| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Maybe they wanted it for a rousing game of Cops and Robbers. "Five students win terror appeal," from the BBC (thanks to all who sent this in):
The convictions of five young Muslim men jailed over extremist literature have been quashed by the Appeal Court.Freeing the men, the Lord Chief Justice said there was no proof of terrorist intent. The lawyer for one said they had been jailed for a "thought crime".
A jury convicted the students in 2007 after hearing the men, of Bradford and Ilford, east London, became obsessed with jihadi websites and literature.
The Home Office said it would study the judgement carefully.
'Serious threat'
It said it understood the Crown Prosecution Service was considering whether to appeal against the ruling, which it must do within seven days.
It added that the threat of terrorism remained serious and real and the government was committed to ensuring it had the strongest possible anti-terrorism legal framework.
Irfan Raja, Awaab Iqbal, Aitzaz Zafar, Usman Malik and Akbar Butt were jailed for between two and three years each by the Old Bailey for downloading and sharing extremist terrorism-related material, in what was one of the first cases of its kind.
But at the Court of Appeal, Lord Phillips said that while the men had downloaded such material, he doubted if there was evidence this was in relation to planning terrorist acts.
He said the prosecution had attempted to use the law for a purpose for which it was not intended.
'Huge implications'
Lawyers for the men say the decision to restrict how the law on extremist literature works has huge implications for counter terrorism prosecutions.
Critics inside the Muslim community and civil liberty campaigners say section 57 of the 2000 Terrorism Act has been used as a blunt instrument to prosecute young Muslim men where there is no proof of genuine links to terrorism.
The BBC understands there have been three other convictions under this legislation - more cases are expected before the courts this year.
Imran Khan, solicitor for Mr Zafar, said the five had been prosecuted for "thought crime" and that the ruling would have an significant impact.
He told BBC News: "Young Muslim men before this judgement could have been prosecuted simply for simply looking at any material on the basis that it might be connected in some way to terrorist purposes."
He said section 57 of the 2000 Terrorism Act had been written in such wide terms that "effectively, anybody could have been caught in it" but prosecutors would now have to prove such material was intended for terrorist purposes....
Why else would they want it?
Posted by Robert at February 13, 2008 3:28 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Strange this one.
Considering a U.K. blogger is about to be charged under race hate laws, with warning about radical Islam and its teachings.
Posted by: Stone Rose![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at February 13, 2008 4:05 PM
"Freeing the men, the Lord Chief Justice said there was no proof of terrorist intent. The lawyer for one said they had been jailed for a "thought crime"."
Like what Lionheart is going through? What about those so-called "hate laws"?
Posted by: Elric66 at February 13, 2008 4:13 PM
My favorite line
"The men denied the charges and insisted they were simply researching Islam."
I wholeheartly agree
at February 13, 2008 4:19 PM
stupider and stupidest. We passed stupid a long time ago.
Posted by: R_not at February 13, 2008 4:39 PM
We now have a situation in the UK where if you download child pornography you are (quite rightly) for the high jump. But if you download a video of Nick Berg being decapitated, well, that's fine. I don't see the difference in principle, but there you go.
Posted by: Nokingofmine at February 13, 2008 5:31 PM
Who among this herd of sheep is prepared to call a spade a shovel. Down loading pro-jihadi material is no different than down loading child pornography. Even perverts may not have an immediate intent to harm a child. But in the eyes of the law, it is a felony crime. Stop apologizing and making excuses for these SoB's. Rather than wringing your hands over insane and dangerous rulings by PC courts and ministers, get off your butts and stop waiting for the White Knight to ride up and save you from taking some responsibility to change what is happening before your noses. Do something, the Muslims don't hesitate to protest their disagreements with current events. So, why don't you. What ever happened to the "Old British Stiff Upper Lip" mind set. If you sat back and let the Germans have their way with you during WW-II, you would all be spreiken ze Duetch - if you don't wake up, you will be dead or speaking Farsi, Urdi, or what ever language the Grand Phubas decide you need to learn.
Posted by: Lucky Star at February 14, 2008 1:41 AM
What about jihadwatchers who download this material for research purposes?
Posted by: Sebastien at February 14, 2008 4:13 AM
Why is it a crime to download child porn?
at February 14, 2008 10:10 AM
Every nonce currently banged up on a "downloading kiddie porn" charge should now lodge and appeal on the basis of this judgement - ie posession of the material in question did not prove malicious or criminal intent.
I no more agree with their activities than those of this nefarious bunch, but it might shake some dross out of the UK legal system.
Posted by: idiotboy at February 14, 2008 12:10 PM
Freedom of expression implies the freedom to read whatever legally-produced material you want.
I download pro-Jihadi material regularly, so I can find out what the crafty f*ckers are up to. I'm sure many people on this site do, for the same reason.
Would downloading and reading Mein Kampf constitute anti-semitism in and of itself? I've read a lot of Communist material as well, in an attempt to educate myself about it. Should that be illegal too?
Seriously, the moment you attempt to criminalize books, you're starting off down the same path as the jihadis themselves.
Posted by: Duncan Bayne at February 14, 2008 3:50 PM
If it were illegal to download pro-jihad material then technically downloading a copy of the Qur'an would have to be illegal.
Posted by: The Christian Heretic at February 14, 2008 5:48 PM
I'm all for free speech. But, if you rape and murder a child, or if you blow up a busload of commuters because you read the latest fatwa from Mullah Airandfathead on the net, you ought to hang.
Posted by: Kepha at February 14, 2008 9:38 PM
But, if you rape and murder a child, or if you blow up a busload of commuters because you read the latest fatwa from Mullah Airandfathead on the net, you ought to hang.
In 100% agreement with you there.
Posted by: Duncan Bayne at February 15, 2008 1:00 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)