? Im sure the numerous people that post on this site from all around the globe will be glad to hear your suggestion.

Click to expand...

If they want to lecture countries other than their own on how to run themselves, that's their affair. If they have problems with being told to go stuff their unwarranted advice, I guess heeding the parable of heat and kitchen and all that might be wise.

That'll work both ways, of course.

And THAT is against the law is precisely the point of concern. But You ARE right...not my business. If thats what the UK is down for...good luck to them. Free speech...meh...who needs it. Point of fact you could say that about all of the EU that has excitedly embraced people intent on their destruction. To heed your counsel...**** em...

Click to expand...

Yeah well, I guess all that beats having to breathe into a paper bag. :mrgreen:

..............and on grounds of there being little merit in pursuing mindless and opinionated rants, I guess we can now end this. :2razz:

Chagos said:

If they want to lecture countries other than their own on how to run themselves, that's their affair. If they have problems with being told to go stuff their unwarranted advice, I guess heeding the parable of heat and kitchen and all that might be wise.

That'll work both ways, of course.

Yeah well, I guess all that beats having to breathe into a paper bag. :mrgreen:

..............and on grounds of there being little merit in pursuing mindless and opinionated rants, I guess we can now end this. :2razz:

Click to expand...

One might examine the recent history of events throughout Europe and recognize that the consequences might be a little more dire than breathing into a paper bag. But of course...not my problem.

Should have ended my last post on a clear bye, my bad.

So..................

Bye.

joG said:

~ as far as I know, all he did was give opinions

Click to expand...

Active recruitment is more than just opinions.

This wasn't a simple free speech case, he's apparently been linked in 15 terrorist plots and being a conduit for 500 would be jihadis to head off to Syria *although I wish we would encourage them to leave and hand over the British passports as they leave.

Only MI5 know why they blocked the police arresting him for 20 years.

Infinite Chaos said:

Active recruitment is more than just opinions.

This wasn't a simple free speech case, he's apparently been linked in 15 terrorist plots and being a conduit for 500 would be jihadis to head off to Syria *although I wish we would encourage them to leave and hand over the British passports as they leave.

Only MI5 know why they blocked the police arresting him for 20 years.

Click to expand...

Probably because MI6 requested it and it took til now for him to have become useless (in their eyes).

Andalublue said:

I do hope that doubt didn't extend to thinking we are compatriots.

And clearly one that some people do not believe should face any sanction at all. That is indeed interesting.



Tell me, in which freedom-loving nation on Earth can anyone specifically advocate the murder of someone who insults a prophet and face no consequences for doing so?

Click to expand...

Nope. I didn't think about your nationality.

I did not say that life was perfect. The question is, where the cut off line is. If you can only advocate killing the enemy it is, though the norm, rather restrictive. You see, it is important to be able to decide at which point one would shoot the budding dictator. Or do you think it better to wait and see, if it is Auschwitz for your type this time? So, the higher the level of verbal bitterness and politically incorrect rant the legal system and civilization can take, the closer it is to being a truly free democracy that has a chance of surviving, when push becomes shove.

Infinite Chaos said:

Active recruitment is more than just opinions.

This wasn't a simple free speech case, he's apparently been linked in 15 terrorist plots and being a conduit for 500 would be jihadis to head off to Syria *although I wish we would encourage them to leave and hand over the British passports as they leave.

Only MI5 know why they blocked the police arresting him for 20 years.

Click to expand...

Which of the things mentioned in the two articles did you thing worthy of punishment? I did not see any that looked like proof of murder, anyway. But maybe I missed it.

joG said:

Nope. I didn't think about your nationality.

Click to expand...

Then I have no idea what you meant by 'we' when you used it in that context.

I did not say that life was perfect.

Click to expand...

I never said you did.

The question is, where the cut off line is.

Click to expand...

Yes, that's the question.

If you can only advocate killing the enemy it is, though the norm, rather restrictive.

Click to expand...

The only person advocating killing their opponents in this discussion is Choudary. That's what he advocated, that's what he incited.

You see, it is important to be able to decide at which point one would shoot the budding dictator.

Click to expand...

I don't believe in shooting anyone, that's ISIS's tactic, not one I advocate for the supposedly superior civilisations of the West.

Or do you think it better to wait and see, if it is Auschwitz for your type this time? So, the higher the level of verbal bitterness and politically incorrect rant the legal system and civilization can take, the closer it is to being a truly free democracy that has a chance of surviving, when push becomes shove.

Click to expand...

Seems a moot point since I'm not arguing for silencing anyone, just making sure that people realise that hate speech and incitement to violence has consequences. You've never heard of the shouting fire in a crowded theatre exemplar?

If Choudary were guilty of nothing more than making statements critical of Western civilisation and foreign adventures, then he'd be able to continue doing so unimpeded, as he has been doing for several decades now without consequence. What has happened now is that he has been acting as a recruiting officer for the ranks of ISIS's combatants, encouraging them to kill and commit acts of terrorist violence against their enemies, both Moslem and non-Moslem.

If you think that specific acts of incitement to and encouragement of violence should be tolerated, then we'll have to agree to disagree on the limits society should place on free speech. Free speech isn't an absolute right, and no society on Earth treats it as such.