depoix Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 To reap some of the money it will cost to keep this "Abu" back, I suggest that his hook is taken away (Before he has someones eye out) and put to better use. SUGGESTION . :hihi: hook,line,and stinker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent Dan Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 I actually agree with you..... Maybe it might just make future terrorist figures think again.... at least we process our law in a civilized and dignified way but I do think Griffin got off lightly only cos they couldn't prove the word "kill" or "hate" which Hamza was stupid enough to use. Far as I'm concerned Griffin still needs a bit of time away from us all to reflect. Hear hear! I think it's especially dangerous for the British legal system to appear biased at the moment, and Griffin could do with some quiet solitude methinks! Maybe if he had a horrible disfigurement we would've banged him up faster?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordChaverly Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 Hear hear! I think it's especially dangerous for the British legal system to appear biased at the moment, and Griffin could do with some quiet solitude methinks! Maybe if he had a horrible disfigurement we would've banged him up faster?? Your argument is based on the false premise that the two cases were similar whereas in fact they were very different. You are not comparing like with like here. Hamza was charged with incitement to murder (among other things) and there was clear and irrefutable evidence that he was guilty. He was damned time and time again out of his own mouth. Griffin was charged with incitement to racial hatred, but the case against him was weak, because the evidence amounted to him saying that he thought that Islam was a wicked religion (a matter of opinion); that gangs of Asians were preying on young white girls (a disputable 'fact'); and that Stephen Lawrence was killed by another black person (another disputable 'fact'). There is a difference between the expression of opinions and the articulation of disputable 'facts' on the one hand (however much you may find these statements repugant) and the explicit incitement to murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent Dan Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 I agree that the case against Griffin was weaker, but I do not agree that what he presented was as open to interpretation as the jury decided. Incitement to racial hatred and incitement to murder seem pretty close to me, as the murders Hamza was inciting were based on religious or racial factors. I think it's particularly unfortunate timing as people on both sides will read lots into a white christian getting let off his charges and an asian muslim not doing so, regardless of what actually happened and who was in the right or wrong. I'm just concerned that unless everyone takes a step back soon, this 'conflict' will escalate further and lots more people will get killed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kthebean Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 I think it's particularly unfortunate timing as people on both sides will read lots into a white christian getting let off his charges and an asian muslim not doing so, regardless of what actually happened and who was in the right or wrong. I think you're wrong, Dan - I think on this occasion the law has done well. This isn't the playground where a teacher has to dole out the same punishment to everyone to seem fair! They have both been tried by the law and sentenced appropriately and I think most right-minded people on either 'side' (the way you put that worries me!) will be able to see that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordChaverly Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 I agree that the case against Griffin was weaker, but I do not agree that what he presented was as open to interpretation as the jury decided. Incitement to racial hatred and incitement to murder seem pretty close to me, as the murders Hamza was inciting were based on religious or racial factors. I think it's particularly unfortunate timing as people on both sides will read lots into a white christian getting let off his charges and an asian muslim not doing so, regardless of what actually happened and who was in the right or wrong. I'm just concerned that unless everyone takes a step back soon, this 'conflict' will escalate further and lots more people will get killed! Criminal trials hinge on proof beyond reasonable doubt. There could be no reasonable doubt that Hamza explicitly incited people to murder. In this sense, it was an open and shut case. Griffin stated his opinions and also gave his take on certain events. The jury then had to interpret whether or not these statements amounted to incitement (thereby being forced to speculate on the impact of these words on others and upon the putative relationship between incitor and incitee) or whether they fell within the boundaries of freedom of speech. In this case there was considerable scope for reasonable doubt (as there would have been in Hamza's case had he confined himself to saying nasty things about Christianity or highlighting Christian crimes). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent Dan Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 I think you're wrong, Dan - I think on this occasion the law has done well. This isn't the playground where a teacher has to dole out the same punishment to everyone to seem fair! They have both been tried by the law and sentenced appropriately and I think most right-minded people on either 'side' (the way you put that worries me!) will be able to see that. I hope you're right! I also agree with your earlier comment about Griffin doing more harm inside than out, but I still worry that the government will be seen by the extremists to be biased. Using the term 'sides' is a bit lazy I admit as it's never so clear cut. Must be listening to all the media balls that's put it in my head! Lord Chaverly - Thanks for the explanation. I can see your point now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zafar Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 I was watching newsnight last night, and there were some interesting facts to this whole episode. Firstly that in 1999 when he was released by the Police, they felt that his 'Encyclopedia of Afghani Jihad' was not that bad and they returned it to him ! Secondly, If they had actually locked him up then, September the 11th, as well as July the 7th would not have necessarily happened! what was amusing was to hear someone say that he was quite clever in sticking to the fringes of the law (where as when I listened to it he seemed quite blatant!). I can see conspiracy stories starting similar to the stories in America vis a vi 9/11 that the authorities deliberately allowed things to occur as they wanted a new 'Pearl Harbour' type event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordChaverly Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 I can see conspiracy stories starting similar to the stories in America vis a vi 9/11 that the authorities deliberately allowed things to occur as they wanted a new 'Pearl Harbour' type event. This particular conspiracy theory has been floating around for some time now and is absurd as it is bizarre. There is considerable evidence that most Western governments (with the possible exception of France) underestimated the potential threat from Al Quaida prior to 9/11. This is for example well documented in the case of the US (read Richard Clarke's book on the subject). The question is, why did they underestimate it? In America's case, the evidence points to there being a paradigm lag in threat perceptions. The Bush administration for example was stacked with old cold war warriors who had not woken up to the fact that we were living in a post cold war world. An insight into this is provided by Clarke, who asked for a meeting with Condoleeza Rice to discuss the threat posed by Al Quaida. According to his account of the interview, Rice didn't seem to understand what he was talking about. The threat simply didn't register in the mind of a woman whose whole career had been built upon cold war premises. Its the old story of generals always preparing for the last battle. The **** up theory of history is usually more plausible, and usually has a lot more substance, than conspiracy theories Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent Dan Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 The **** up theory of history... Great title for a book! I can picture it on my coffee table now!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.