|
Danish Party Wants Radical Imam Abu Laban Tried for Treason!
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Fir3start3r |
I thought this deserved it's own thread since it's pretty major...
Read about it >>HERE<<
A clip
| quote: |
The anti-immigrant Danish People's party, the government's parliamentary ally, wants him tried for high treason. Several political parties want the legality of his residence permit investigated. And an opinion poll published yesterday showed that 58 per cent of Danes regard Mr Abu-Laban and his cohorts as the main reason the cartoon conflict has spiralled out of control.
|
No idea what kind of pull the Danish People's party has though...
Paging Trancaholic... |
|
|
| washout |
| Mr Abu-Laban, he the dude that spread the cartoon for the last few months ?? |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: |
The imam's fall from grace was comprehensive and quick, and its cause is clear: Mr Abu-Laban mastermind-ed the plan to bring the cartoons to global attention. Had he not done so, Danes argue, the world would not have noticed a few drawings in an obscure Danish newspaper.
|
What? He masterminded the plot to practice free speech?? Dastardly! Was the newspaper not trying to illicit some kind of response by publishing such cartoons? And now because some Danes don't like the response it's received they're trying to criminalize those excercising the verys ame rights the paper has enjoyed? Has he done anything criminal? Or is this seemingly hypocritical behaviour tangible? |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
What? He masterminded the plot to practice free speech?? Dastardly! Was the newspaper not trying to illicit some kind of response by publishing such cartoons? And now because some Danes don't like the response it's received they're trying to criminalize those excercising the verys ame rights the paper has enjoyed? Has he done anything criminal? Or is this seemingly hypocritical behaviour tangible? |
Can you compare burnings, mobs and wonton distruction with taking someone to court?
At least the Danes are sane... |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Can you compare burnings, mobs and wonton distruction with taking someone to court?
At least the Danes are sane... |
Ok what did he do exactly? So he showed the cartoons across the Muslim world? And now he's culpable for the response it illicited? If the Danes didn't want people to see the cartoons ... perhaps they shouldn't have published them. The Danes didn't deserve the reaction they got, but don't try to pin their woes on others who are excercising the very same rights that they claim to be championing. I can go into work tomorrow and tell my coworker the copier girl has a nice ass. Though innaproppriate if I don't know the guy, I have free speech to do so, but then I shouldn't act surprised when my coworker tells her boyfriend who comes to kick my ass and then try to sue my coworker for criminal battery by telling the bf. FFS treason??? Give me a break. |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
What? He masterminded the plot to practice free speech?? Dastardly! Was the newspaper not trying to illicit some kind of response by publishing such cartoons? And now because some Danes don't like the response it's received they're trying to criminalize those excercising the verys ame rights the paper has enjoyed? Has he done anything criminal? Or is this seemingly hypocritical behaviour tangible? |
Well, he fabricated three far more offensive cartoons (one with Muhammad as a phedophile, one with him being ass-raped by a dog while praying, and the infamous one where he is a pig), and added them to the original cartoons before travelling the Middle East. During this travelling, he also lied to his fellow Muslims: Told them that Jyllands-posten is owned by the Danish government, that the Danish government is censoring the Quran, that people in Denmark burn the Quran, and that the Danish state is producing an anti-Islamic movie.
Now, you're right that we cannot have laws against lying, but in Denmark we do have a law which allows for individual "harming the interests of the state" to be sentenced to prison for up to six years. I don't think it has ever been used before (traitors in WW2 were executed).
Another development is that the Danish chapter of Hizbu-tahrir (sp?) has called for Jihad against the west, using true Iran-style rhetorics. They are not popular anymore either.
What is interesting about these case, is that politicians from left to right want the Travelling Imams out and Hizbu-tahrir outlawed. They've overstayed their welcome so to speak. The difference between the political parties, is that they are all insecure about what the Danish laws (including those on citizenship) actually means here, as we have never had a situation like this one before. The Danish People's Party (they have 20% of the voters, Fir3start3r), and our previously most immigrant friendly one, both want to go to the courts on these issues, and have the Imams exiled, and Hizbu-tahrir outlawed.
In other internal news, the moderate Muslims (as in, those that do not support the Travelling Imams and Hizbu-tahrir) have split into fractions, all of them craving their due share of attention from our PM and their due share of influence on future immigration strategies. Furthermore, they all want the corresponding rights of the other fractions removed. So, basically we have a lot of moderate Muslims, but apparently they're so so much in disagreement on what fundamental moderation is needed in moderate Muslims, that they hate each other.
I really didn't think that these internal Danish developments had any interest for you guys - hence why I don't post daily updates in the Jihad-thread. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
Well, he fabricated three far more offensive cartoons (one with Muhammad as a phedophile, one with him being ass-raped by a dog while praying, and the infamous one where he is a pig), and added them to the original cartoons before travelling the Middle East. During this travelling, he also lied to his fellow Muslims: Told them that Jyllands-posten is owned by the Danish government, that the Danish government is censoring the Quran, that people in Denmark burn the Quran, and that the Danish state is producing an anti-Islamic movie.
|
Well it's not necessarily well established that he himself fabricated the cartoons is it? Supposedly he was trying to emphasize the "intolerance" of Europe towards Muslims as retarded as that train of logic may be. With respect to the lying of the other issues, you've seen all the conspiracy theories that have flowed through this website. Supposedly the US government is guilty of devouring infants and playing a role in every human rights tragedy that occurs on the planet. Is that speech criminal despite the fact that it's disingenious and retarded?
| quote: |
Now, you're right that we cannot have laws against lying, but in Denmark we do have a law which allows for individual "harming the interests of the state" to be sentenced to prison for up to six years. I don't think it has ever been used before (traitors in WW2 were executed).
|
Wow ... that is a terrible law imo of which I can find no redeeming quality when it's worded as vaguely as that or applied as vaguely as it has been to this cleric. But to be honest I'm not really surprised. I find Europe in general to be a very interesting case study when it comes to issues of the law, inherent liberties, and the role between government and individuals. I regard the US as having well established the specific role of each branch of government and the relationship between the federal and state branches. The few middle grounds that there are are usually resolved by the judiciary. As a result, unfortunately there seems to be constant conflict between all three branches of government in an extremely dynamic give and take relationship. Thus there are many constitutional conflicts and many poltical issues that arise on a constant basis.
When it comes to Europe, however, I find that government powers and prohibitions are very loosely defined, little regulated, and rarely debated en-masse by the public. Take for example the warrantless wiretapping case in the US. While I regard it as a abominable, it is not without a tinge of irony that Republican "conservatives" are more European than traditionally American by siding with the Bush administration:
| quote: |
Wiretapping, European-Style.
Think Bush's warrantless NSA surveillance is bad? Wait till you hear what the British government does.
By Eric Weiner
Updated Tuesday, Feb. 14, 2006, at 6:39 AM ET
For Europeans, scolding the Bush administration for everything from Guantanamo to the Iraq War to secret CIA prisons has become a full-time job. But when it comes to the American scandal over President Bush's warrantless wiretaps, there's been a curious reaction from the other side of the Atlantic: silence. Where is the European outrage?
European restraint may arise from a fear of hypocrisy. The fact is that in much of Europe wiretapping is de rigueur—practiced more regularly and with less oversight than in the United States. Most Europeans either don't know about this or, more likely, simply don't care.
The extensive European taps are not new developments, made in the heat of passion after the London and Madrid bombings. European governments have been bugging phones for decades. In theory, the European Convention on Human Rights forbids "arbitrary wiretapping," but, as we've learned in the United States, arbitrary is in the ear of the wiretapper.
The three worst offenders are not countries you would suspect of playing fast and loose with civil liberties: Britain, Italy, and the Netherlands. Italian officials conduct tens of thousands of wiretaps each year. Technically, judicial approval is needed but since judges in Italy are "investigative," meaning they act more like our prosecutors, there is essentially no check on law enforcement's ability to eavesdrop.
In Britain, police have an even easier time tapping phones. The home secretary, a Cabinet minister, approves all wiretaps. Judges have nothing to do with it.
Or, to put it in American terms, imagine Homeland Secretary Michael Chertoff authorizing wiretaps of anyone he deems fit—only without the pesky questions from the media and Congress.
Gus Hosein, an analyst with Privacy International, calculates that, given the number of wiretaps in the U.K., the home secretary approves a new wiretap every few seconds. "Obviously, it's impossible to give it the attention it needs," says Hosein. Britain did recently establish an Interception of Communications Commissioner, but he has limited authority; his main job is tallying the number of annual wiretaps. The only Brits safe from wiretapping are members of Parliament, though after the London bombing, there is now a move afoot to revoke their immunity.
Britain's lax attitude toward telephone privacy dates back to the 1920s, when the British government owned the phone company. There was no need for court approval of wiretaps, since, in a way, the government would be asking itself for that approval.
The Netherlands has the highest rate of wiretapping of any European country—a surprising fact, given the country's reputation for cozy coffee bars, not invasive police tactics. Dutch police can tap any phone they like, so long as the crime under investigation carries at least a three-year jail term.
Washington's biggest European critic—France—also has a serious wiretapping habit, as Marc Perelman points out in Foreign Policy: "In addition to judicially ordered taps there are also 'administrative wiretaps' decided by security agencies under the control of the government." Perelman argues that most French know about these policies but don't seem to care, despite clear cases of abuse in the past. Most prominent is the Elysée Scandal—named after the palace where the late President Francois Mitterrand set up an undercover listening room.* Mitterrand's operatives tapped the calls of his political enemies: lawyers, businessmen, journalists, and even the actress and Chanel model Carole Bouquet. This took place in the mid-1980s but only surfaced recently, and 12 conspirators were brought to trial. What's interesting—and disturbing—about the Elysée Scandal is that at the time, French authorities had justified the surveillance as a necessary tool to fight terrorism.
Earlier this month, in one of the more bizarre cases of Euro-tapping, Greek officials acknowledged that 100 cell-phone lines were tapped during the 2004 Athens Olympic Games. Oddly, all those targeted were involved with national security, including Prime Minster Kostas Karamanlis. Vodafone, the mobile phone company, learned of the wiretapping when customers complained they were not receiving their messages and calls. An investigation revealed that someone had installed spy software. It's not clear who was tapping the phones or why.
European police aren't listening only to conversations; now they have access to other details of phone use. In December, the European parliament approved new rules requiring telecommunications companies to retain customers' telephone and Internet records for up to two years. The directive passed in record time, despite objections from phone companies and Internet providers (all that record-keeping is expensive), as well as privacy advocates. This means that European authorities can tell not only what was said in a phone call, but who was on the other end and where they were located. The United States lobbied hard for this new EU policy, even though telecommunications companies in this country are under no such record-keeping obligation.
When it comes to consumer information, Europeans guard their privacy much more fiercely than Americans do. European companies can't legally share most consumer information, and cases of identity theft are much less common.
So, why are Europeans so nonchalant when it comes to government eavesdropping? One reason is that sometimes it works. When Osman Hussain, a suspect in the botched July 21 London bombing, fled Britain, police traced his journey—across the United Kingdom to France and then Italy, where he was arrested—by tapping his cell phone.
There is a cultural explanation, too. Europeans tend to trust their private information with governments, not corporations. So, while they wouldn't dream of divulging their credit card number to a telemarketer they will gladly hand it over to a government clerk. The state is seen as more benevolent than those greedy, Americanized corporations.
And Europeans have no equivalent to the American Constitution, which enshrines the right of individuals to be free from government coercion. Privacy International's Hosein draws on this constitutional tradition when he explains why Europeans don't bristle at wiretapping that would appall Americans. In Europe, he notes, there are plenty of pressure groups fighting for the rights of consumers, but very few lobbying on behalf of citizens. There is no European equivalent of the ACLU, pushing back against government intrusions. So, next time you're in Europe, feel free to hand out your credit card number willy-nilly. Just be careful what you say on the phone.
http://www.slate.com/id/2136147/
|
Yet there's very little noticeable debate in Europe about some of these same issues. Granted the circumstances may be slightly different but the principles remain largely the same. Are Europeans hypocritical when they critisize the American government for civil liberty infringements when they fail to look within? Granted I think they should be outraged, but I think they should display similar outrage inwards.
| quote: |
I really didn't think that these internal Danish developments had any interest for you guys - hence why I don't post daily updates in the Jihad-thread. |
Well things like these that raise issues of moral conflicts of principle I'm very interested in ;). |
|
|
| trancaholic |
occrider: I'm not totally sure what your angle on this is. From your first post, I thought you questioned the general contempt by Danes towards these Imams (i.e. addressed the moral question), but in your reply to my post, it seemed more like you were interested in the legal aspects. So please forgive me if this post is totally irrelevant:
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Well it's not necessarily well established that he himself fabricated the cartoons is it? Supposedly he was trying to emphasize the "intolerance" of Europe towards Muslims as retarded as that train of logic may be. |
No, it's not established that the Travelling Imams fabricated the drawings themselves - but it is well-established that they knew that they were *not* among the 12 published in Jyllands-posten, yet lied about this fact.
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
With respect to the lying of the other issues, you've seen all the conspiracy theories that have flowed through this website. Supposedly the US government is guilty of devouring infants and playing a role in every human rights tragedy that occurs on the planet. Is that speech criminal despite the fact that it's disingenious and retarded?
|
No it's not criminal. I do not condone the current efforts to have the Imams thrown out on account of treason. In Denmark you should be allowed to say anything IMO. (In fact, I'm an advocate of dropping the ban of hate-speech and incitement to violence.) I was just trying to elaborate on the nature of the legal conflict at play.
My own opinion is that refugees (like the Imams) visiting countries they fled from should be thrown out pronto, as the threat they have been fleeing, clearly either has passed away, or was never a threat in the first place. In the situation of the Imams, the case is even more clear, as they actively sought out the very authorities in the countries they fled. We're not in lack of illeterate fools in Denmark, and should only house them if they are actually in danger.
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Wow ... that is a terrible law imo of which I can find no redeeming quality when it's worded as vaguely as that or applied as vaguely as it has been to this cleric. |
I probably shouldn't have put it in quotes like that, as in its entirety it takes up some five or six lines of text. It's only that I can't find the actual formulation at this time. But it's §100 of our criminal code. But, I agree that it's vague (just like the blasphemy and hate speech laws).
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Yet there's very little noticeable debate in Europe about some of these same issues. Granted the circumstances may be slightly different but the principles remain largely the same. Are Europeans hypocritical when they critisize the American government for civil liberty infringements when they fail to look within? Granted I think they should be outraged, but I think they should display similar outrage inwards. |
I do think that it's a mistake to view Europeans as being critical of the US' government's infringements on civil liberties. Europeans are mostly mad about its stance on climate protection, international treaties/relations, the concept of "illegal combatants", and the war in Iraq. Most Europeans don't care much about the rights of civilians in the US.
Civil liberties in Europe tend not to be a hotly debated topic, because, well, they are rarely interferred with. We don't have them protected by laws and treaties to the same degree as you have in the US, but we assume them, and have them (I think). In fact, only the last couple of years have they been drawn into focus, with the French anti-religion ban, and this cartoon crisis. |
|
|
| Lepanto |
| Free speech or not when you go around instigating conflict, that's treason. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lepanto
Free speech or not when you go around instigating conflict, that's treason. |
A tory, after all these years! Using such logic I could accuse a good 70% of America's great leaders of treason.
Thankfully we have a supreme court that disagrees with you.
| quote: |
The vitality of civil and political institutions in our society depends on free discussion. As Chief Justice Hughes wrote in De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 365 , 260, it is only through free debate and free exchange of ideas that government remains responsive to the will of the people and peaceful change is effected. The right to speak freely and to promote diversity of ideas and programs is therefore one of the chief distinctions that sets us apart from totalitarian regimes.
Accordingly a function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. That is why freedom of speech, though not absolute, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, supra, 315 U.S. at pages 571-572, 62 S.Ct. at page 769, is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest. See Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 262 , 193, 159 A.L.R. 1346; Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367, 373 , 1253. There is no room under our Constitution for a more restrictive view. For the alternative would lead to standardization of ideas [337 U.S. 1 , 5] either by legislatures, courts, or dominant political or community groups.
|
|
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
occrider: I'm not totally sure what your angle on this is. From your first post, I thought you questioned the general contempt by Danes towards these Imams (i.e. addressed the moral question), but in your reply to my post, it seemed more like you were interested in the legal aspects. So please forgive me if this post is totally irrelevant:
|
No I understand the contempt of Danes towards such an individual, I question their attempt to criminalize him for what he did however.
| quote: |
No, it's not established that the Travelling Imams fabricated the drawings themselves - but it is well-established that they knew that they were *not* among the 12 published in Jyllands-posten, yet lied about this fact.
No it's not criminal. I do not condone the current efforts to have the Imams thrown out on account of treason. In Denmark you should be allowed to say anything IMO. (In fact, I'm an advocate of dropping the ban of hate-speech and incitement to violence.) I was just trying to elaborate on the nature of the legal conflict at play.
My own opinion is that refugees (like the Imams) visiting countries they fled from should be thrown out pronto, as the threat they have been fleeing, clearly either has passed away, or was never a threat in the first place. In the situation of the Imams, the case is even more clear, as they actively sought out the very authorities in the countries they fled. We're not in lack of illeterate fools in Denmark, and should only house them if they are actually in danger.
I probably shouldn't have put it in quotes like that, as in its entirety it takes up some five or six lines of text. It's only that I can't find the actual formulation at this time. But it's §100 of our criminal code. But, I agree that it's vague (just like the blasphemy and hate speech laws).
|
Agreed.
| quote: |
I do think that it's a mistake to view Europeans as being critical of the US' government's infringements on civil liberties. Europeans are mostly mad about its stance on climate protection, international treaties/relations, the concept of "illegal combatants", and the war in Iraq. Most Europeans don't care much about the rights of civilians in the US.
Civil liberties in Europe tend not to be a hotly debated topic, because, well, they are rarely interferred with. We don't have them protected by laws and treaties to the same degree as you have in the US, but we assume them, and have them (I think). In fact, only the last couple of years have they been drawn into focus, with the French anti-religion ban, and this cartoon crisis. |
I'm just not well grounded with European local news to know whether or not European governments have been abusing its extraordinary powers habitually. I have caught hints of events such as Britain's free speech laws with respect to that BNP leader (and some hunting guy), Germany's criminalization of holocaust denial (there was an incident of a scientist who was trying to do a holocaust study of some kind that Germany wanted to indict ... I posted it a while back), and this French incident that I just read a few days back:
| quote: |
The French judicial system
Exit Napoleon
Feb 9th 2006 | PARIS
From The Economist print edition
A miscarriage of justice calls an entire system into question
Reuters
Burgaud under the spotlightIT HAS been a landmark case in French judicial history in more ways than one. Since mid-January, a parliamentary inquiry has been studying one of the country's biggest post-war miscarriages of justice: how six innocent people, jailed for years in connection with a paedophile ring, were acquitted on appeal only last December, after it turned out that key evidence against them had been made up; and how seven other innocents spent months behind bars. The testimony of the acquitted has been televised live, gripping the public. This week, national TV channels cleared their schedules to broadcast the testimony of Fabrice Burgaud, the lead investigating judge in the case.
The affair began in 2000, when social workers suspected sexual abuse of children in Outreau, a suburb of Boulogne-sur-Mer in northern France. The following year (when neighbouring Belgium was being rocked by the trial of a serial rapist and murderer, Marc Dutroux), a judicial investigation into a suspected paedophile ring was opened, led by Mr Burgaud. Some 20 children were identified as victims, including those of three of the couples charged.
At the trial, in 2004, the central evidence was testimony by one of the accused, Myriam Delay, as well as by various children. Seven of the 17 accused were acquitted, after serving months of pre-trial detention. Of the ten found guilty, only four—including Mrs Delay—remain behind bars today, six having been acquitted on appeal in December. The stories told by the acquitted on television have been devastating: marriages wrecked, children taken into care, jobs lost, reputations in tatters. An 18th accused committed suicide in prison in 2002. A nervous Mr Burgaud, meanwhile, said this week that he had done his job “in all honesty”.
France has been shaken by what has become known as l'affaire d'Outreau. President Jacques Chirac made an unprecedented apology to the acquitted. Already, in 2004, Dominique Perben, then justice minister, had apologised to the first group of innocents. At a time when an introspective France is feeling uncertain about itself in many other respects—about Europe, about globalisation, about Islam—its judicial system is now under the spotlight too.
Many questions are being raised. How could the case have been mounted on such flimsy evidence? Why were there no safeguards that could have stopped it from going as far as it did? Do France's investigating judges have too many wide-ranging powers? Are they given too much responsibility too young? (Mr Burgaud was 29 when he took on the Outreau case.) Should they act single-handedly in sensitive cases? Should suspects' access to the defence be strengthened? Should an investigating judge's right to put suspects under official investigation, and in provisional detention, be curtailed? Should the position itself be abolished?
Pascal Clément, the justice minister, has promised reforms after the parliamentary inquiry's final report is submitted, probably in May or June. But it is unclear how far he will go. Jean-François Burgelin, a retired top judge who has written widely about judicial reform, told Le Figaro this week that France needed to adopt elements of the “accusatorial” system—in which there are three distinct roles of prosecutor, defence and judge—but “without going all the way to Anglo-Saxon excess.” The French consider that the Anglo-American system is too costly to the state, and also that it discriminates against the poor. Even its critics, though, agree that France's judicial methods need to change. “The Napoleonic system”, declares Mr Burgelin, “has had its day.”
|
Furthermore, this site seems to have documented some infractions which are mostly directed at immigrants (I don't know how biased/legitimate this civil liberties group is, but on the face of things it seems somewhat legitimate):
http://www.ecln.org/essays.html |
|
|
|
|
