• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Radical cleric Anjem Choudary found guilty of inviting IS support

Darat said:
The concern for me is if he is in the general prison population whether he will continue to influence people. I suspect in the enclosed limited environment of a prison "radicalisation" would be much more effective and easier to achieve.
Click to expand...

Indeed. He belongs in a supermax or equivalent facility.

Barring that, deportation to international waters is a good idea. At least 100 miles from the nearest land and shark-infested, preferably - I don't like to take unnecessary risks.

McHrozni
 
I think that I am against this ruling unless there is something that I don't understand it. I can understand locking someone up for inciting violence or other things like financial support of terrorism. But that does not seem to be what he has been convicted for which is a rather vague offence open to broad interpretation.
 
Conviction is based on inviting "support for a proscribed organisation." Swearing allegiance to a foreign power (IS) that is a declared enemy of the state, known to have executed its citizens, is the most definitely treasonous offense this nastiest of punks is being prosecuted for. He should be assigned, one hopes, to a single-occupancy cell with restricted yard rights disallowing contact with other prisoners, and no access to any reading materials even remotely related to his offense.

But what I would really like, and shall wish for on every falling star:
That he should hear, five times a day, a very loud recording telling him that were the situation reversed, and he a captive of IS, his head would roll without any real trial, properly trained lawyers, or any sort of educated reference to a respectable body of law. All while being forced to his knees and to look at the ground, and ending with the whooshing sound of a sword swing and the (fictional) blood-curdling cry of its victim. Five times per day, seven days a week, year in, year out. After all, that is still much nicer than what he himself, and his buddies, advocate for innocents the world over who were never guilty of any crime whatsoever.
 
Darat said:
The concern for me is if he is in the general prison population whether he will continue to influence people. I suspect in the enclosed limited environment of a prison "radicalisation" would be much more effective and easier to achieve.
Click to expand...

That's a good point.

Suggestion: the UK suddenly finds out they don't have enough prison cells and rents a cell block in an empty Dutch prison, like Belgium and Norway have done. Strike a deal with Norway that they transfer Breivik to the same prison. They'll have plenty of common interests to talk about during their cell breaks and no chance of radicalisation. :D
 
I'd suggest he be executed for treason but he really wasn't being treasonous at all. He's an invader from an outside group and his loyalties were exactly where you'd expect them to be.

The ones who have committed treason are the politicians who have permitted Muslims to immigrate to the UK and other White nations in the first place. The rapes, murders, terrorist attacks, tensions, and soon to arrive open civil war all lay at their feet and the blame is entirely on them and the media for all of it.

But I'd still have this guy executed, obviously.
 
Skeptic Tank said:
I'd suggest he be executed for treason but he really wasn't being treasonous at all. He's an invader from an outside group and his loyalties were exactly where you'd expect them to be.

The ones who have committed treason are the politicians who have permitted Muslims to immigrate to the UK and other White nations in the first place. The rapes, murders, terrorist attacks, tensions, and soon to arrive open civil war all lay at their feet and the blame is entirely on them and the media for all of it.

But I'd still have this guy executed, obviously.
Click to expand...

I think you would like to have every "Non White" living in a "WHite Country" executed,given your racism.
 
dudalb said:
I think you would like to have every "Non White" living in a "WHite Country" executed,given your racism.
Click to expand...

Well, congratulations on your creative speculation?

I'd be more than happy with a return to sane immigration policies and a program of incentivized repatriation.
 
Skeptic Tank said:
I'd suggest he be executed for treason but he really wasn't being treasonous at all. He's an invader from an outside group and his loyalties were exactly where you'd expect them to be.
Click to expand...


the only good thing about Choudary is that he was honest about where his true loyalties lie.
 
The Don said:
Yes, good point. I'm not sure how you deal with that without infringing on Anjem Choudary's human rights.
Click to expand...
You're already infringing on his human rights by imprisoning him. I think you're well past the point where this kind of simplistic moral question serves any useful purpose.

There are much more complex, sophisticated, and important questions about human rights, that your society is already asking--and answering. You should seriously consider being a part of that debate.
 
Darat said:
The concern for me is if he is in the general prison population whether he will continue to influence people. I suspect in the enclosed limited environment of a prison "radicalisation" would be much more effective and easier to achieve.
Click to expand...

The Don said:
Yes, good point. I'm not sure how you deal with that without infringing on Anjem Choudary's human rights.
Click to expand...

Does UK Law have an equivalent of the "clear and present danger" doctrine?

If so, the British government could declare him a clear and present danger to the safety, health and well-being of others, and put him in isolation.

I certainly do not believe he should be allowed to be in a position to promulgate his vile rhetoric and influence other prisoners.
 
I've always had a pet theory that Choudary's whole shtick is an act. The guy's made a fairly lucrative career attaching himself to various Islamist movements and being an all-around outrageous dick.

I suppose some time in the clink will test my theory out.
 
Skeptic Tank said:
.......The ones who have committed treason are the politicians who have permitted Muslims to immigrate to the UK and other White nations in the first place...........
Click to expand...

What's a white nation? And what is treason?
 
I find it a bit strange that our right-wing 'free speech' advocates haven't got an issue with this guy being locked up.

This seems like a bit of a nonsense that is only going to lead to more problems rather than fewer. Locking people up for their ideas just gives the ideas more attraction.
 
Skeptic Tank said:
... The ones who have committed treason are the politicians who have permitted Muslims to immigrate to the UK and other White nations in the first place. The rapes, murders, terrorist attacks, tensions, and soon to arrive open civil war all lay at their feet and the blame is entirely on them and the media for all of it.
Click to expand...
You would probably find agreement on that point from Anders Behring BreivikWP. Punishing such "traitors" seems to have been his primary motive.
Breivik confessed and said the purpose of the attack was to save Norway and Western Europe from a Muslim takeover, and that the Labour Party had to "pay the price" for "letting down Norway and the Norwegian people."​
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
I find it a bit strange that our right-wing 'free speech' advocates haven't got an issue with this guy being locked up.

This seems like a bit of a nonsense that is only going to lead to more problems rather than fewer. Locking people up for their ideas just gives the ideas more attraction.
Click to expand...

Free speech doesn't cover sedition. I don't have a problem with choudary being treated the way lord haw haw was.
 
Giz said:
Free speech doesn't cover sedition. I don't have a problem with choudary being treated the way lord haw haw was.
Click to expand...
American commentators may have a problem.
The Brandenburg v. Ohio U.S. Supreme Court decision maintains that seditious speech—including speech that constitutes an incitement to violence—is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as long as it does not indicate an “imminent” threat.​
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seditious_speech_in_the_United_States
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom