• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Islamic State supporters jailed

All that's true, but in principle I'm with William. I don't believe in blasphemy laws, hate speech laws, holocaust denial or sedition laws.
I'm not necessarily against either William or you on that one.
I think direct incitement to violence is where the line should be drawn.
bringing us to the crunch of the line often being thin. Nevertheless I'll place my trust in the judiciary here that it was crossed. Where we don't know the full transcript, publicly inciting support for IS will do me fine where the verdict is concerned.
Laws, as you perspicaciously point out however, are indeed laws and should be adhered to until they can be changed or rescinded.
I should perhaps also have pointed out (for the benefit of the unaware) that anti terrorist laws (Terrorism Acts) in the UK pre-date the rise of radical "jihadism" considerably, from long before the London bombings and long before 9/11 or any other occurrence truly or supposedly motivated by radical Islam or even having any such angle.

That, to my knowledge, goes for Spain, France and Germany as well.
 
All that's true, but in principle I'm with William. I don't believe in blasphemy laws, hate speech laws, holocaust denial or sedition laws. I think direct incitement to violence is where the line should be drawn.

Laws, as you perspicaciously point out however, are indeed laws and should be adhered to until they can be changed or rescinded.

"Bedfordshire Police said the five men attended meetings at a church in Luton and a marquee in Rahman's back garden, during which members praised IS and urged others to support the terror group and travel to Syria to fight."

I suppose it boils down to how you interpret 'support'. Support for me means they are more than armchair sympathisers, dinner table mutterings, keyboard warriors. The group actively encouraged, like so many times previously we've known that to mean setting up meetings and making contact with said terrorist group(s).
 
"Bedfordshire Police said the five men attended meetings at a church in Luton and a marquee in Rahman's back garden, during which members praised IS and urged others to support the terror group and travel to Syria to fight."

I suppose it boils down to how you interpret 'support'. Support for me means they are more than armchair sympathisers, dinner table mutterings, keyboard warriors. The group actively encouraged, like so many times previously we've known that to mean setting up meetings and making contact with said terrorist group(s).

Chilling. More info regarding one of those being discussed in the OP.

Mohammed Choudry, 23, of Laggan Road, Maidenhead, had said that non-Muslims "should die in their rage". The judge described how at the end of a long speech by Choudry there was "a truly chilling passage that imagined, through the mouth of another, 40 trucks driving down Oxford Street (in central London) full of explosives".

I agree with Gunner. Their actions are not unlike those of Anjem Choudary. For years he skated along the boundary between freedom of speech and incitement to violence. No right comes wholly without restriction and nor should it. My thoughts in Choudary’s case apply here in that the right to free expression should not extend to advocating support for Islamic State and encouraging participation in the well known violence they engage in because it ultimately impinges on the rights of those who wish to live without fear of attack or persecution by those nutters.

Their right to life is bigger than than these clowns "right" to encourage their puppets to take lives.
 
Chilling. More info regarding one of those being discussed in the OP.



I agree with Gunner. Their actions are not unlike those of Anjem Choudary. For years he skated along the boundary between freedom of speech and incitement to violence. No right comes wholly without restriction and nor should it. My thoughts in Choudary’s case apply here in that the right to free expression should not extend to advocating support for Islamic State and encouraging participation in the well known violence they engage in because it ultimately impinges on the rights of those who wish to live without fear of attack or persecution by those nutters.

Their right to life is bigger than than these clowns "right" to encourage their puppets to take lives.

I get how some hold a blanket position on this, or worry how this can be abused by the authorities. For me, if you're not using the law to its full effect, you're not doing anything at all.
 
I get how some hold a blanket position on this, or worry how this can be abused by the authorities. For me, if you're not using the law to its full effect, you're not doing anything at all.

For me, once it crosses over into incitement to violence, that's crossed the line.
 
"Bedfordshire Police said the five men attended meetings at a church in Luton and a marquee in Rahman's back garden, during which members praised IS and urged others to support the terror group and travel to Syria to fight."

Yep, direct incitement to violence. No problem with this judgement. I was talking about general principles.
 
Back
Top Bottom