• 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

Islamic State supporters jailed after undercover police operation - Islamic State supporters jailed after undercover police operation - BBC News

Excellent Police work.
I'd like to see the actual footage of their 'speech'. I do think it is a little disconcerting that the judge made a legal decision to incarcerate individuals (yes...even extremist Muslims) based on his own personal opinion (which he cited in his decision). And we have already seen the British courts convict people for hate speech for disagreeing with Muslims. So if they were actually inciting violence...I'm cool with the decisions. If not...it may be an over-reach.
 
There's one undercover cop with a dangerous job.

Looking at the mugshots, officer "Kamal" will probably have had to look the part but will also be a marked and recognizable face (to the jailed jihadis).

Brave guy indeed and well done that man.
 
I'd like to see the actual footage of their 'speech'.
Heck, first of all I'd ike to see some journalists sent back to school to learn the language that is supposedly their primary working tool.
Group leader Mohammed Alamgir, 37, was jailed for six years for inviting support for IS at the Old Bailey.
So the invitation was actually extended at the Old Bailey?

Jeezzazz, that's enough to turn me off the whole rest of the article.

Okay, rant over and back to business.
I do think it is a little disconcerting that the judge made a legal decision to incarcerate individuals (yes...even extremist Muslims) based on his own personal opinion (which he cited in his decision). And we have already seen the British courts convict people for hate speech for disagreeing with Muslims. So if they were actually inciting violence...I'm cool with the decisions. If not...it may be an over-reach.
Seeing how judges may (indeed must) use their discretion as much as everything else, how would they be able to do that without forming an opinion?

And how does hate speech against Muslims (overall) differ from hate speech by Muslims (individually)?

Out of sheer personal interest I'd like to see the actual footage as well, nevertheless I'd put my trust into the qualifications of the judge.

After all one has cause to hope that he's not some opinionated DP poster like the rest of us :mrgreen:
 
Heck, first of all I'd ike to see some journalists sent back to school to learn the language that is supposedly their primary working tool. So the invitation was actually extended at the Old Bailey?

Jeezzazz, that's enough to turn me off the whole rest of the article.

Okay, rant over and back to business.Seeing how judges may (indeed must) use their discretion as much as everything else, how would they be able to do that without forming an opinion?

And how does hate speech against Muslims (overall) differ from hate speech by Muslims (individually)?

Out of sheer personal interest I'd like to see the actual footage as well, nevertheless I'd put my trust into the qualifications of the judge.

After all one has cause to hope that he's not some opinionated DP poster like the rest of us :mrgreen:

What hate speech? Telling people about Islam is not hate, it is fact backed up by actions of some Muslims and their holy literature. Let's see some examples of what you consider hate speech.
 
What hate speech? Telling people about Islam is not hate, it is fact backed up by actions of some Muslims and their holy literature. Let's see some examples of what you consider hate speech.

More evidence you may read stuff but it really doesn't make sense to you. Do you not even recognize what he posted or the bit you bolded?
 
More evidence you may read stuff but it really doesn't make sense to you. Do you not even recognize what he posted or the bit you bolded?

Is Chagos incapable of giving examples of hate speech against Muslims with examples? You give it a try. Please cite some examples.
 
Islamic State supporters jailed after undercover police operation - Islamic State supporters jailed after undercover police operation - BBC News

Excellent Police work.
What remains an object of pure speculation (hope, if you like), is whether police work and intelligence activity is overall on the up and Europe-wide at that (recent arrests in Austria, France, Germany and Spain) and has thus made attempts as carefully planned and organized as Paris and Brussels more difficult, or whether increasing pressure on IS at home has made such organized and well-planned attacks impossible or at least far more difficult to initiate from Raqqa et al.

What we see currently getting caught is a flurry of amateurs and fools at that. Fools, of course, in lacking any intelligent concept of professionalism (that all of them are whackjobs requires no further mention).

I hold the hope that police work and international co-ordination of the same have actually gone up a few steps and that these scum are not merely caught more often because IS is having to scrape the dregs from the barrel.

Where it doesn't matter in the end result, a dreg can otherwise still slip through at some time, just as much as we can't rule out that IS won't be able to stage another "operation", greater difficulties notwithstanding.

Anyway, darn good work there!!!
 
~ You give it a try. Please cite some examples.

I am still waiting for some direct and honest responses to direct questions I asked you before Xmas. You don't get answers from me until you demonstrate that you have any shred of honesty or integrity about you.
 
I am still waiting for some direct and honest responses to direct questions I asked you before Xmas. You don't get answers from me until you demonstrate that you have any shred of honesty or integrity about you.
You might as well go buy a new Christmas tree right now then.:mrgreen:
 
I am still waiting for some direct and honest responses to direct questions I asked you before Xmas. You don't get answers from me until you demonstrate that you have any shred of honesty or integrity about you.

Lame excuses are not necessary.
 
edited for irrelevancy to the discussion.

Edited because you lack the courage to answer it. And you bought up "hate speech" and now it is irrelevant? Hmmm.
 
We should always ask ourselves, if we would have allowed a friend of a Mafioso, marijuana sales person or socialist in the Cold War to be arrested at a similar level of evidence. If yes, it's fine.

They were recorded...

Speeches made by Alamgir and four other men in Luton were secretly recorded by the officer, known only as Kamal.

What else do you require?

Anyhow, you may recall a similar undercover agent infiltrated jihadi groups in the ME who was nearly exposed by over eager US news sources. "Kamal" did what was necessary, did his bit as a serving police officer and hopefully will be safe in whatever new role he is going to take.

edited for irrelevancy to the discussion.

Going to borrow that one.
 
Islamic State supporters jailed after undercover police operation - Islamic State supporters jailed after undercover police operation - BBC News

Excellent Police work.

I agree, it sounds like it was a very brave and well constructed Police investigation.

My problem is with what followed legally. I am opposed to the concept of 'hate speech' crime, I have always thought that it is illiberal and what disturbs me about the reports is that it appears that these men have been convicted for possible consequences of their speech rather than actual consequences. Doesn't sit well with me and never will.
 
I agree, it sounds like it was a very brave and well constructed Police investigation.

My problem is with what followed legally. I am opposed to the concept of 'hate speech' crime, I have always thought that it is illiberal and what disturbs me about the reports is that it appears that these men have been convicted for possible consequences of their speech rather than actual consequences. Doesn't sit well with me and never will.

The 2001 law under which they were sentenced does allow them freedom to complain however freedom of speech has to be balanced with safety and protection of the people of the UK. IS is a proscribed organisation and they were (in the words of the article) "jailed for six years for inviting support for IS."

So, in the words of Liberty - "the criminalisation of non-violent speech and protest, make us less safe; not more." I would find it hard to accept that these men actively campaigning for a terror group which has the aim of fostering terror attacks in the UK falls under acceptable free speech.

Equally, we have to counter that an undercover officer would have to take even greater risks allowing these men to continue until we could actually find that they were about to press a detonator button.
 
I agree, it sounds like it was a very brave and well constructed Police investigation.

My problem is with what followed legally. I am opposed to the concept of 'hate speech' crime, I have always thought that it is illiberal and what disturbs me about the reports is that it appears that these men have been convicted for possible consequences of their speech rather than actual consequences. Doesn't sit well with me and never will.

That's something only you can wrestle with. My conscience is fine when I know this group actively encourage, plan and partake in the support of people that wish harm on innocent non believers. Personally, I think you have to be an extreme apologist to think otherwise, in this particular case.
 
That's something only you can wrestle with. My conscience is fine when I know this group actively encourage, plan and partake in the support of people that wish harm on innocent non believers. Personally, I think you have to be an extreme apologist to think otherwise, in this particular case.

I'm sure you feel more comfortable in your monochrome world.
 
I agree, it sounds like it was a very brave and well constructed Police investigation.

My problem is with what followed legally. I am opposed to the concept of 'hate speech' crime, I have always thought that it is illiberal and what disturbs me about the reports is that it appears that these men have been convicted for possible consequences of their speech rather than actual consequences. Doesn't sit well with me and never will.
Well, laws be laws.

UK has those on hate speech, has them on supporting (listed) terrorist organizations in any way (even mere glorification).

It's not as if the judge just made stuff up as he went along.
 
Well, laws be laws.

UK has those on hate speech, has them on supporting (listed) terrorist organizations in any way (even mere glorification).

It's not as if the judge just made stuff up as he went along.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom