The criminalization of opinion in Britain. - Page 3

TheStinger · March 7, 2003, 11:14

Quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22
The laws then.

Do these laws allow the British government to arrest a person based on wether his books' opinions please or do not please the "laws" of your parliamentary monarchy?

Your "laws" have thepower to determine what one can and cannot read and if he does he is to be arrested and face the propability of 10 years in jail?

Yes we have laws, it isn't matter of his opinions. It is a criminal offence to incite of facilitate terrorism, if he just has oipinins he will be found not guilty. Which bit of this do you disagree with.

People do not get arrested for their opinions, the medis over here would go absolutley beserk if that happened.

Jack the Bodiless · March 7, 2003, 11:14

We already know that this guy is a terrorist sympathizer, so we know that he isn't just "someone with a book".

And you have been given several other possible factors that might apply.

And we don't even know if he will go to jail anyhow.

But you prefer to believe that anyone with a "politically incorrect" book can be thrown into prison.

TheStinger · March 7, 2003, 11:16

Quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22

Another interesting matter then: In Britain you can be arrested for not having done anything? And that is perfectly ok?
Don't you think it leaves your country wide open for arbitrary prosecussions of opinions? (which are a democratic right in most european countries).

In the UK there has to resonable suspicion that you have commited or inten to commit an offence to be arrested. Seems fair enough.

What is the criteria for arrest where you are

Bereta_Eder · March 7, 2003, 11:18

Quote:

Originally posted by TheStinger

Yes we have laws, it isn't matter of his opinions. It is a criminal offence to incite of facilitate terrorism, if he just has oipinins he will be found not guilty. Which bit of this do you disagree with.

So having opinions and books can be charged as facilitating terrorism in Britain and that is prosecutable all by itself and perfecty OK in your "democratic" culture?

MrBaggins · March 7, 2003, 11:18

Quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22
The laws then.

Do these laws allow the British government to arrest a person based on wether his books' opinions please or do not please the "laws" of your parliamentary monarchy?

Your "laws" have the power to determine what one can and cannot read and if he does he is to be arrested and face the propability of 10 years in jail?

Absolutely... If the books have enough specificity to facilitate or encourage criminal acts.

Also, possession of any book, not necessarily illicit (in and of itself) in nature, may support other parts of a larger prosecution, if it is relevent to proving intent, among other things.

TheStinger · March 7, 2003, 11:19

no Paiktis they can't. but having materials that facilitate terrorism can result in charges

Jack the Bodiless · March 7, 2003, 11:19

Quote:

You don't need absolute proof that a crime has been commited to arrest someone, and put them on trial... merely a reasonable perception that they could be in violation of a law, given a broad interpretation. Its up to the court to decide whether an actual crime has taken place.

Another interesting matter then: In Britain you can be arrested for not having done anything? And that is perfectly ok?

This is becoming increasingly surreal...

In Greece, you can't be arrested unless it's already been proved that you are guilty of a crime? How does that work? The police decide who is guilty, then they're thrown into prison without trial?

Bereta_Eder · March 7, 2003, 11:20

Quote:

Originally posted by TheStinger

In the UK there has to resonable suspicion that you have commited or inten to commit an offence to be arrested. Seems fair enough.

So a person who believes that 17N performed political crimes and is not a terrorist organization is automatically a criminal based on your "laws"?

And his opinion and books can get him arrested, detained and face a trial with a maximum sentence of 10 years in jail?

lightblue · March 7, 2003, 11:20

There's a difference between "arrested" and "convicted" paiktis. At the moment the only thing we know is that he is a known terrorist sympatizer with at the very least some books he shouldn't have (and probably other stuff as well), which in my mind is enough to take someone in for questioning and depending on the circumstances charged.

Only once the jury decides that the suspect is not innocent is he guilty and convicted, until then he'll just have to live at Her Majesty's pleasure until the end of his trial.

Bereta_Eder · March 7, 2003, 11:23

Quote:

Originally posted by lightblue
There's a difference between "arrested" and "convicted" paiktis.

Of course there is.
So in Britain a man can be arrested based on what he believes and remain in her majesty's pleasure (???) then taken to trial and face a 10 year imprisonment. Is that what you're saying here?

MrBaggins · March 7, 2003, 11:24

An opinion about terrorism, all on its own isn't enough for an arrest, but ANY amount of preparation regarding terrorism, is grounds for prosecution AS a terroristic act.

CerberusIV · March 7, 2003, 11:24

Let's get this straight. In the UK you can be arrested before it is decided you have committed a crime. The police arrest someone, the the Crown Prosecution Service (aka the case droppers

) decide if there is enough evidence to go to court. If not, the person is released. If there is then a court will hear the case and a jury will decide guilt or innocence. That is the point where it is decided a crime has actually been committed. That is how english, and many other countries, law works.

The court decides on the basis of the law as set out by a majority vote of a freely elected parliament.

Where is the problem?

They don't often arrest people for the fun of it in the UK - there are too many lawyers willing to take up cases for wrongful arrest and to seek compensation so they must have had a pretty good reason for picking on this guy.

TheStinger · March 7, 2003, 11:24

Paiktis, anyone who is arrested can apply for bail, howver in terror cases this is likley to be denied. This is usual in most cases

TheStinger · March 7, 2003, 11:26

Does anyone believe Paiktis is winning this argument

Bereta_Eder · March 7, 2003, 11:27

Quote:

Originally posted by CerberusIV
They don't often arrest people for the fun of it in the UK - there are too many lawyers willing to take up cases for wrongful arrest and to seek compensation so they must have had a pretty good reason for picking on this guy.

And that is that his opinions do not please the crown?

And since your "laws" allow that, how can your police be prosecuted for wrongful arrest? Since it seems that having an opinion and some books are enough for a "legal" (in Britain) arrest?

Was the man who wrote 1984 british BTW?

lightblue · March 7, 2003, 11:29

Quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22

Of course there is.
So in Britain a man can be arrested based on what he believes and remain in her majesty's pleasure (???) then taken to trial and face a 10 year imprisonment. Is that what you're saying here?

In Her Majesty's pleasure = euphemism for staying in jail.

And yes, that is what I am saying. Take Osama Bin Laden for example, he clearly believes that his role in life is to destroy Western society. He propagates his beliefs by the spreading of videotapes and books/pamphlets. He has afaik never actually taken up arms himself against the US (he has congratulated the people that have, but never personally claimed credit), so if he were to be arrested, he would be arrested on the basis of his beliefs and the spreading of said beliefs.

I realise that this is more than likely to be an exageration of the guy were talking about now, but by your reasoning you would not arrest Osama as he's only expressing his beliefs, and maybe helping them out a bit with some cash.

Velociryx · March 7, 2003, 11:30

Some Democracy Greece is! Did you know they passed a law there that made it illegal to play computer games! Imagine, being able to be arrested for playing "subversive" games....

-=Vel=-

Bereta_Eder · March 7, 2003, 11:30

Quote:

Originally posted by CerberusIV
Where is the problem?

The problem is of course a major democratic deficit in your antiterrorism laws which create a wide space for prosecution of opinion, unless in your political culture, that's ok. And that Britain is not a democracy. Not in the real meaning of the word and not like most of the european ones since expression of opinion can be prosecuted with such ease.

Arrian · March 7, 2003, 11:30

Paiktis, as usual, has no intention of being reasonable. He saw a chance to bash Britain and jumped on it, with little regard to facts.

Why do I say little regard to facts? Simple. The TRIAL HASN'T EVEN BEGUN YET. So what do we (including Paiktis) really know about this case? Zip. Zilch. Nada.

-Arrian

MrBaggins · March 7, 2003, 11:32

Quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22

And that is that his opinions do not please the crown?

And since your "laws" allow that how can your police be prosecuted for wrongful arrest? Since it seems that having an opinion and some books are enough for a "legal" (in Britain) arrest?

Was the man who wrote 1984 british BTW?

Nope... no one is talking about opinion... its all about MATERIAL posessions and actions.

A judge has found that there is enough material evidence to hold the defendant.

The British judicial system is the standard throughout most of the world.

you used the term "laws", but the word doesn't need quotes... Laws are real, actual and definitive entities.

Having an opinion isn't enough to be arrested in the UK. Everyone has an opinion about SOMETHING... but not everyone has been arrested. Similarly, most people in the UK own at least one book... but not everyone has been arrested just for that either.

TheStinger · March 7, 2003, 11:33

Have you ever been to Britain, do you know how wide the spectrum of mainstream political life is. Its huge.

There are IRA apologists in parliament, cripto facists running some newspaper, troskyites sitting on the labour party ruling council. The assertion that you are prosecuted for an opinion in Britain is one the stupidest things that can be said.

Bereta_Eder · March 7, 2003, 11:33

Arrian we haven't even gotten to the trial in our discussion yet.

We are still talking about an arrest which is undemocratic and vastly suspicious since it is based on nothing other than the "crowns" displeasure at a young man's opinion as it seems.

CerberusIV · March 7, 2003, 11:35

Quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22

The problem is of course a major democratic deficit in your antiterrorism laws which create a wide space for prosecution of opinion, unless in your political culture, that's ok. And that Britain is not a democracy. Not in the real meaning of the word and not like most of the european ones since expression of opinion can be prosecuted with such ease.

Prosecution - yes, conviction and imprisonment - not necessarily.

Erm, Paiktis - you don't happen to know this guy personally do you?

Bereta_Eder · March 7, 2003, 11:35

Quote:

Originally posted by TheStinger
Have you ever been to Britain, do you know how wide the spectrum of mainstream political life is. Its huge.

Twice.

Quote:

There are IRA apologists in parliament, cripto facists running some newspaper, troskyites sitting on the labour party ruling council. The assertion that you are prosecuted for an opinion in Britain is one the stupidest things that can be said.

Yet this is not only what is happening but is also perfectly ok based on your political culture as you yourself have said.

Jack the Bodiless · March 7, 2003, 11:35

Paitikis:

Are you entirely unfamiliar with how the law works in ANY democratic country?

(...Except maybe Greece, I'm beginning to wonder about that...)

People can be arrested if there are reasons to suspect that they MAY have committed a crime (and the police can be sued for wrongful arrest if there were no reasons).

Then a TRIAL takes place to determine whether they are innocent or guilty. If there is insufficient evidence to establish guilt, they are RELEASED.

If found GUILTY of a CRIME, they go to prison.

...What happens in Greece?

TheStinger · March 7, 2003, 11:37

Whatever else you may say about him he can get a raction 80+ posts in no time. Not taht he is in any way a troll oh no

Demerzel · March 7, 2003, 11:37

Quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22

So books expressing opinions are deemed "dangerous" and must be stopped in the British "democracy"?

sheesh, of course we don't think that all books expressing opinions are dangerous. Oh look Salman Rushdie lives here and we've arrested him for his horrendous trend of writing opinionated books, haven't we? Or the other thousands of writers? You are absurdly over-generalising to try to score a point in your crusade again the British govt.

If the articles ( which may or may not include books ) were deemed to faciliate criminal acts then only then will they be deemed "dangerous" and worthy of investigation.

Why don't you wait and see what comes on Tueday before starting yet another thread on the evil injustice of British law. If he is as innocent as you say, he'll be released.

Bereta_Eder · March 7, 2003, 11:38

Let's recapitulate.

A 25 year old student was arrested in Britain because he had books decribing the acts of militant groups in Europe.

He also happened to have publicly say that 17N is not a terrorist group.

These 2 things were enough under british "law" to have him arrested and that is perfectly OK and democratic according to the British established order?

And you think that's not a criminalization of thought?

lightblue · March 7, 2003, 11:39

Accused of having an opinion != Being accused of possessing articles which may be used in connection with the instigation, preparation or commission of an act of terrorism. There's a difference between having an opinion and planning to do something about it.

MrBaggins · March 7, 2003, 11:39

Spain... is another Parliamentary Monarchy in Europe... for example. A 'Democracy' isn't actually a government form. A constitutional republic would be the closest thing to a 'democracy' as you see and there are relatively few of those in the world.