Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options

Cartoon protesters sentenced to 6 years in jail

24

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    One of the very fundamental pillars of the justice system is that individuals are tried and judged without prejudice and based on their own individual cases. We should not care what religion he belongs to. We should not care what others affiliated to the same religion have done in the past. That is the entire point of the concept of a fair trial.

    Having a fair trial is different from sentencing.

    They had the fair trial and when sentencing the judge can take account of outside issues - including the deterrence factor on others and sending a message than certain actions are not tolerated....
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    No, I don't think religion has a bearing unless you are suggesting- which apparently you are- that Muslims are prone to acts of violence.

    Funnily enough you could say that football fans are also prone to acts of violence. And yet or hypothetical England fan shouting 'bomb Portugal' would have never been given a custodial sentence- or even see trial.

    The Law is suppossed to be blind and not to make generalisations.

    You'll often find that football fans get dissproportionately high sentences as well, compared to other gang violence.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Having a fair trial is different from sentencing.

    They had the fair trial and when sentencing the judge can take account of outside issues - including the deterrence factor on others and sending a message than certain actions are not tolerated....
    Isn't that dangerously close to 'making an example' of him? I thought we were not suppossed to do that.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    No, I don't think religion has a bearing unless you are suggesting- which apparently you are- that Muslims are prone to acts of violence.

    Of course I'm not, don't be silly. You're not getting the point here, there is a potential within Islam and particularly Islamism where violence can be advocated against others, that's how religion is a factor.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Isn't that dangerously close to 'making an example' of him? I thought we were not suppossed to do that.

    Why do you think that? Part of the purpose of sentencing is deterrence and showing society's dissaproval of certain actions.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why do you think that? Part of the purpose of sentencing is deterrence and showing society's dissaproval of certain actions.

    which is done by consistant sentencing....


    it's like the manditory sentencing for say knife crime, what about if you kill someone with a fork, you get 5 years less :rolleyes:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm no lawyer but have always understood judges are not supposed to give individuals excessive sentences simply to teach others. The punishment should be proportionate to the crime committed. It should not be a crowd-pleasing exercise designed to placate the tabloid press.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Six years does seem excessive. Is this the first sentancing of people for this sort of offence?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Renzo wrote: »
    Is this the first sentancing of people for this sort of offence?

    Soliciting and conspiracy to murder? Nope, first case probably of this particular nature.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    which is done by consistant sentencing....


    it's like the manditory sentencing for say knife crime, what about if you kill someone with a fork, you get 5 years less :rolleyes:

    I'm not quite sure of you're point which seems to contradict itself. If all else is equal you kill someone with a knife or fork you'll get exactly the same sentence - life.

    If however you killed someone with a knife after years of abuse you'll likely to get a quicker chance of being let out than if you were a paid to murder someone and decided to use a fork as the most efficient killing implement.

    The reason why knife crimes are generally punished more severely is that it suggests you were going equipped for violence (same as gun crimes) - only a fool would go out equipped to use violence with a fork. The idea of harsher sentences for people going equipped is partially to deter people from going equipped....

    Sentencing only needs to be consistent with other crimes where the circumstances are the same. Unless you are suggesting that someone who stole several million pounds should be treated the same as a shoplifter who stole several pounds....
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    I'm no lawyer but have always understood judges are not supposed to give individuals excessive sentences simply to teach others. The punishment should be proportionate to the crime committed. It should not be a crowd-pleasing exercise designed to placate the tabloid press.

    You mean like threat to murder?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It depends on the context of the threat and its seriousness.

    Do you think I should be sent to jail because I've said a few times on this forum so-and-so should be put against a wall and shot?

    Would there be anyone left on this forum if we were to apply the law as strictly as it was applied in this case?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    It depends on the context of the threat and its seriousness.

    Do you think I should be sent to jail because I've said a few times on this forum so-and-so should be put against a wall and shot?

    Would there be anyone left on this forum if we were to apply the law as strictly as it was applied in this case?

    Do they count the internet is the incitement cases? The whole thing does loom over the freedom of speech debate, I can give it that.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Do you really believe that an England football fan shouting 'bomb Portugal' in anger minutes after England had been kicked out of the World Cup due to Ronaldo's antics would have even been arrested, let alone convicted and sent to the slammer?

    Bollocks.

    .


    There's a difference between one person shouting a racist load of abuse about a football match at the end of a game than an organised march intended to strike fear and intimidation into people everywhere. And after seeing the treatment some people get for stupid idiotic slips of the tongue, i've no doubt a disgruntled football fan would be arrested and charged for inciting racial hatred.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Lets take two options

    1) I've parked outside my disabled grannies house to help take her to the shops. In the few minutes I'm in helping her with her coat et al a traffic warden tickects my car. I storm out and yell "If you don't get off this street I'm going to kill you."

    2) I'm a member of the UVF, I notice a teenage Catholic girl visiting her Protestant boyfriend. As she rings his doorbell I sidle up to her and say "If you don't get off this street I'm going to kill you."

    Both cases the same thing was said - but are they the same? Or is context king?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    It depends on the context of the threat and its seriousness.

    Do you think I should be sent to jail because I've said a few times on this forum so-and-so should be put against a wall and shot?

    Would there be anyone left on this forum if we were to apply the law as strictly as it was applied in this case?

    You answer your own question. Context.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    Anywhere else will do, frankly. As for the sentences, I think it's pointless sending them at all. Six years in the nick is unlikely to change their thoughts. Being kicked out of the country, whether it be the country they were born in or not, might do.

    Yeah, we should deport all people who are on the dole and refuse to work, all British people who dislike the government too.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You answer your own question. Context.
    And some muppet shouting 'bomb USA' in a pitiful little demonstration poses as much of a threat as any of us mouthing it off in a message forum.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    and the thing about the countryside alliance, remember that one of them broke into the commons whilst in session, they got less of a sentence....

    :yes:

    But they're not brown.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Lets take two options

    1) I've parked outside my disabled grannies house to help take her to the shops. In the few minutes I'm in helping her with her coat et al a traffic warden tickects my car. I storm out and yell "If you don't get off this street I'm going to kill you."

    2) I'm a member of the UVF, I notice a teenage Catholic girl visiting her Protestant boyfriend. As she rings his doorbell I sidle up to her and say "If you don't get off this street I'm going to kill you."

    Both cases the same thing was said - but are they the same? Or is context king?
    Of course context is important.

    Now, what are we trying to say about Muslims? That being one amounts to being a member of a terrorist organisation? Will a demonstration by Muslims always be about violence and threats then?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    There's a difference between one person shouting a racist load of abuse about a football match at the end of a game than an organised march intended to strike fear and intimidation into people everywhere. And after seeing the treatment some people get for stupid idiotic slips of the tongue, i've no doubt a disgruntled football fan would be arrested and charged for inciting racial hatred.
    AFAIK the people assembled outside the embassy protested about the publication of those cartoons. Only a small minority waved placards or chanted slogans promoting violence. This was no Al Qaida AGM. This was a demonstration in which a few individuals expressed disgusting views.

    Even though there were very small in this country, there were actually one or two demos supporting the US' bombing of Iraq in the build-up to the war. Do you really seriously think that the warmongering neo-cons chanting for American bombs to start raining in Baghdad would have been arrested, let alone jailed? Why is supporting the bombing of Iraq or Lebanon okay but the bombing of USA a crime punishable by 6 years in jail?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    And some muppet shouting 'bomb USA' in a pitiful little demonstration poses as much of a threat as any of us mouthing it off in a message forum.

    If that was all... But that's not the context is it? It was part of a demo in which specific threats were made (and one of the demonstrators dressed up as suicide bomber) during a period in which Danish embassies were being attacked and in the aftermath of terrorist bombings in the UK.

    The people charged were attempting to sew fear and produce an appeasing mentality in the UK, not to put across a legimate viewpoint.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    American bombs to start raining in Baghdad would have been arrested, let alone jailed? Why is supporting the bombing of Iraq or Lebanon okay but the bombing of USA a crime punishable by 6 years in jail?

    It should be equal law and justice for all. Whilst I may have supported the war at first for varying reasons, I didn't relish it and certainly would never have considered taking to the streets and dancing in glee. Those people did and should have been punished.

    But quietly supporting your country in a dangerous time, and openly calling for the murder of people who live in that country are 2 entirely different things.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Of course context is important.

    Now, what are we trying to say about Muslims? That being one amounts to being a member of a terrorist organisation? Will a demonstration by Muslims always be about violence and threats then?

    Er no, but then the majority of the protesters weren't arrested or charged were they? Just those breaking specific laws...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    AFAIK the people assembled outside the embassy protested about the publication of those cartoons. Only a small minority waved placards or chanted slogans promoting violence. This was no Al Qaida AGM. This was a demonstration in which a few individuals expressed disgusting views.

    And the majoirty of protesters weren't charged were they?
    Even though there were very small in this country, there were actually one or two demos supporting the US' bombing of Iraq in the build-up to the war. Do you really seriously think that the warmongering neo-cons chanting for American bombs to start raining in Baghdad would have been arrested, let alone jailed? Why is supporting the bombing of Iraq or Lebanon okay but the bombing of USA a crime punishable by 6 years in jail

    Was that a threat to British people? It wasn't the bombing of the UK which was the crime, but ones specifically related to the UK...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And the majoirty of protesters weren't charged were they?
    Exactly. So the demonstration wasn't a hotbed of terrorists and known murderers. So there shouldn't be a difference between an idiot making threats at a football game and another idiot making threats at a Muslim demo.

    Was that a threat to British people? It wasn't the bombing of the UK which was the crime, but ones specifically related to the UK...
    How is the bombing of foreign nations a threat against UK citizens? Either we treat all such demands as criminal or we don't. The legal system cannot and must not cherry pick prosecution cases depending on what foreign nation was named in the chant.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Were they?.

    Er no.

    From the BBC article
    About 300 protestors marched outside the Danish embassy in February last year after cartoons satirising Muhammad were published in newspapers in Denmark and other European countries.

    Four people have been convicted....

    How is the bombing of foreign nations a threat against UK citizens? Either we treat all such demands as criminal or we don't. The legal system cannot and must not cherry pick prosecution cases depending on what foreign nation was named in the chant

    Mizanur Rahman, 24, Umran Javed, 27, and Abdul Muhid, 24, were each jailed for six years for soliciting to murder after telling a crowd to bomb the UK.

    A fourth man, Abdul Saleem, 32, was jailed for four years for stirring up racial hatred at the protest in 2006.

    3 for soliciting to murder threatening to bomb the UK (not the US) and 1 for racial hatred....

    Now as I said I think 6 years is excessive, but they certainly should have been jailed.

    On your comments about shooting people, I've always taken them as tongue in cheek rather than literal threats.

    if you're saying there the same as the threats by these people I'll be making sure Jim V and the police are notified...:thumb:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sorry Flashman, at first I misunderstood what you were saying and when I got it I edited my post and removed the 'where they' question you have replied to just now.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    lipsy wrote: »
    Well i never said it could happen. Just that I don't want to live alongside them, like most people probably don't.

    TBH I don't really want to live alongside racists, homophobes, blokes called "kevin" or "trevor", people who don't cut their grass ever, people who use their garden as a dump, people who think that deportation is a way to control opinions...

    Living in a free country sucks really.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    TBH I don't really want to live alongside racists, homophobes, blokes called "kevin" or "trevor", people who don't cut their grass ever, people who use their garden as a dump, people who think that deportation is a way to control opinions...

    Living in a free country sucks really.

    someone not cutting their grass to the way you like it is slightly different to someone wanting the UK to be bombed and for innocent people to die.
Sign In or Register to comment.