The criminalization of opinion in Britain. - Page 4

TheStinger · March 7, 2003, 11:40

Quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22
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 have gotten him arrested and that is perfectly OK and democratic according to the British established order?

Thats what you think is the evidence is against him it doesn't mean tahst all they have got, wait and see

Demerzel · March 7, 2003, 11:41

Quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22
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?

Your facts, your bias. Stop trying to present it as the truth.

CerberusIV · March 7, 2003, 11:42

Quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22
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?

Yes it is. Let's see what happens next IN COURT!

Bereta_Eder · March 7, 2003, 11:43

Quote:

Originally posted by TheStinger

Thats what you think is the evidence is against him it doesn't mean tahst all they have got, wait and see

That's what British and Greek sources say are the "evidence" against him.

And we haven't even begun talking about the "trial".

How was his arrest democratic in the first place according to you, who you seem perfectly at ease in that political culture of yours? (which differs greatly from most european contries' right to a free expression and, gasp, owning books)

Velociryx · March 7, 2003, 11:43

So tell us, oh wise and enlightened bastion of all that is good in democracy....how should it have gone down?

In the perfect democracy that is Greece, this would never have happened, yes? That's what you're saying, right? (just like it'd never be illegal to play computer games in Greece)

-=Vel=-

Arrian · March 7, 2003, 11:44

Quote:

Originally posted by TheStinger
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

Nah, I'd never accuse him of such a thing.

7/10 Pattycakes.

-Arrian

Jack the Bodiless · March 7, 2003, 11:45

Quote:

Let's recapitulate.

Yes, let's!

Quote:

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

No.

Quote:

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

Yes.

Quote:

These 2 things have gotten him arrested and that is perfectly OK and democratic according to the British established order?

Taken together, they MAY have been sufficient, but this is unlikely. There are probably other facts that we don't know yet.

This is perfectly OK in any democracy (including Greece, probably).

Bereta_Eder · March 7, 2003, 11:45

Quote:

Originally posted by CerberusIV

Yes it is. Let's see what happens next IN COURT!

Then in Britain the right to a free expression doesn't exist, since you accept that. And that would be mightily discomforting where I come from. And we're still talking about his illegal (in any democratic society which respects indivindual freedoms) arrest.

MrBaggins · March 7, 2003, 11:47

Quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22

That's what British and Greek sources say are the "evidence" against him.

And we haven't even begun talking about the "trial".

How was his arrest democratic in the first place according to you, who you seem perfectly at ease in that political culture of yours? (which differs greatly from most european contries' right to a free expression and, gasp, owning books)

The police would not release information that could compromise other ongoing investigations, such as his links to other specific terrorists.

ALL governments (even Greece) reserve the rights to not disclose information which is against public interest.

The information that has been released to the public is actually unlikely to be the whole story.

MrBaggins

Bereta_Eder · March 7, 2003, 11:50

Quote:

Originally posted by MrBaggins

The police would not release information that could compromise other ongoing investigations, such as his links to other specific terrorists.

ALL governments (even Greece) reserve the rights to not disclose information which is against public interest.

The information that has been released to the public is actually unlikely to be the whole story.

MrBaggins

The british "police" released the reasons for his arrest and according to sources these are: books.

And a dissenting opinion.

All that in Britain's constitutional monarchy.

CerberusIV · March 7, 2003, 11:50

Quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22

Then in Britain the right to a free expression doesn't exist, since you accept that and that would be mightily discomforting where I come from.

For my views on the right to free expression I would refer you back to the link in my early post about the cleric who has just been jailed for nine years for inciting race hate and murder. Incitment to commit a criminal act is an offence in most countries. It may or may not apply in this case.

You still haven't answered my question as to whether the guy who has been arrested is someone you know?

MrBaggins · March 7, 2003, 11:51

Quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22

Then in Britain the right to a free expression doesn't exist, since you accept that. And that would be mightily discomforting where I come from. And we're still talking about his illegal (in any democratic society which respects indivindual freedoms) arrest.

So in Greece, you could be in possession of child porn, and claim it was your right to possess it, due to free expression?

Bereta_Eder · March 7, 2003, 11:54

I don't have to answer any questions since I'm not in Britain's police state.

You OTOH better be careful of what you say or even, gasp, think!

MrBaggins,
So you equate child porn with possessing and expressing an opinion and being arrested for it in Britain?

Is this your argument?

Jack the Bodiless · March 7, 2003, 11:54

Quote:

Then in Britain the right to a free expression doesn't exist, since you accept that and that would be mightily discomforting where I come from.

From TheStinger's post at the top of page 5:

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.

However, you appear to be drifting off into fairyland.

If it makes you happy: yes, the British are evil. I've been there, and I was lucky to escape with my life. They execute thousands of political dissidents every day, abduct random citizens for chemical-warfare experiments, and export soap made from babies.

You are right to expose this horror.

MrBaggins · March 7, 2003, 11:56

Nope... i'm equating material which supports or promotes terroristic acts... like the guy is alledged to have... with childporn.

They are both illegal activities.

Arrian · March 7, 2003, 11:56

Quote:

I don't have to answer any questions

Of course not, only the evil British do!

to Jack.

-Arrian

lightblue · March 7, 2003, 11:57

Quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22
I don't have to answer any questions since I'm not in Britain's police state.

You OTOH better be careful of what you say or even, gasp, think!

MrBaggins,
So you equate child porn with possessing and expressing an opinion and being arrested for it in Britain?

Is this your argument?

Possessing child porn is illegal.

Possessing articles which may be used in connection with the instigation, preparation or commission of an act of terrorism is illegal.

Hence the comparison I assume.

Demerzel · March 7, 2003, 11:57

is "anyone" else "sick" of paiktis' "tendancy" to "surround" every "word" he "wants" to "ridicule" with ""s?

oh and I'm interested in your lack of response paitkis to the fact that hundreds of people have been arrested in Europe for terrorist activities recently yet you convienently only feel the need to post about this one?

bias++

Bereta_Eder · March 7, 2003, 11:57

Quote:

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Nope... i'm equating material which supports or promotes terroristic acts... like the guy is alledged to have... with childporn.

They are both illegal activities.

So having books who don't agree with the crown is an illegal activitey in Britain.

Or maybe it is having an opinion.

CerberusIV · March 7, 2003, 11:57

Quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22
I don't have to answer any questions since I'm not in Britain's police state.

You OTOH better be careful of what you say or even, gasp, think!

Would you be jumping up and down like this if a total stranger had been arrested in these circumstances?

Care to declare a personal interest in the case Paiktis?

lightblue · March 7, 2003, 11:59

The only reason he posts about it is because the person in question is Greek, and Greek people could of course never be guilty of anything, and Greek people being arrested abroad must be the poor victims of oppressive and unfair governments...

Bereta_Eder · March 7, 2003, 11:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Demerzel
is "anyone" else "sick" of paiktis' "tendancy" to "surround" every "word" he "wants" to "ridicule" with ""s?

oh and I'm interested in your lack of response paitkis to the fact that hundreds of people have been arrested in Europe for terrorist activities recently yet you convienently only feel the need to post about this one?

bias++

Well yes since it has been brought to my attention and is thoroughly illegal with any given healthy aspect of what a democracy should be.

I don't know about the other cases. If there were Greeks involved I would know from my media. And if they would have been illegal and a suffocation of basic democratic liberties of course I'd comment on them too.

MrBaggins · March 7, 2003, 12:00

Quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22

So having books who don't agree with the crown is an illegal activitey in Britain.

Or maybe it is having an opinion.

No... the key phrase is illegal activity... this has nothing to do with 'agreement' or an 'opinion'.

Demerzel · March 7, 2003, 12:07

I have an opinion, most of my friends do, the books I read generally tend to have opinions in them - yet strangely enough none of us have been arrested, jailed or executed. why?

Scenario 1.

We are all informers for the fascist powers that be at British Govt. HQ

Scenario 2.

People are free to express their opinions here and as we have broken no laws and possess no media that promotesd or facilitates criminal activity - the Police have no need/desire to talk to us.

Hmm wonder if no.2 is more likely ?

Opinion allowed? YES

Criminal activity allowed? NO

MrBaggins · March 7, 2003, 12:09

Occam's Razor proves that No.2 is true, of course.

Ming · March 7, 2003, 12:13

Quote:

Originally posted by lightblue
The only reason he posts about it is because the person in question is Greek, and Greek people could of course never be guilty of anything, and Greek people being arrested abroad must be the poor victims of oppressive and unfair governments...

HEY... Discuss the issues... NOT THE POSTERS!

If people want to attack the poster, and not the argument, they will find themselves not being able to post for a while.

Demerzel · March 7, 2003, 12:14

Quote:

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Occam's Razor proves that No.2 is true, of course.

Ooh sounds like an opinion! ARREST THIS MAN!

MrBaggins · March 7, 2003, 12:17

Not as simple as opinion...

Quote:

Ockham's Razor ("Occam" is a Latinised variant) is the principle proposed by William of Ockham in the fifteenth century that "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate", which translates as "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily". Various other rephrasings have been incorrectly attributed to him. In more modern terms, if you have two theories which both explain the observed facts then you should use the simplest until more evidence comes along. See W.M. Thorburn, "The Myth of Occam's Razor," Mind 27:345-353 (1918) for a detailed study of what Ockham actually wrote and what others wrote after him.

The reason behind the razor is that for any given set of facts there are an infinite number of theories that could explain them. For instance, if you have a graph with four points in a line then the simplest theory that explains them is a linear relationship, but you can draw an infinite number of different curves that all pass through the four points. There is no evidence that the straight line is the right one, but it is the simplest possible solution. So you might as well use it until someone comes along with a point off the straight line.

Also, if you have a few thousand points on the line and someone suggests that there is a point that is off the line, it's a pretty fair bet that they are wrong.

Demerzel · March 7, 2003, 12:25

Baggins! Shire!

erm, I was parodying it old boy ( I am an educated man after all ). I was well aware that all things being equal the simplest explanation is often the right one, but that'd have not been much fun to ridicule.

MrBaggins · March 7, 2003, 12:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Demerzel
Baggins! Shire!

erm, I was parodying it old boy ( I am an educated man after all ). I was well aware that all things being equal the simplest explanation is often the right one, but that'd have not been much fun to ridicule.

Its OK, Precious