Heartland

Clicky

So what do we think? Should people be charged with treason?

I do think that if it is true that Omar Bakri Mohammed, Abu Izzadeen and Abu Uzair have said that it is wrong for Muslims to pass on details of bombing plots etc. to the British Police* then there is (at least) cause for serious concern. Does one have a legal duty to report illegal acts to the police under British Law? Should there be such a duty enshrined in law?

* I did see one of them make such comments on Channel 4 news last night; his words were to the effect of "A Muslim should never pass details of a brother Muslim to the police, especially to the police of a decadent and evil country like the UK"

This furthermore raises the question, if he thinks this country is so "decadent and evil" why doesn't he f*ck off somewhere else? We have things like "democracy" here and I, for one, don't appreciate attempts to overthrow it in favour of an Islamist theocracy.

Or am I just indulging in Daily Mail-style reactionary knee-jerk thinking here?

Not really MF, I'm inclined to agree, and I'm also concerned that I sound like a tabloid reader.

Simple fact is, the two extremes are starting to overlap, and we're running out of grey areas. Which may, or may not be, a good thing.
I'm reserving my judgement and standing firmly on the fence - I'll let a lawyer with twenty years experience and the Home Office and the Crown Court and the Metropolitan Police and all the rest of the monkeys make the decision.

markfiend wrote:Does one have a legal duty to report illegal acts to the police under British Law?

I'm no legal expert, but I believe so.

I work for a bank and I know that we certainly have to report even the suspicion of criminal activity (money laundering etc.), and can be prosecuted if we fail to report any suspicious activity.

smiscandlon wrote:

markfiend wrote:Does one have a legal duty to report illegal acts to the police under British Law?

I'm no legal expert, but I believe so.

I work for a bank and I know that we certainly have to report even the suspicion of criminal activity (money laundering etc.), and can be prosecuted if we fail to report any suspicious activity.

Well you can be arrested under the PTA for donating money to a terrorist organisation and I'm sure you can be arrested for the above mention under its auspices...

Parents & Teachers Association?

I thought it was a new law being introduced that non reporting was a crime....

I've typed 3 answers so far and they've all got hints of Daily Mail <gulp>. A considered answer will follow.

dailymailness isn't necessarily always wrong to start with. its just twisted so much to MAKE it that way.
i'm with mf.

It is illegal to withold information about a crime - you become an accessory to it. Were he referring to a particular case of a known planned attack, then such outbursts would be conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. However, by using the conditional tense and talking hypothetically, he gets off the hook on that count. Bring on the Treason charge

as it stands you are not obliged to go the police and tell them about a crime.if they question you and you fail to tell them something you can be prosecuted for witholding evidence /perverting the cause of justice.
now i have always been of the opinion that ''grassing'' is wrong.and still am.but we're not talking about spilling your guts to save your own skin ie you've been caught for something criminal and are grassing to get a lighter sentence.nor are we talking about ''informing'', ie being in the pay of the police to grass.
we're talking about the moral obligation we have to each other as human beings to look out for each other's welfare.if you know about a terrorist plot by all means put a stop to it without bringing the police into it.but few people have such abilities.that is what the police are for to serve and protect the public -and vigilantism is officially frowned upon in 100% of cases.so yes ,you are obliged morally to tell about any intentional danger to life that you know about.whether it should be made illegal not to do so depends on the exact circumstances IMO.
however deliberately instructing people to not report,from a position of authority such as a religious leader,should be illegal; as that is tantamount to incitement or conspiracy to cause.treason is a bit strong merely because it is an almost irrelevant concept in this issue;but they should at least be deported if no jailed.

we need to separate two completely different situations, which I think is confusing the issue (and is being deliberately used by the media to confuse the issue).

1. Someone does not inform police that they knew someone was planning a bomb attack in the UK.

This should be a criminal offence if it isn't already, I believe. Not "Treason", though - that's completely the wrong charge, and has only been picked because it sounds dramatic and jingoistic. "Conspiracy to Cause Explosions" would be better, I think, since the person's silence has conspired with the actual bombers to cause the explosions.

2. Someone says that they wouldn't inform police if they knew someone was planning a bomb attack in the UK.

This is what Omar Bakri Mohammed has done, and I don't think this should ever be a criminal offence. Why not? Because no crime has been committed. You should never be arrested for saying what you think you would do in a theoretical situation. Someone can say "If a man molested my daughter, I'd kill them." They might well mean it too. But they shouldn't be arrested for murder when all they've done is stated their opinion of what they think they'd do in a theoretical situation.

Once you start making a particular opinion a criminal offence then you're in the realms of the thought police.

There should be criminal acts, not criminal thoughts.

The real issue is that he made the absolute statement that Muslims should not inform on other Muslims. That is incitement to commit a criminal act.

lazarus corporation wrote:1. Someone does not inform police that they knew someone was planning a bomb attack in the UK.

This should be a criminal offence if it isn't already, I believe. Not "Treason", though - that's completely the wrong charge, and has only been picked because it sounds dramatic and jingoistic. "Conspiracy to Cause Explosions" would be better, I think, since the person's silence has conspired with the actual bombers to cause the explosions.

So what would you do if secret services knew but the chap in charge of the country just dismissed it then? Completely hypothetically, obviously...

lazarus corporation wrote:There should be criminal acts, not criminal thoughts.

Completely agree on that one...

Obviousman wrote:

lazarus corporation wrote:1. Someone does not inform police that they knew someone was planning a bomb attack in the UK.

This should be a criminal offence if it isn't already, I believe. Not "Treason", though - that's completely the wrong charge, and has only been picked because it sounds dramatic and jingoistic. "Conspiracy to Cause Explosions" would be better, I think, since the person's silence has conspired with the actual bombers to cause the explosions.

So what would you do if secret services knew but the chap in charge of the country just dismissed it then? Completely hypothetically, obviously...

I'm of the old-fashioned opinion that the law applies equally to everyone. I'd never make it into Blair's cabinet.

Motz wrote:The real issue is that he made the absolute statement that Muslims should not inform on other Muslims. That is incitement to commit a criminal act.

If that's the case, then he should be charged with "incitement to commit a criminal act". What's with the "Treason" speculation?

That statement isn't mentioned in the BBC report, it only says:

BBC wrote:Mr Bakri caused controversy when he said he would not inform police if he knew Muslims were planning a bomb attack in the UK.

As much as I hate the idea of the government nicking people for things like this, I'm considering the situation of a Christian reading from the Bible "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" and being nicked for incitement to commit murder. That might get rid of a few fundamentalist Christians.

So what's the situation when reading from the Bible is a criminal act (incitement to commit murder)?

lazarus corporation wrote:Not "Treason", though - that's completely the wrong charge, and has only been picked because it sounds dramatic and jingoistic. "Conspiracy to Cause Explosions" would be better

Indeed. Treason is almost redundant as a crime these days, in my opinion. It's emotive nonsense to use that charge in this kind of situation. Conspiracy of some kind, definitely. Withholding information... I do think that, in cases where innocent human life is at risk, this should be treated as a criminal act, but not with the severity that "treason" suggests, because the people in question would still not be actively engaging in any attack.

lazarus corporation wrote:There should be criminal acts, not criminal thoughts.

I agree entirely with this. But I think the problem arises because you have to ask which of these categories do certain STATEMENTS fall into?
I was deeply troubled last week to hear of new laws that would make condoning attacks such as the London bombing illegal. To me that is a gross infringement on freedom of speech. To my mind, an individual should not be prosecuted for expressing ANY CONCEIVABLE opinion (including "Everyone in this country is an infidel and I hope they are all killed in a big burny Jihad fire of doom", or "The attacks last week were a triumph").
To me, the line is crossed when you start encouraging or ordering a crime to be committed (be it strapping bombs to yourself and going on the Tube, or withholding information about a terrorist attack). And fortunately, it is very difficult for a public figure to condone such things without crossing this very fine line. If someone in a position of power is taking the time to make such a statement, it teeters and can fall into "encouragement" very easily. I think most people who would condone terrorist activity would find it very hard to stop themselves from issuing a recommendation for further attacks in a public forum - all it takes is something as simple as the word "should".

If a family are sitting watching the television, though, and one says to the other "More people should go out and do this sort of thing", I don't think the police should be informed. It's not an exact science - should probably be treated on a case by case basis - but public encouragement/issuing of orders should be considered a criminal act. You can express your opinion on a matter (if you are careful), without falling into that.

I'd rather run the risk of more terrorist attacks than live in a country governed by thought- (or at least speech) police.

But you can be prosecuted for offering certain opinions under our defamation laws.

If I publish my opinion of you in a manner which is not seen as fair and balanced, technically I commit a libel for which you can sue me. Of course, this is a civil case, not a criminal one, but the legal principle already exists. The defence, in case you're interested, is 'fair comment', which requires me to produce evidence to justify my opinion.

I note with interest that your previously stated opinion means I can libel you without fear of reprisal, however, Honey

Semantics suggest your second point is too complicated to hold up. You run the risk of court hearings poring over statements word-by-word to extrapolate every possible implication and inference. People on here get disproportionately annoyed when some US teenager sprays bullets around the school canteen and everyone goes over his record collection: this would start to veer into the same territory every time anyone offered anything other than the pre-agreed hand-wringing in the face of terrorism.

Finally, you might prefer to run the risk of more terrorist attacks. I'm not sure everyone would agree.

On Saturday night, the first time I'd been in central London since the bombs, I got a seat on a Central Line tube at 10pm. I've never managed that before - people just aren't going out and using public transport at the moment, presumably because they don't want to run that risk.

And if you never think for yourself, thought police aren't much of a problem, are they?

lazarus corporation wrote:I'm considering the situation of a Christian reading from the Bible "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" and being nicked for incitement to commit murder. That might get rid of a few fundamentalist Christians.

So what's the situation when reading from the Bible is a criminal act (incitement to commit murder)?

I've actually thought about this in terms of the new "incitement to religious hatred" offence that has been introduced. Is Wicca a religion in the sense applied by this offence? It's hard to see how it could not be, so could a street preacher quoting Exodus 22:18 be charged under this offence?

Furthermore, depending on how "religious hatred" is defined, I would argue that some extremist Christian polemics (examples here, here and here) against homosexuality might be prosecuted, as surely hatred based on the hater's religion is as much "religious hatred" as hatred based on the hated's religion?

Those cartoons bore me, I'd rather have some Yaoi.

markfiend wrote:

lazarus corporation wrote:I'm considering the situation of a Christian reading from the Bible "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" and being nicked for incitement to commit murder. That might get rid of a few fundamentalist Christians.

So what's the situation when reading from the Bible is a criminal act (incitement to commit murder)?

I've actually thought about this in terms of the new "incitement to religious hatred" offence that has been introduced. Is Wicca a religion in the sense applied by this offence? It's hard to see how it could not be, so could a street preacher quoting Exodus 22:18 be charged under this offence?

Furthermore, depending on how "religious hatred" is defined, I would argue that some extremist Christian polemics (examples here, here and here) against homosexuality might be prosecuted, as surely hatred based on the hater's religion is as much "religious hatred" as hatred based on the hated's religion?

But an anti-homosexual rant is already a hate crime, along with racist behaviour. At this point the motivation for crime is not an issue.

Of course it does mean that if I beat up someone because he's a Newcastle fan who happens to be gay I get done for a hate crime rather than assault. But if a gay Newcastle fan has a go at me he only gets done for assault rather than hate crime. Justice, apparently.

As far as I know, the laws against homophobia are few and far between, which is completely daft considering that religion (a choice) is protected far more than sexuality (a predetermined trait).

Of course I may be blinded by institutionalised apathy, but had I been accused of being of dubious racial background, I feel that the worst year of my life may have cleared up far more quickly courtesy of the school's pastoral system. As it stands, however, those who would so quickly put someone against the wall for saying something that sounded rather like "[whoops, i did a racism]", will barely bat an eyelid at the word "faggot".

But I digress.

andymackem, I agree with you wholeheartedly on the point of assumed hate crime. While it should definitely be investigated, it should not hold any greater weight than other lines of inquiry.

andymackem wrote:But an anti-homosexual rant is already a hate crime,

Ah right I didn't know that. Thanks for clarification.

But does anyone know whether Wicca would be protected under "incitement to religious hatred"?

There is, I believe, a Satanist in the Royal Navy who has been granted some legal recognition as a chaplain; so there is at least a suggestion that non-traditional religious practices are likely to be covered by the "incitement to religious hatred" offence. Hmmmm....

So what happens to two mutually antagonistic religions making "hateful" statements about each other?

markfiend wrote:

andymackem wrote:But an anti-homosexual rant is already a hate crime,

Ah right I didn't know that. Thanks for clarification.

I'd be interested if someone could cite the particular law and explain its implications. It seems to me right now that there mustn't be any particular anti-homophobia law in place, since hate laws trump freedom of religion (See: Mormon Church being forced to retract all doctrines about blacks being cursed in the pre-existence).

like Motz, I'd like to know which law this is. I'm very skeptical that such a law outlawing anti-homosexual rants (different from anti-homosexual discrimination) exists.

If it does exist, why haven't hordes of conservative christians (and muslims, and many other religions), the BNP, and the wankers at the Daily Mail (I try to demonize them at least once in every thread) been arrested for breaking it?

andymackem wrote:If I publish my opinion of you in a manner which is not seen as fair and balanced, technically I commit a libel for which you can sue me. Of course, this is a civil case, not a criminal one, but the legal principle already exists. The defence, in case you're interested, is 'fair comment', which requires me to produce evidence to justify my opinion.

I note with interest that your previously stated opinion means I can libel you without fear of reprisal, however, Honey

Well, mackem, there are many very harsh statements you could make about me which... I'm not familiar enough with libel laws to know whether these statements would be considered libel... but provided you were not accusing me of committing unpleasant acts on farmyard animals in my spare time, I really don't see how I would have the right to prosecute you for it.
You know where I'm from... you could say I was born with a silver spoon in my mouth. Fair enough, I'd disagree, but if that's how you perceive my background, based on where I live, then that is your jujdgement.
If you claimed I lived in a mansion worth half a million pounds (mind you that would only buy you a shed these days), had several cars and a butler, well that is beyond mere opinion, you are making claims about me and my life which can be proven true or false.
You can pass any opinion on me based on facts which can be proven to be true (or on anything I have said), but I draw a distinction between that and what I would (perhaps in my ignorance) think of as libel or slander.
There is a difference between passing an opinion and making a claim. Based on what you know of me, you could say I'm a complete dimwit or a stuck-up little madam. I might not like it but you're not accusing me of anything.
Perhaps in less clear cut cases the line between passing an opinion and making a claim would be harder to draw. For example, most "claims" that could be made about a person's character (as opposed to their actions) are really just someone's judgement or opinion on that person. You say I'm "a throroughly unpleasant individual", it is a claim, but it cannot be proven or disproven in any way, it's simply what you think.
In cases where someone is accused of being untrustworthy, some kind of shifty bugger, a liar... it would be fair to ask the person passing this opinion for evidence to back it up. If they can't provide it, then they can still express their opinion, but it will have been proven in court to have no solid backing, so the public can draw their own conclusions.

andymackem wrote: Semantics suggest your second point is too complicated to hold up. You run the risk of court hearings poring over statements word-by-word to extrapolate every possible implication and inference.

I agree, it could become very complicated, with forensic examination of every word that has been uttered (the same problem could arise if I had control over libel laws), but I think this would only apply in cases which teeter on the line between passing opinion and issuing recommendations. Most of these radical clerics are very clearly issuing recommendations, even orders.

andymackem wrote: People on here get disproportionately annoyed when some US teenager sprays bullets around the school canteen and everyone goes over his record collection: this would start to veer into the same territory every time anyone offered anything other than the pre-agreed hand-wringing in the face of terrorism.

That is exactly what I would like to avoid. I think people should be allowed to pass the strongest pro-terrorism, anti-western opinions possible, without fear of prosecution. This is why the new laws alarm me, because I think if someone wants to praise these attacks, they should be allowed to. I certainly don't agree, but I'm not a great hand-wringer myself.

andymackem wrote: On Saturday night, the first time I'd been in central London since the bombs, I got a seat on a Central Line tube at 10pm. I've never managed that before - people just aren't going out and using public transport at the moment, presumably because they don't want to run that risk.

Well, it's a personal opinion. I value the democratic freedoms that this War on Terror is supposed to be defending, and which the terrorists we are fighting would wish to destroy. And it saddens me if people in this country (and the government) are prepared to do half of their work for them. Who even needs any more terrorist attacks when we allow ourselves to be well and truly terrorised all by ourselves?

Ooooh that was a long rant. Sorry peeps.

Firstly, you cannot sue someone for libel if they make complimentary statements about you that aren't true. Like it or not, saying that you live in a £Million mansion is not going to hold up as defamatory in a court of law. I believe that the requirements for libel are that a) The claim is false, b) It is made in public [this includes the media] and c) It causes peoples opinion of you to drop.

As for the War on Terror, I hate the phrase. Calling it a War is like covering it in neon stickers saying "We're Clueless!". You can only declare war on a self governing state, not an abstract concept ¬.¬