Further to last year's discussions of the communications crimes of treason and sedition, it is nice to see the English Courts using the larger gauge stick in relation to the crime of incitement:
A British jury Tuesday convicted firebrand Muslim cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri of inciting followers to kill non-Muslims in speeches at his London mosque, which has been linked to Sept. 11 plotter Zacarias Moussaoui and “shoe bomber” Richard Reid. The jury found Mr. al-Masri guilty on 11 of 15 charges against him, including counts of soliciting murder, stirring racial hatred, possessing a terrorist document and possessing threatening or abusive recordings. Britain's best-known Islamist orator, Mr. al-Masri was sentenced to seven years in prison for soliciting murder. He faced a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
Comments
Flea - February 7, 2006 2:13 PM
I don't think the gauge on that stick slides all the way up to "hanging".
Gordo - February 7, 2006 2:27 PM
The Brits DO have an interesting array of legal tools to attempt to inflict civilized behaviour upon people, don't they? I'm particularly intrigued by Anti-social Behaviour Orders.
Alan - February 7, 2006 2:41 PM
Sounds a bit like the anti-trilby set to me. Seems funny still that this is ok.
Flea - February 7, 2006 6:24 PM
As he is not a subject of Her Majesty and the territory in question is not under Her sovereignty, I expect Bill O'Reilly can say whatever he likes about San Francisco and escape charges of sedition.
Alan - February 7, 2006 6:37 PM
Is there no US equivalent? Surely not.
Jay Currie - February 7, 2006 8:00 PM
You'd run into some pretty hairy Constitutional problems with anti-incitement legislation in the States. As Skokie and the flag burning cases demonstrate, you have to pretty much have your finger on the trigger before there is much chance of a prosecution. Plus there is the fun that this guy was preaching his religion as he saw it. And the entire jurisprudence of "prior restraint" and the very, very high threshold for such restraint would get in your way.
Pesky things these written constitutions.
Alan - February 7, 2006 8:10 PM
To which I can only quote the case of <i>Winters</i> v. <i>People of the State of New York</i>, 333 U.S. 507 (1948) from the United States Supreme Court of 58 years ago:<blockquote class="smalltext">No one would deny, I assume, that New York may punish crimes of lust and violence. Presumably also, it may take appropriate measures to lower the crime rate. But he must be a bold man indeed who is confident that he knows what causes crimes. Those whose lives are devoted to an understanding of the problem are certain only that they are uncertain regarding the role of the [333 U.S. 507 , 527] various alleged 'causes' of crime. Bibliographies of criminology reveal a depressing volume of writings on theories of causation. See e.g., Kuhlman, A Guide to Material on Crime and Criminal Justice (1929) Item Nos. 292 to 1211; Culver, Bibliography of Crime and Criminal Justice (1927-1931) and Item Nos. 877-1475, (1932-1937) Item Nos. 799-1560. <b>Is it to be seriously questioned, however, that the State of New York, or the Congress of the United States, may make incitement to crime itself an offense?</b> He too would indeed be a bold man who denied that incitement may be caused by the written word no less than by the spoken. If 'the Fourteent Amendment does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer's Social Statics' (Holmes, J., dissenting in Lochner v. State of New York, 198 U.S. 45, 75 , 546, 3 Ann.Cas. 1133) neither does it enact the psychological dogmas of the Spencerian era.</blockquote>Indeed! While I acknowledge it is entirely out of context and arbitrarily cut and pasted, I do believe it settles the matter.
Flea - February 7, 2006 10:50 PM
What I am missing is the link to Abu Hamza. But then I am floating along on antihistimines just now.
Alan - February 7, 2006 10:53 PM
Isn't Hamza Arabic for winter?