|
Post by TheCritique on May 29, 2004 11:11:18 GMT
I have heard that Captain Hook has been arrested and is facing extradition to the US on terror charges.
Here we shall debate the following points:
Should he be extradited if it is possible that he will recieve the death sentence.
Should he be extradited at all? Shouldn't he just be charged here?
What specific charge(s) is he facing, and are they law in this country?
Is he guilty of anything more than hate preaching?
Let the debate begin!
|
|
|
Post by Thanatos on May 29, 2004 20:40:37 GMT
In answer to your questions:
1. No.
2. Yes, he should probably be charged here; he's already committed crimes here (incitement to violence and racial hatred) and the crimes Ashcroft wants him extradited for weren't committed in or specifically against America, so he could just as well be tried here for those, or possibly even in the International Criminal Court.
3. The Americans want him prosecuted for involvement in various acts of violence abroad.
4. Possibly not, but "hate preaching", or, more specifically, incitement to violence and to racial hatred, is a crime.
Hamza and Blair actually have a lot in common - they're both religious fundamentalists who preach murderous doctrines and want to hand control of Britain over to theocratic tyrants.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on May 30, 2004 8:56:29 GMT
How is Blair a religious fundamentalist?
|
|
|
Post by Thanatos on May 30, 2004 10:31:11 GMT
He endorsed a creationist school in Gateshead (the Head of Science described Biblical explanations as "always better" than Darwin's) and has ranted about how he wants to put religion at the heart of politics and answer to his maker about Iraq (never mind the fact that two of his maker's chief representatives, the Pope and the Archbishop of Cantebury, opposed the war).
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on May 30, 2004 20:43:43 GMT
If he was saying that the war was linked to religious rights and wrongs it is one of the biggest contradictions if the pope and the archbishop of canterbury opposed the war.
Any other views and answers to the questions on the topic chaps?
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on May 31, 2004 13:08:05 GMT
Right. Firstly, Blair is a devout Christian, or at least that's the image he looks to put across, but at the same time he doesn't let his religious convictions shape his political agenda very much. Certainly the war in Iraq was never a Holy War, no matter how much Saddam tried to paint it as one.
Secondly, and this is an attempt to stick to the topic, no Hamza should not be extradited, because he has crimes to answer for in this country. Once he's done his time in a British prison, then maybe we can extradite him and he can face US justice as well.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Jun 1, 2004 8:04:01 GMT
Sounds good to me. The more time behind bars the better, unless we can seperate his head from the rest of his body (not literally!).
If we could prosecute him for the crimes that he has commited here how come we've had to wait for the Yanks to try to extradite him?
|
|
|
Post by loremastermiar on Jun 1, 2004 19:07:09 GMT
That's all very well and good, but Abu Hamza has the right to free speech, and so do we all. I suppose we have all seen the pictures of him preaching outside his mosque, in the middle of the street, with masked bouncers around the perimeter. All those police in the background, just watching, just keeping others away and him under control. Abu Hamza knows he can say what he likes, as long as he leaves it at that. I know of many things he is accused of, but at the moment that is all they are accusations. Innocent to proven guilty. Abu Hamza has the same rights that we do, and we HAVE to respect those. In Western society, we have to tolerate these rights, to respect others views, because we are all entitled to an opinion. We have seen what happens when people upset the Muslims, Al Quiedia, hits them hard. It happened to the US, it happened in Bali, and it happened in Spain. They are just waiting for an excuse to strike here, and our MPs know it. With a man that has as much presitage and respect as Abu Hamza, we have to trend carefully. One wrong step and this country is next on the hit list. You guys speak of extradisation and of justice, but it is not that simple. You remember I was talking a while back about a spark to the kegs of powder, well that spark could fly from any situation, at any minute. No wonder we are treating this touchy issue so carefully. Just thought I would share my viewpoint on it. Abu Hamza's situation should be viewed in every tiny detail, before a decision is made.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Jun 1, 2004 21:26:36 GMT
Except that freedom of speech has its limits, and incitement to violence is clearly beyond them. Hamza has violated the laws against incitement on many occasions, and these are not just accusations, his guilt is self-evident; he's never contested any such allegations.
The absurdity is, the laws of free speech that are used by his apologists to defend him will be among the very first to go out of the window if his ambitions are ever brought to fruition.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Jun 1, 2004 22:04:06 GMT
Firstly Mike, Abu Hamza openly abuses whatever free speech rights he has, and he goes beyond them to incite violence. He often calls for more suicide bombings, and, to add to that, he hasn't contested any of those claims.
You're on about if we do anything to Muslims Al Qaeda will strike us hard (words to that effect). Am I the only one here who thinks that you're implying that we should give Muslims preferential treatment (like PC would want us to)?
Beyond 'humane' rights I do not believe Hamza should have that many. He has abused our hospitality, including his rights which are also prividges. His incitement could persuade a young Muslim to blow himself up killing other innocents. Does he deserve any rights??
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Jun 4, 2004 20:39:08 GMT
Exactly, I think that was wonderfully said. How much 'respect' should we allow Hamza, why should he be allowed rights when he blatantly abuses them in mass hate rallies? What about, Sir Oswald Ernald Mosley? He conducted a speech-making campaign of vilification and abuse, directed largely against the Jews. In 1940 he and his wife were interned. They were released in 1943. Hamza preaches open hate against his own country and clearly hates Britain yet we allow him to walk our streets and do his preaching, why is he any different?
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Jun 5, 2004 21:16:43 GMT
Hamza is no different. Unfortunately red tape and law including the European Law on Human Rights, has prevented us from dealing with him effectively. Everyone knows that he is not supposed to be hear but we've been virtually powerless to intervene.
I would crack open a bottle of champagne if he was assasinated, just like I nearly did when Shipman suicided. The saving to the prison service monetarily is untold.
|
|
The Renergade
Constituency Candidate
Rep & Co-Creator of 'New Millenium'
Posts: 3
|
Post by The Renergade on Jun 5, 2004 21:20:31 GMT
I think Hamaz should be extridited.
BUT only after he's faced charges here.
Also I think he should be sent there ONLY if the Death penelty is NOT an opption of sentece.
There are also some Middle east countrys who would like him extridited to there justice as well.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Jun 5, 2004 21:27:51 GMT
It seems everyone wants a piece of Abu Hamza, luckily there's so much of him to go round
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Jun 5, 2004 21:31:55 GMT
Dunno about that. He's already lost his hands, so he may start running out of bits at this rate.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Jun 5, 2004 21:45:55 GMT
Just take chunks of flab, that should last a while.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Jun 6, 2004 8:41:36 GMT
He also has his infamous hook to give away. Should be worth quite a bit in this country.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Jun 10, 2004 12:23:22 GMT
Indeed it would, any more news on what is happening to/with Hamza's position?
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Feb 8, 2006 8:14:52 GMT
A somewhat delayed response to that last question, Robsy, but Abu Hamza was yesterday sentenced to seven years in prison for inciting racial hatred and incitement to violence; although legal experts suspect he could be out in as little as two years.
He could still face extradition proceedings to take effect on his release.
Unsurprisingly, Hamza has protested that he's being victimised for his religion and that this is an attempt to infringe his precious freedom of expression. This does not altogether tally with two points though. One, his fiercest critics over the last ten years have all been Muslims, who have found his violent, intolerant rhetoric thoroughly embarrassing. Two, the extreme interpretation of the laws of Islam that he promotes doesn't allow for freedom of expression anyway.
Any thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Feb 9, 2006 8:37:56 GMT
Just a hint Storm, It would be easier for people to offer thoughts if you didn't keep locking every topic you post in!
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Feb 9, 2006 10:18:00 GMT
I didn't lock it.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Feb 9, 2006 10:20:46 GMT
In fact, I've just checked. After I made that last post, the topic locked again. I think proboards is playing up. (And yes, I'll make sure after this post that I unlock the thread again.)
|
|
|
Post by modeski on Feb 9, 2006 23:32:23 GMT
I was wondering the same thing about another thread.
Anyway, to Hamza (no, I wasn't proposing a toast, you hacks). I think the fact that most muslims would be largely in favour of the recent rulings is an indication that if you're a nutjob, regardless of your background, you will largely be acknowledged as such. I would argue that two years is about right though, because like it or not he should have the right to say what he wants.
The problem only comes when people listen to him. It's when that happens, and people are demonstrably harmed as a result of that, where one has to consider taking steps to shut him down.
What I did hate was the tabloid portrayal of him, particularly in The Sun. I felt that Littlejohn in particular wrote about Hamza in such a way to imply that he was one of many who thought like him, or indeed all muslims. Mind you, like the HOOK-HANDED FUNDAMENTALIST we are discussing RICHARD LITTLEJOHN can do little more than spout INFLAMMATORY RHETORIC. God, I love the way the tabloids embolden words for emphasis.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Feb 10, 2006 8:13:28 GMT
I was wondering the same thing about another thread. Which one? That argument kind of falls between two stools for me, because if Hamza has the right to say absolutely anything he likes then he shouldn't be punished at all. Incitement to violence is either a crime or it isn't. For me, the only restrictions on freedom of speech I can think of off the top of my head should be; (1) incitement to violence, (2) unfair defamation of character (3) violating a formal oath of secrecy. I thought the portrayal of him was simplistic; I have suspicions a lot of what he said and did was an act, publicity-seeking. Not so much the portrayal of Hamza then, as the portrayal of the wider Muslim community. But then what does that tell us about the right-wing media, and particularly Littlejohn, that we didn't already know? It's why I NEVER read the tabloids, I feel INSULTED by it, like they're TELLING me when to feel SHOCKED.
|
|
|
Post by modeski on Feb 10, 2006 23:37:25 GMT
|
|