This is quite a story:
A Muslim cleric who urged followers to kill non-believers, Americans, Hindus and Jews has been jailed for nine years.
Jamaican-born Sheik Abdullah el-Faisal, 39, was told he had “fanned the flames of hostility”, as Old Bailey judge Peter Beaumont delivered the sentence.
The judge recommended that el-Faisal, from Stratford in east London, should serve at least half of the sentence and then be deported.
El-Faisal – who said it is permissible to use chemical weapons to kill unbelievers – stretched out an arm to a group of around 12 shocked-looking supporters as he was led away.
I’ve spent many minutes of my life opposing jail sentences like this. Clearly there is a point where words and actions can’t be separated, but I’m not convinced that this man crossed it. On the other hand, if we are to take these people at their various words over the years, they are at war with us, and the usual punishment for being at war against my country and having the misfortune to get captured is imprisonment for the duration, even if you actually did nothing except wear an enemy uniform. So you won’t see me at any demonstrations on this guy’s behalf.
Two further quotes from the BBC story caught my attention. There was this …
Defence lawyer Jerome Lynch QC, said it was unfair that people such as controversial cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri had been seen by police and not brought to court like el-Faisal.
… which sounds right to me! And then comes this gem:
Mr Lynch said of el-Faisal: “This was a man who, although misguided, was not malicious.”
I love that. He wanted all infidels murdered, but he wasn’t being nasty about it or anything. When all this “hate speech” legislation was being crafted, one of the arguments my side used repeatedly against such laws was that you could never be sure who they would end up being pointed at. I’m sure that the many Muslims who supported such laws imagined that they would only ever be used against tattooed white supremacist thugs wearing Union Jack tee-shirts.
So, on the other other hand, who’ll be next? Because this won’t end now. It won’t just be other Muslim hate-speakers who will now be in the cross-hairs of this law. British Muslims of the we-don’t-hold-with-terrorism-but variety, i.e. almost all of them, will be demanding that any excursion into hate-speak territory by non-Muslims, against Muslims or against anybody else, will be responded to by the British state with comparable brutality. And we now have a British state which will probably be eager to oblige, in order to prove that “this is not a war against Islam”.
That’s how it happens. Ethnic minorities have their feelings hurt – and I do mean really hurt – by white racists mouthing off at them. There ought to be a law against it! So, there is. The boring old business of actually enforcing existing laws against genuinely aggressive, action-not-just-words nastiness is too dull, and too expensive. How much more agreeable to pass yet another law and grab some nice headlines at no cost.
Then, you know what happens you know when, and suddenly there’s a push to make life difficult for Muslim nutters in Britain, whom the government had until then been ignoring. But after you know what you know when, British tolerance of intolerably nasty foreigners in our midst suddenly itself becomes impossible to tolerate any longer.
So, we do over some pathetic Muslim hate-speaker, not for what he’s been doing (too difficult), but for what he’s merely been saying, because now there’s a handy law for doing this with no more effort needed beyond playing some of the man’s publicly distributed cassettes in a court. The people who have spent the last decade complaining about the law they use suddenly forget all their objections to the law, and think only of their objections to the objectionable maniac that the law has made into its first victim. The people whose instinct is to defend persons like the maniac in question have been arguing for hate-speech laws for as long as they can remember, so what can they say?
Then, so as not to be thought racist (see Britain’s immigration policies), white people (equal and opposite maniacs) are then done over for hate-speaking as well.
And so it goes. The principle that you can go to prison merely because of something you said gets ever more deeply entrenched.
Laws have consequences.
Brian, I’m not up on British law. Does Britain have laws against incitement to riot? We have those here in the States. Conceivably, the mad Muslim could have been convicted under those — a clear case of the criminalization of speech, yet one defended by the majority of legal authorities.
I’m of many minds about such things, despite being a strong proponent of absolute freedom of speech. It can be argued that, when your speech segues over into an exhortation to violence, you’ve crossed a bright line and the law has the obligation to take notice. The argument might be refutable, but it would require the refuter to agree to accept some mighty unpleasant consequences.
Sigh. Being a libertarian sometimes seems like a lot of work.
Free speech is, and always will be, limited by the incitement and sedition concepts. Is the speech designed to cause death and injury to others? Nuking, super-bugging, and chemicalizing people is a little strong in my book.
Nothing modern about the law in use here; it was the Offences Against the Person Act of 1861 that was deployed against this stupid schnook. This law is very traditional about the limiting of words and speech that incite death and maiming of others. The case law would be interesting as it is so dated. Clearly, the government felt the need to dust off this old nugget. Perhaps it was the potential life sentence that made this trial a little more adrenal. It is a trite point that existing “modern law” was ignored and the Crown reached back into the archeological mists for this charge.
So why all synthetic need for all those pointless new “hate” laws when you have this little number tucked away in the shadows? Old serious law was deployed here, not vapid “fashion” law of the specious “hate-sectarian-pandering” variety. So if you are a Moslem inciting death and hate, the Victorians will reach out and get you, an irony that shouldn’t be missed when laws dating back to the Raj clout some idiot around the ears.
However, don’t forget this will go on appeal; at the very least there will be an appeal against sentence; he might serve a year or two when all the legal dust settles.
After all, had this idiot done the deed in and against the Saudis, he might have had only days to wait for the stones or the scimitar.
There was another interesting quote from el-Faisal:
“He said: “You are only allowed to use nuclear weapons in that country which is 100% unbelievers.””
Of course by “unbelievers” he means non-Muslims. But what country actually has _no_ Muslims in it? Certainly the US and UK are not 100% unbeliever…
If you’re going to try to incite the “faithful” to gas/poison/nuke the infidels, at least have the sense not to say it in an infidel country. They should have sent him to jail just for being a stupid loudmouth.
Nothing would make Hollywood leftist happier than the return of McCarthyism.
I too am of two minds and find this case troubling. I thoroughly dislike the fellow and what he says, but am extremely worried about the precedents. “I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it”.
I am somewhat mollified this was not under those ridiculous “hate speech” laws as the response above indicated. I would much rather have heard a really substantive crime if he is to be sent to jail though. Not talking or saying awful things, but conspiring and supporting the doing of them.
In my mind there is only crime when you cross the line from talk to action.
I love the part that he was only reading from the Koran.
Got it in one. It is, after all, the Word of God.
Dale, the point is, the line has been crossed from talk to action. After 1400 years of indoctrination, why wouldn’t the line have been crossed? Have you read littlegreenfootballs recap of the Friday sermons or seen the vid?
After all, why would chem suits be in a mosque?
I know I’ll defend to the death your right to say it, but it’s the acting on I have a problem with. And now we’re in the acting stage.
To appear even handed,I’m sure the british government will be searching for an indigenous,white Anglo-Saxon to join him in prison.
To appear even handed,I’m sure the british government will be searching for an indigenous,white Anglo-Saxon to join him in prison.
To appear even handed,I’m sure the british government will be searching for an indigenous,white Anglo-Saxon to join him in prison.
To appear even handed,I’m sure the british government will be searching for an indigenous,white Anglo-Saxon to join him in prison.
Sandy, I agree with Tally. This is one of “those who live by the sword shall die by the sword cases”. One has to have a clear intent to actually carry out or conspire to carry out particular actions of violence and coercion. Had he been tried for something on those lines, I would have no qualms.
The chem suits are certainly worrying, but should finding NBC protective gear in your house be now considered a crime? Why was such a big deal made of the police finding a blank gun and a can of Mace? When I was growing up, blank guns were quite common in even schools for use as props in school plays. If you asked 50 American women to open their purse, you’d probably find Mace in 20 of them.
I am not saying this fellow is not the scum of the Earth. What I am worried about is the “unintended consequences” (which may well be intended by this government) of making these things appear criminal in and of them selves.
anyway,i don’t think it is okay the way the jugdement was passed though i am not in support of that preaching of hisbut still he is not suppose to be jailed likean animal.i appeal the british govt do something or else………….