NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4133150.stm

this is something to be proud of; omar bakri mohammad has left the country on fears that his political views will get him convicted of treason.

of course i'm being sarcastic, this is a disgusting thing to happen in a liberal democracy. this man, who despite supporting islamist terror and generally being a bit of a prat had no links to active terror organisations. it is reminiscent of an authoritarian state that a man has been bullied out of the nation purely because of his views, and not his actions.

i think it is shameful that we have created a climate where people fear that their thoughts could be treasonable, and although terrorism is idiotic and vile an individual should still have the right to speak in support of it, just as any one of us should have the right to speak in favour of the october revolutionaries, or even the american founding fathers.

comments?

yeah, you are a very stupid man.

i do not support his views in any way, i'm just saying that he has a right to air them without fear of being sentenced to life imprisonment. this man is no danger to civil security, as no actual terrorist would even make public speeches, let alone get them all published in the sun.

unless you're just being ad hominem, whatever.

There is a fine line to draw here, and it is right between "not condemning terror" and "promoting terror". The first, nothing can be done about. The second, what's wrong with it? We arrest people for expressing thoughts all the time! Jesus! Stop oversimplifying so dramatically! Example:

"Oy, ******, what the fuck do you think you're doing in my club!? Fuck off back to the jungle and play your drums, you fucking spear-chucker!" - said to a friend of mine (paraphrased)

That'll get you nicked. So will:

"Here are the names of three MI5 agents I was approached by and worked with when dealing with some racist rent-a-mob riot organisers."

So will threats. So will abusing a police officer. And sexual harrassment won't get you nicked, but it'll get you sued. So first off, don't get pissy about the possibility of someone being arrested for "expressing their thoughts". It's massively oversimplifying for the purpose of drama and drama alone, and does your case no credit.

He's left the country as a propaganda device. By doing so, he's giving the fundie clerics who recruit/brainwash/pressure impressionable "oppressed" teenagers another argument; that Britain will arrest people with Muslim views, and who disagree with its stance on a war.

yeah, you are a very stupid man.
?
That's very flamish of you.

?
That's very flamish of you.

Well it bugged me, according to that logic we should allow holocaust deniers to spread there crap. And omar bakri mohammad is a lowlife who should go and live in Iran with his peers.

Omar Bakri publically supports and encourages suicide bombing against men, women, children and babies.

Nice chap.

?
That's very flamish of you.
Nah, he's just an idiot.

according to that logic we should allow holocaust deniers to spread there crap. And omar bakri mohammad is a lowlife who should go and live in Iran with his peers.
Guess what? They do and can under the same guarantee that this Mohammed character has: good ol' Freedom of Speech.

Nah, he's just an idiot.

No you are the idiot.

Guess what? They do and can under the same guarantee that this Mohammed character has: good ol' Freedom of Speech.

Do we live in USA? No! most countrys have laws against certain statments.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4133150.stm

this is something to be proud of; omar bakri mohammad has left the country on fears that his political views will get him convicted of treason.

of course i'm being sarcastic, this is a disgusting thing to happen in a liberal democracy. this man, who despite supporting islamist terror and generally being a bit of a prat had no links to active terror organisations. it is reminiscent of an authoritarian state that a man has been bullied out of the nation purely because of his views, and not his actions.

i think it is shameful that we have created a climate where people fear that their thoughts could be treasonable, and although terrorism is idiotic and vile an individual should still have the right to speak in support of it, just as any one of us should have the right to speak in favour of the october revolutionaries, or even the american founding fathers.

comments?

I agree, unfourtunatly the war on terror has become rather cloudy, instead of fighting terroism the government has instead turned its eye to oppressing the common person, soon we won't even be able to express our views about anyone or anything in public just in case we get arrested.

It sickens me.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4133150.stm

this is something to be proud of; omar bakri mohammad has left the country on fears that his political views will get him convicted of treason.

of course i'm being sarcastic, this is a disgusting thing to happen in a liberal democracy. this man, who despite supporting islamist terror and generally being a bit of a prat had no links to active terror organisations. it is reminiscent of an authoritarian state that a man has been bullied out of the nation purely because of his views, and not his actions.

i think it is shameful that we have created a climate where people fear that their thoughts could be treasonable, and although terrorism is idiotic and vile an individual should still have the right to speak in support of it, just as any one of us should have the right to speak in favour of the october revolutionaries, or even the american founding fathers.

comments?

Ah yes...thats why we Yanks just love you Brits.

See....you guys know how to wallow in your own crapulence just as well as us, sometimes.
We pull some shady crap..then we see you do something equally crappy...and we think.."My..well done, my Limey Freinds! Now....heres something REALLY underhanded."

Ok say that someone kills your parents and your neighbour (who didnt have anything to do with it) says "they got what they deserved" would you go
"it's your opion and thats alrigh with me" mate all it takes is one high ranking islamist to accept it them all of a sudden you got flocks of terriorist all over the country when you join a country as a citizen you pleage your oath to that country and it's safety if you support the death of 2000 people because some guy went "our god allah wanted it" then you are very very stupid infact your a bit retarded.

Its not oppressing it's protecting infact the best thing we can do is make sure that people who support the death of people have rights taken away infact when the brits said that they would take away the citizenship of anybody who supports terriorism i agreed with it 100% if they think that killing thosands of people can be justified then they derserved it as far as i am concerned i thought you brits now more then ever would know that by now those terriorist in london where british citizens they were born there but when on islamic extremeist gets holod of them and say "if you love allah then bomb london" well to repeat myself your a little dumb

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4133150.stm

this is something to be proud of; omar bakri mohammad has left the country on fears that his political views will get him convicted of treason.

of course i'm being sarcastic, this is a disgusting thing to happen in a liberal democracy. this man, who despite supporting islamist terror and generally being a bit of a prat had no links to active terror organisations. it is reminiscent of an authoritarian state that a man has been bullied out of the nation purely because of his views, and not his actions.

i think it is shameful that we have created a climate where people fear that their thoughts could be treasonable, and although terrorism is idiotic and vile an individual should still have the right to speak in support of it, just as any one of us should have the right to speak in favour of the october revolutionaries, or even the american founding fathers.

comments?


Free speech my purple throbbing bottom! The man's an idiot and has spent the last few decades plotting to murder us in our beds while living off our money. I don't want him back. I'm glad he left. This entire argument is ridiculous. If we had any respect for ourselves we would have enacted laws long ago to remove this monsterand those like him, as they do in France. These mans words and views are his actions. At a time when Britain is targeted by terrorists, when bombs kill commuters on the tube, so you really think people like this should remain in our country? Has common sense bypassed you? He has chosen to stand against Britain and should be imprisoned or leave.
Why should the families of terror victims have to see this bigot remains in the country egging-on the villains in our midst? I cannot believe you would want this creature to remain in Britain. We accepted him on good faith, allowed him to live off benefits, to which most of us contribute part of our wage, and yet he chooses to behave like this. There is no intellectual argument behind his views. He threatens to create yet further instability in a country already wondering about its identity. It is people like you who make Britain an international joke. How very sad.

Just a few clips from that article if people haven't read it.

The radical Islamic cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed has announced he will return to Britain - unless the government says it does not want him back.

The Muslim Council of Britain had said his departure would bring joy and happiness to the UK's Muslim community.

Omar Bakri Mohammed, cleric for al-Muhajiroun. Its successor group the Saviour Sect being banned. Said he would not tell police if knew of UK bomb attack plans; supported Muslims who attacked British troops.

Mainstream Muslim organisations have denounced his views, saying that he does not represent the true voice of Islam.

There are more for and against in the report, but read it for yourselves.

In my opinion, this is a publicity stunt.
It is apparent (from the report), that the Muslim community are happy that he has left.
I have just spoken to a Muslim friend of long standing, (who lives in Tottenham, north London), her Mosc is breathing a sigh of relief that he has gone and they hope he will not return.

If he IS charged, he will go off and claim Assylum somewhere else, as he did in this country in the 80's.

There is a fine line to draw here, and it is right between "not condemning terror" and "promoting terror". The first, nothing can be done about. The second, what's wrong with it? We arrest people for expressing thoughts all the time! Jesus! Stop oversimplifying so dramatically! Example:

"Oy, ******, what the fuck do you think you're doing in my club!? Fuck off back to the jungle and play your drums, you fucking spear-chucker!" - said to a friend of mine (paraphrased)

That'll get you nicked. So will:

"Here are the names of three MI5 agents I was approached by and worked with when dealing with some racist rent-a-mob riot organisers."

So will threats. So will abusing a police officer. And sexual harrassment won't get you nicked, but it'll get you sued. So first off, don't get pissy about the possibility of someone being arrested for "expressing their thoughts". It's massively oversimplifying for the purpose of drama and drama alone, and does your case no credit.

He's left the country as a propaganda device. By doing so, he's giving the fundie clerics who recruit/brainwash/pressure impressionable "oppressed" teenagers another argument; that Britain will arrest people with Muslim views, and who disagree with its stance on a war.

I agree with this bloke. Nicely said New Watenho

If you can't see that someone who says that suicide bombing is a good thing, in public, is EXACTLY as guilty as the suicide bomber himself, then there is something wrong with you.

Not "contributes to the cycle of violence", not "morally and legally wrong", but EXACTLY AS GUILTY.

Yeah, you can say what you think, unless you think things like "kill people who haven't done anything bad".

You can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater.

You can't go into a kindergarten and say "I'll give you some candy if you let me touch you".

You can't go on the internet and say "here is some blueprints I just smuggled out of the chemical weapons factory, complete with a numbered list of parts".

And you can't say "killing people is a good thing".

Contributing to behavior likely to result in a violent crime.

Omar Bakri Mohammad is a POS who needs to keep his mouth shut because every time he opens it, some idiot straps on some Semtex boxer shorts and takes a short ride on a bus or train, one way.

And you think this scumbag should have the right to express his opinion?

Then, wether you realize it or not, you are just as guilty as he is- contributing to behavior likey to contribute to behavior likely to result in a violent crime.

If you can't see that someone who says that suicide bombing is a good thing, in public, is EXACTLY as guilty as the suicide bomber himself, then there is something wrong with you.

Not "contributes to the cycle of violence", not "morally and legally wrong", but EXACTLY AS GUILTY.

Yeah, you can say what you think, unless you think things like "kill people who haven't done anything bad".

You can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater.

You can't go into a kindergarten and say "I'll give you some candy if you let me touch you".

You can't go on the internet and say "here is some blueprints I just smuggled out of the chemical weapons factory, complete with a numbered list of parts".

And you can't say "killing people is a good thing".

Contributing to behavior likely to result in a violent crime.

Omar Bakri Mohammad is a POS who needs to keep his mouth shut because every time he opens it, some idiot straps on some Semtex boxer shorts and takes a short ride on a bus or train, one way.

And you think this scumbag should have the right to express his opinion?

Then, wether you realize it or not, you are just as guilty as he is- contributing to behavior likey to contribute to behavior likely to result in a violent crime.

Exactly. Well done Chainik Hooker! Why people do not understand this defies my belief.

Freedom of speech/expression is not some natural freedom we are born with. It's a social freedom which our society gives and takes as it sees fit.

Most of us accept slander and libel laws and I don't have a problem with laws against incitement to terrorism.

Let's think, he says he will not tell any authorities if he knows a bomb attack is being planned against the UK, and he supports the murdering of British troops.

Sounds like the guy doesn't want to be here. He sure doesn't deserve to be here. All he does is incite hatred and create more tensions, something we don't need even without the threat of terrorism. First time I've ever agreed with a Labour MP on something; we're better off without him.

Well, no, I can understand why people squirm when they hear that some speech is curtailed- most of Western society is made of liberal democrocies (small 'l'). Repression of speech is what dictatorships do. We are so used to freedom that we go into automatic "fascist-alert" mode whenever someone tells us, for example, we can't put something in our mouths (or viens), or we can't run around with no clothes on, or we can't shout "poopy-head" in the street.

Liberals are two year olds running amok playing with their toys (ie the media, culture, academia, and so on), and can't fathom why limits are needed, and so they throw tantrums. Nobody likes to be on the recieving end of a tantrum, and sometimes you even understand why the two year old is upset, but you gotta do what you gotta do.

the country as a whole is far better without him, i now hope the ordinary decent muslims create pressure on the other gits like him to depart our fair land now!

any decent person has nothing to fear from the new laws

the country as a whole is far better without him, i now hope the ordinary decent muslims create pressure on the other gits like him to depart our fair land now!

any decent person has nothing to fear from the new laws

Exactly. It is quite clear that he is a menace and is only serving to drive a deeper wedge between the Muslim community and the rest of Britain. Even if you do not agree that we should punish him in some way, you should see that removing him is for the greater good. He is fulfilling the wishes of the al-queda contingent by causing tension in Britain.

What no one has pointed out (given the newspapers have been full of calls to arrest him for treason) is that he couldn't be arrested for treason.

Why?

(1) We'd have to be at war (we aren't)
(2) He would have to have provided material aid and comfort to the enemy (he hasn't, not least because we don't have a legally defined enemy).

Now, Sedition is another matter...

I do so love it when British newspapers (read "The Daily Mail") thunder on about people "shaming our laws and traditions" and...don't understand our laws and traditions.

Irony, eh?

What no one has pointed out (given the newspapers have been full of calls to arrest him for treason) is that he couldn't be arrested for treason.

Why?

(1) We'd have to be at war (we aren't)
(2) He would have to have provided material aid and comfort to the enemy (he hasn't, not least because we don't have a legally defined enemy).

Now, Sedition is another matter...

I do so love it when British newspapers (read "The Daily Mail") thunder on about people "shaming our laws and traditions" and...don't understand our laws and traditions.

Irony, eh?

Standing up for tradition because it is tradition, or because it's "what we've always done," is absurd. It's one of the worst concievable arguments for anything being right or wrong, up there with "Because I say it is".

That said, I don't want to sound like I'd restrict freedom of speech on the basis of offence, revenge, discomfort or malignity. All of our freedoms under law are to be allowed to be expressed right up to the point where they impinge unfairly on the freedoms of others. At that point they're cut off.

To say you think Britain should be considered a legitimate target for suicide bombing is on the very upper border of encitement to violence. It is the same as tub-thumping BNP ralliers encouraging people to hurt and to brick the windows of Asians. It is the same as KKK Grand Cyclopses saying niggers deserve punishment. It is encouraging violence on people both innocent and guilty on the basis of the actions of some of them; the British Government, and asians and black people "taking the jobs etc." of Brits/Americans (or, indeed, merely existing).

This is what I believe. However, it is a borderline case, I'll admit that, and there are fair arguments, perhaps, to be made for the case that it's not incitement to violence but a genuine expression of anti-governmental anger, but I firmly believe if you're going to do that then at least advocate blowing yourself up at 10 Downing Street, not people whose only crime are existing on the same island as the government that made the decisions you're so angry about.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4133150.stm

this is something to be proud of; omar bakri mohammad has left the country on fears that his political views will get him convicted of treason.

of course i'm being sarcastic, this is a disgusting thing to happen in a liberal democracy. this man, who despite supporting islamist terror and generally being a bit of a prat had no links to active terror organisations. it is reminiscent of an authoritarian state that a man has been bullied out of the nation purely because of his views, and not his actions.

i think it is shameful that we have created a climate where people fear that their thoughts could be treasonable, and although terrorism is idiotic and vile an individual should still have the right to speak in support of it, just as any one of us should have the right to speak in favour of the october revolutionaries, or even the american founding fathers.

comments?This two legged turd said that if he had information that a Muslim were planning to blow up British civilians he wouldn't tell the police. You're much better off without him.

Standing up for tradition because it is tradition, or because it's "what we've always done," is absurd. It's one of the worst concievable arguments for anything being right or wrong, up there with "Because I say it is".

That said, I don't want to sound like I'd restrict freedom of speech on the basis of offence, revenge, discomfort or malignity. All of our freedoms under law are to be allowed to be expressed right up to the point where they impinge unfairly on the freedoms of others. At that point they're cut off.

To say you think Britain should be considered a legitimate target for suicide bombing is on the very upper border of encitement to violence. It is the same as tub-thumping BNP ralliers encouraging people to hurt and to brick the windows of Asians. It is the same as KKK Grand Cyclopses saying niggers deserve punishment. It is encouraging violence on people both innocent and guilty on the basis of the actions of some of them; the British Government, and asians and black people "taking the jobs etc." of Brits/Americans (or, indeed, merely existing).

This is what I believe. However, it is a borderline case, I'll admit that, and there are fair arguments, perhaps, to be made for the case that it's not incitement to violence but a genuine expression of anti-governmental anger, but I firmly believe if you're going to do that then at least advocate blowing yourself up at 10 Downing Street, not people whose only crime are existing on the same island as the government that made the decisions you're so angry about.

Oh, sorry, i didn't mean the tradition of freedom of speech, i just meant how they didn't understand the laws of the land that they are trying to use against this man.

As for Omar Bakri wassisface, well:-
He's a joke.
He has no real connection with terrorism (i think he likes people to think he does, but would run a mile at anything which disturbs his quite cosy little life), the *British* Security Forces have said it many times (even though the CIA have convinced themselves he a dangerous threat - i suggest anyone who "fears" his influence read the section on him in Jon Ronsons "Them: Adventures with Extremists" and realise what a joke he is).
His statement wasn't *inciting* so much as saying he'd turn a blind eye (for a joke, he knows very well how to word things so he couldn't really be arrested for it).
And, most importantly, he's a newspaper whore. And the newspapers go to him because he gives good copy. As much as him saying it, the newspapers bear a responsibility because they give him a platform, front page. How often do BNP or KKK members make statements like you suggest? Every day, i'd say. How often do they appear on the front page? Only when they actually get tried for it. We've learnt how to deal with them (marginalise them by ignoring them unless they do cross the line and break the law), so we should be doing the same with him. The current furore will just encourage him to make more, crude, cartoonish pronouncements which skate JUST this side of legality.