Translate

Showing posts with label Anjem Choudary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Anjem Choudary. Show all posts

Thursday, 14 January 2016

Inviting support for terrorism

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/633598/Anjem-Choudary-trial-postponed-ISIS

The charges relate to a string of social media posts said to have been made between June 29 2014 and March 6 last year when it is alleged both Choudary and Rahman sought to validate the legitimacy of the 'Caliphate'.

They also urged others to support or obey Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the self-styled leader of ISIL, and travel to territory controlled by the barbaric regime, it is said.

This does read like an exhortation to all Muslims to join Islamic State. Perhaps he will say all he meant to do was express his opinion about Islamic State, and it was up to his listeners to accept or reject his opinion.

The Caliphate would have no legitimacy unless and  until it became a member of the UN, whatever his opinion on it.

There are plenty who hate Choudary and to those he will have no moral authority over them at all. Those who approve of him and admire him - a minority within a minority - would have pinned their colours to his mast and have already have had their passports confiscated by the police, probably.


This is just an item of information and is neither here nor there.


It is not illegal to travel to Syria, is it?

Or is it only illegal to travel to Syria if you are Muslim?

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/472956/Proscription-update-20151030.pdf

PROSCRIPTION OFFENCES

Proscription makes it a criminal offence to:


  • belong, or profess to belong, to a proscribed organisation in the UK or overseas (section 11 of the Act);
  • invite support for a proscribed organisation (and the support is not, or is not restricted to the provision of money or other property) (section 12(1));
  • arrange, manage or assist in arranging or managing a meeting in the knowledge that the meeting is to support or further the activities of a proscribed organisation, or is to be addressed by a person who belongs or professes to belong to a proscribed organisation
  • (section 12(2)); or to address a meeting if the purpose of the address is to encourage support for, or further the activities of, a proscribed organisation (section 12(3)); and
  • wear clothing or carry or display articles in public in such a way or in such circumstances as arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member or supporter of the proscribed organisation (section 13).


What triggers a terrorism arrest?

Article 10 Human Rights Act 1998 - Freedom of Expression

s 12 Terrorism Act 2000 - inviting support
at No comments:
Labels: ,

Friday, 18 December 2015

Louis Theroux and Anjem Choudary discuss Islam, extremism and ISIS

at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Sunday, 27 September 2015

British values/morality v Islamic values/morality

According to Ofsted, 'fundamental British values' are:


  • democracy
  • the rule of law
  • individual liberty
  • mutual respect for and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs and for those without faith.


What are Islamic values? Are they necessarily antithetical to British values?

Islamic morality can be defined because its rules of morality can be easily ascertainable by reference to the Koran eg the prohibition of usury, pork, gambling, alcohol, extramarital sex.

British values cannot be similarly established because there is no authoritative book with the title "British Morality For All Time" said to be written by the Greatest Liberal of All Time. Liberals will doubtless be dismayed to know that the Koran is obviously conceptually superior any other idea including liberalism because it is said to be the directly transcribed Word of God.

Islamic morality is intended to be universal and eternal, unlike British morality, which is indistinguishable from British values and British culture. British values were defined under a Conservative government whose leader and Prime Minister legalised gay marriage. British values were only defined British values in response to those who sought to challenge it by asking the government what they were.  The most fundamental British value is of course the right to have extramarital sex, which is now regarded as an inalienable human right. The evil consequences of these values have been described at http://uk.reuters.com/article/2007/11/12/uk-britain-motto-idUKL1256515520071112

In my view, the exercise of defining British values is futile and illogical.  It is illogical to define British values simply because they are bound to change if it is indeed the case that British values means British morality and it is the law's role to limit our immorality. The law changes from time to time and government to government. After a revolution, the morality that emerges is bound to be radically different to the morality that was in existence before the revolution. To advocate the return to pre-revolutionary laws would mean one is a reactionary, or a counter-revolutionary and therefore a security threat to the current regime, with grave consequences for our reputation, career and perhaps liberty and life itself. Even without a revolution, morality changes but more gradually, for example when a Labour government repeals a law passed by a Conservative government or vice versa, or when a Conservative Prime Minister legalises gay marriage.

On the grounds of individual liberty we should of course be allowed to say that the current system of morality is not one we ought to have, give reasons and propose changes which can only be done by changing the law (eg repealing or passing an Act of Parliament) or by changing the government (eg Labour, Conservative, UKIP etc) or indeed changing  the entire system of government (eg from a representative democracy to a Caliphate, dictatorship, one-party state, theocracy etc).

If we cannot do this without being arrested for inviting support for a proscribed organisation under s 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000, as Anjem Choudary was, are even those who articulated and commissioned the declaration of British values breaking their own rules?

If the government is breaking its own rules - the one concerning upholding the rule of law as well as the one about individual liberty (which must surely include freedom of  expression and freedom of belief) - then British values as pronounced by the British government is a sham.  They were only declared so that those who question and challenge it can be demonised as extremists and then categorised as potential terrorists, as a way of intimidating those who are thinking of speaking out as well as punishing those who already have. 
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Saturday, 29 August 2015

Anjem Choudary and the First Amendment

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34086181

We will know after his trial whether merely expressing approval for terrorists is the same as "inviting support for terrorism" under section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000

However much you loathe him, Choudary has clearly bounced the government into showing its true colours. This is what all the radical but peaceful Muslims do, and in this way perform a public service for us by being the litmus test as regards how much liberals still believe in liberalism.

If expressing approval of terrorists is treated as "inviting support for terrorism", then we no longer have free speech.

If Anjem Choudary were an American Citizen found guilty under this law, that would mean that the US government has unilaterally done away with the First Amendment.

If liberals no longer believe in free speech and the rule of law, then what do they still believe in?

We already know they no longer believe in freedom of contract and freedom of association.

It would appear that approving of gay marriage is a badge of liberalism, but when was changing the definition of marriage ever a pillar of liberalism?

PC Liberalism is really about the sanctification of the right to have extramarital sex as an inalienable human right.

How helpful is this idea to society and the strength and duration of Western civilisation?

Social conservatives of all religions and none would say "Not at all helpful."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_Noah

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/anjem-choudarys-trial-for-tweeting-and.html

https://www.youtube.com/user/anjemchoudary

https://twitter.com/search?q=from%3Aanjemchoudary%20since%3A2014-06-29%20until%3A2015-03-06&src=typd

You would have thought that the CPS would have prepared his case ready for trial by now considering he was arrested on 25 September 2014, but they are making him wait another 5 months before he can have his trial, presumably to send a message to other Muslim radicals as to what could happen to them if they are considered by the government to be expressing approval for ISIS.

If liberalism is no longer about free speech and freedom of worship, what is it about?

Is liberalism now synonymous with unquestioning support of neocon foreign policy and gay marriage?

Is this the reason why citizens of NATO member states are now targets of Muslim terrorism?

Are you sure you are comfortable with this idea?


at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Saturday, 22 August 2015

Should it be a crime to express approval of a terrorist organisation targeting your government and fellow citizens?




I would suggest not. Those who do stick their neck out to say such things will have sacrificed their reputations and livelihoods in order to do this. If they are prepared to make these sacrifices to make their point, shouldn't we take the trouble to listen to their arguments?
at No comments:
Labels: ,

Anjem Choudary's message to those who would give up the First Amendment/Article 9 to suppress Islam


Choudary is daring Islamophobes to give up the First Amendment and Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights in order to suppress Islam. Doing this would be analogous to putting your king in check in a game of chess, but the degenerate West is no longer capable of understanding rules, the purpose of rules, fair play nor does it value the hard-won liberties their ancestors fought for.

What kind of society will the West be after it gives up this most fundamental of liberal principles? It will no longer be liberal, of course.

What is liberalism anyway?

It would appear to be a gateway ideology to the dysgenic abomination of gay marriage.

Heads liberals lose, tails the Islamists win?


Choudary knows that hypocritical Islamophobes do not value these liberal principles because they are now too degenerate to grasp the concept of a principle, let alone know what they are for. What would be the West be like after it has given up all its liberal principles in order to suppress the Islamists? What would be the point of giving up these liberal principles just to prop up a demented matriarchy? They might as well give up these principles to re-establish a rational patriarchy.

He is saying - and of course I paraphrase:

"You don't believe in any of this crap either, do you? You will keep changing your laws in your attempts to criminalise what I say in order to suppress my message. You keep changing your laws to hide how useless and wrong they are, even though you continue to laud the rule of law as a fundamental British value, but you don't believe in that either, not really. If you imprison me, I shall be a martyr to free speech, but if your courts find me not guilty of inviting support for terrorism then my reputation is enhanced. I have in any case only expressed approval of Islamic State but this is what you want to in fact criminalise me for, without quite daring to say so. You cannot win this argument, so bring it on."

(Sharia law is of course a species of the rule of law, in case you didn't know.)

God is with those who are patient and persevere, and He does not change the lot of those who do not change what is in their hearts.

http://islamawakened.com/quran/2/153/
http://quran.com/13/11

http://foreignpolicy.com/2009/10/20/the-return-of-patriarchy/

What is in the hearts of so many Westerners that God if He exists would wish changed? I imagine it would be the irrational belief that liberalism and feminism is absolutely right and Islam absolutely wrong without an honest thoroughgoing debate and investigation into the policies that led us to this pretty pass.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/the-future-of-free-speech-in-britain.html

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/should-it-be-crime-to-express-approval.html
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Saturday, 8 August 2015

[EXCLUSIVE] Anjem Choudary & Abu Baraa last talk before Arrest





at No comments:
Labels: ,

The future of free speech in Britain: will those who think UK foreign policy is evil be labelled terrorist sympathisers?




at No comments:
Labels: , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Maronite Christian ⁨@GBkishere⁩ tells us the story of his life

1:00  Sharia is the bitter medicine Westerners must take.  2:00  Maronite Christianity explained.  3:00  Adam and Eve 4:00 Phoenicians and z...