Britain is galloping toward ruin, and Max Hill is urging it onward, onward, ever onward. This is the same clown who said that returning Islamic State jihadis should not be prosecuted.
“UK’s terror czar says: DON’T jail hate preachers,” by Martin Bentham, Evening Standard, October 24, 2017:
The Government’s terror watchdog today said introducing tough new laws to tackle hate preachers would be “quite wrong” despite a recent wave of Islamist attacks.
Max Hill QC said that the creation of new criminal offences, including banning orders and extremism disruption orders, backed by potential jail sentences, should not go ahead.
Both measures have been backed by Theresa May and were among “potential new criminal offences to defeat extremism” promised in her manifesto.
But Mr Hill, the Government’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said the law should be targeted only at those who attempt to commit, or do carry out, acts of violence.
Last week, he suggested some returning British Islamic State fighters should be reintegrated into society, rather than prosecuted, as they were “naive”.
In quotes released ahead of a speech in London tonight to the human rights campaign group Justice, Mr Hill said: “We do not, and should not, criminalise thought without action or preparation for action.
“Whilst we can all agree that there should be nowhere for real terrorists to hide, we should also agree that legislating in the name of terrorism when the targeted activity is not actually terrorism would be quite wrong.”
There are widespread fears about the role played by extremist clerics in creating an anti-Western atmosphere, which inspires others to carry out attacks.
Among the most notorious is Anjem Choudary, who was jailed last year for inviting support for IS after 10 failed attempts to bring him to justice.
His supporters have included London Bridge attacker Khuram Butt and Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale, who murdered Fusilier Lee Rigby in 2013….
utis says
The “Marching Morons” are everywhere in the West. Did any explicitly and in small, easily understood words, enumerate the Tsar’s duties? He seems to think he’s obliged to spread terrorism, instead of eliminating it.
And if he’s concerned about punishing people unjustly, what about all the native Brits who get arrested, fined and jailed for telling the facts about islam? I don’t think Monty Python could create such a laughable idiot.
gravenimage says
Utis, I should have read your post before commenting. We have said essentially the same thing.
Westman says
I’ve wondered if the historical inbreeding of the aristocratic class of England has led to this separation of government from reality. When I see the Prince of Wales in Saudi costume, make-believing as an Arab…..
They are either so far from reality that they need to remember to breathe, or, simply gathering cattle for the future milking and fleecing. There is no rational good purpose in their actions.
Donovan Nuera says
Queen Elizabeth hopefully before she passes gets the balls of her late Father King George VI and makes a “Queen’s Speech” calling out the despiilage of her Realm and Subjects by jihadists, open-border Pollyannas, and rich communists who have no gratitude for being British! (..because we ALL know Prince Chuckie will convert on a shilling if he is ever called an “islamophobe” and convert Westminster Abbey into “Waqfmajhid Mosque”
Don McKellar says
America has the people from Deliverance and the Jerry Springer Show, while in England, their equals are on the opposite side of the economic class spectrum and they have Max Hill and Prince Chuck.
Anne Smith says
Mr Hill is in no way aristocratic. A jumped up lawyer who was educated at a State Grammar School.
roger woodhouse says
Who is going to be the first to tell these virtue signallers the ‘the emperor has no clothes’?At the moment this clique of clowns are in desperate need of a good wake up call.In the mean time Britain goes down the tubes.The ‘void’at the top gets wider.
gravenimage says
UK’s “terror czar” urges that jihad preachers NOT be jailed
……………………………
Seems that Max Hill has earned the sobriquet “terror czar”, but probably not for the reasons he might have hoped…
More:
In quotes released ahead of a speech in London tonight to the human rights campaign group Justice, Mr Hill said: “We do not, and should not, criminalise thought without action or preparation for action.
……………………………
Uh…right. And this is why Britons are being fined and imprisoned for criticizing Islam or quoting Churchill…
Anne Smith says
Spot on – “Hate crime ” the new crime invented by David Cameron and embellished by Teresa May is entirely defined by perception, that of the victim and the “hateful” motive.
gravenimage says
Yes–this does not include preaching violent Jihad. But speaking out *against* Jihad is “hate”. So perverse.
john spielman says
OK don’t jail them – DEPORT THEM IMMEDIATELY with no hope of return!
Frank Anderson says
John, think about the number of convicted felons who have been deported from the US and returned illegally to commit murder or many other crimes before they are caught again. (ex. Kate Steinly’s killer) Deporting bad guys gives them the opportunity to improve their skills and train others for further attacks. I wonder if the cost would be less to jail them or send them out to support further attacks?
Don Rugdee says
Talking about cost, I reckon the cheapest would be a bullet.
Georg says
For whatever ideological or psychological reasons, this man has found himself in a place where he is unwilling to assign agency to Muslims and therefore unwilling to prosecute them.
As they say in Britain: He’s lost the plot (gone insane). It happens. Remove him and replace him with someone sane and do it fast.
I wonder about leftists says
He is a clown, looks like a clown, but is a very dangerous clown, but not a judge, unwilling to prosecute
criminals. He only has eyes to prosecute the Islamophobs, even when people quote churchill, put them in jail for 15 months. And right so, remove him immediately and replace him with a sane man. But then may be he can’t help himself and did not know how to judge criminals and you seem to have enough of those people in the UK.
gravenimage says
Max Hill is fine with inviting *Islamic State terrorists* back into the US, but has posted a link to a picture of President Trump labeled “American Psycho”.
https://twitter.com/maxhillqc?lang=en
He also has postings on his Twitter feed slamming France from having maintained its state of emergency since the Jihad terror attacks of 2015. How *dare* anyone take Jihad terror seriously? He also slams Brexit.
So far I haven’t seen *any* indication of anti-terrorism actions–or even sentiments–from this supposed “terror czar”.
Even worse than this, a Shoaib Khan claims–right on Hill’s Twitter feed–that Hill is trying to get all terrorism laws scrapped, and have Jihad terror just classified as run-of-the-mill crime.
Do any Britons posting here know it this is true? If so, it is truly the fox guarding the hen house.
David says
It s more like the hen guarding the fox house! Are we sure this chap is Max Hill? He looks more like Harry Hill to me! How is it that somebody so biased against British society is in the position of telling us what to do with the dregs of humanity? I think he should be deported. Perhaps to Syria where he can make some suitable judgements in favour of Isis.
Benedict says
“the law should be targeted only at those who attempt to commit, or do carry out, acts of violence.” –
That’s exactly what characterizes “returning British Islamic State fighters”.
The naivety of Mr. Hill surpasses the naivety of “returning British Islamic State fighters” and Mr. Hillbilly is the one who should be “reintegrated into society” – if this is actually possible?
Georg says
Thought the same thing about him in one place talking about only prosecuting action when he’d just before refused to do so for the most violent actions on earth. He couldn’t be more unfit for his job and it’s an outrage and embarrassment he’s still getting paychecks.
Ernie says
Dear Benedict , mr. Hill and naivety ? Maybe not the case . What about ARROGANCE ?!
Bob says
Or, what about, like Prince Charles, a closet muslim?!
Ernie says
…..and a freemason
Frank Anderson says
Ernie, I believe you will find that many Brit royals and others are freemasons; but Charles is not. Freemasons in the US are among the least likely to support an Islamic takeover. I certainly cannot speak about the UK. Judging by the results we can see, Masonic teachings are not being followed, or Masonic influence is sadly and terribly weak. You might also know that Masons were exterminated twice in Russia (about 1823) /Soviet Union (Leon Trotsky about 1923), and appeared on Hitler’s and Himmler’s death lists right along with Jews. Masons wrote the Declaration of Independence and provided most of the American leaders of the Revolutionary War. Many US Presidents have been Masons. Among those were George Washington, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson wrote an appraisal of islam that burns liberals and collaborators to this day. If you check further many of the leaders of revolutions in Mexico, Central and South America were Masons. I think you may be after the wrong fraternity.
LR says
@Benedict,
“The naivety of Mr. Hill surpasses the naivety of “returning British Islamic State fighters” and Mr. Hillbilly is the one who should be “reintegrated into society” – if this is actually possible?”…
I think Britain could use a few more real ‘hillbillies.’ Point out a returning Jihadi, and he’ll just raise his hunting rifle, and shoot.
Good riddance.
Benedict says
I can only agree with you, LR: your “Hillbilly” is better than mine. I just meant to say that Mr. Hill is living in a place far removed from reality in a universe of wishful thinking. He doesn’t understand the grip the evil ideology of Islam has of the minds of young jihadies. They will only scoff at the idea of being reintegrated – as if they were integrated in the first place.
mortimer says
I seriously doubt Max Hill has read the Sira, hadiths or Koran or a manual of Sharia law, but PREPOSTEROUSLY, he presents himself as an unread AUTHORITY on Islam.
By assuming his expertise in a DANGEROUS SUBJECT where he is in fact NOT AN EXPERT AT ALL, Max Hill is a danger to British society.
The UK legal profession needs to immediately hire people who have a THOROUGH understanding of the JIHAD DOCTRINE, KAFIR DOCTRINE, TAQIYYA DOCTRINE and the Islamic MISOGYNY DOCTRINE.
rufluc says
Justice, Mr Hill said: “We do not, and should not, criminalise thought without action or preparation for action.”
So, based on the statement above by this poor excuse of a judge, the very fact that they are ‘returning British Islamic State fighters’ strongly suggests to me that they have indeed indulged in action and preparation against us by fighting for ISIS, and have probably murdered in the name of their vile beliefs! So why hasn’t this fool arrested them and locked them away where they can no longer do damage to the people of the UK?
He also states they are ‘naive’ but all the evidence points to only him being naive! He really needs to be got rid of. And as for Theresa May endorsing his lunacy, it seems we have a traitor leading the UK too!
What is their agenda? Why are they placing these war criminals above the law? Questions really need to be asked in some high places!
mortimer says
There are some good points in defence of free speech in what Max Hill says.
However, jihadist mullahs should at least be monitored and their sermons should be recorded.
Someone is not guilty for thinking evil. Everyone has had a guilty thought.
Jayell says
Right, so they shouldn’t be prosecuting anyone for Hate Speech or watching/posting dubious material on the internet, or anything along those lines. There certainly is some merit in the argument that you can only properly punish a crime that HAS BEEN committed, not one that you think might theoretically be committed sometime in the future. However, where there is a definite link to publicly inciting people to commit crime it’s a different story.
gravenimage says
Mortimer, most of our “guilty thoughts” include things like thinking about fudging on our taxes, wanting to see people we don’t like taken down a peg, or really wishing that Pumpkin Spice Lattes were calorie-free–not mass slaughtering innocent people, as with these Jihad preachers.
Anne Smith says
I do not think he is even a judge, just a barrister who obviously has good chums in the Government who have elevated him to a position of which he seems totally unworthy.
Michael Copeland says
Some QCs act as “Recorder”, that is, in the role of a judge.
Neil Jennison says
Bloody Hell, Robert! I am your greatest admirer……but don’t for one minute think these proposed “anti-extremism” measures are meant to crack down on ISLAMIC extremism.
Not at all, they are designed to allow the government to outlaw any group that has a realistic view of Islam.
We. alas, do not have the protection of a constitution.
These laws will be wielded to imprison those who speak the TRUTH about Islam.
livingengine says
“We do not, and should not, criminalize thought without action or preparation for action.”
There is an awful lot of this bad advice around. In this country, it is fostered by people and groups like Faiza Patel, and the Brennen Center. Patel writes here – “Our government’s role must be focused on the act, not the ideology.” http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/166371-rethinking-radicalization-
This type of thinking has led to ridiculous conversations like this between Rep. Dan Lundgren and Paul Stockton- Assistant Defense Secretary for Homeland Defense.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WU6n1mrpAGYhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WU6n1mrpAGY
Further confirmation that this is a bad advice comes in the form of the Brennen Center’s support for CAIR’s opposition to Trump’s travel ban, as well as, the Brennen Center being funded by Soros’ Open Society Foundation.
While Faiza Patel is advising that we not pay attention to the ideology of the jihadists, she is also giving cover to groups like CAIR when she denounces the film “The Third Jihad” as “virulently anti-Muslim”.
“So how should we address the issue of how people become terrorists? First, we should stop talking about “radicalization” as a problem. The problem is violence. Whether people commit violent acts in the name of Islam or in the name of some other belief system, our government’s role must be focused on the act, not the ideology. The Department of Homeland Security and the White House have taken important steps to recognize this and now focus on “violent extremism” rather than radicalization. An excellent next step would be to characterize the problem as extremist violence so that the emphasis is squarely on the source of the concern – violence – rather than on beliefs.
Second, the federal agencies that dole out counterterrorism dollars and the state and local police departments that consume them must be vigilant in vetting the content of the training given to FBI agents and local cops. Since 9/11, a cottage industry of self-anointed experts on Islam and terrorism has mushroomed. Many of these “experts” have little understanding of the subject matter and provide training that paints all Muslims as potential terrorists. For example, a recent class of NYPD recruits was shown the virulently anti-Muslim film, The Third Jihad, in the course of their training. The film seeks to incite fear of ordinary Muslims and their motives, declaring that various mainstream American Muslim organizations have a secret agenda to impose “Shariah law” over the United States, and frequently displays a black-and-white Islamic flag billowing over the White House.”
That’s where ignoring the ideology of your enemy will get you.
gravenimage says
I agree that people should not be punished for thought crimes, no matter how vile.
But that is not what these Imams are doing–preaching Jihad is inciting violence, and that is a very different matter.
Frank Anderson says
GI as a fair question based on experience, is today’s thought crime tomorrow’s bloodbath? At this point I am sure UK law is different. Under US law, ANY overt act in furtherance, is enough to get the prosecution rolling. But in the UK even after numbers of people are killed, nothing happens except for punishment of those who dare to complain. Where am I in error?
gravenimage says
You aren’t, Frank. I still don’t think you can–or should–prosecute people for their views, no matter how repulsive–this is a slippery slope.
But *preaching* violence can lead directly to violence, and–importantly–is *intended to*.
This is where prosecution should begin. The classic “Your Liberty To Swing Your Fist Ends Where My Nose Begins”.
These Jihad preachers should wind up in jail–and then deported.
Frank Anderson says
GI, I believe, as usual, that we are in substantial agreement. Peace.
JAR says
Agree with Graven. One’s mind-heart complex is powerless to prevent crime-filled thoughts and desires.
We are not playing by the same inspirational playbook as the devout Muslim who knows his Koran and Hadiths. They “kill and are killed.” They are “made victorious by terror.” They hold that “War is deceit.” They do not exercise self-control over the violent mandates of their holy book. Will they carry out their “thought crimes”? Many do.
All who are concerned about the problem should educate themselves on why every Muslim is a potential terrorist…while the devout Muslim simply sees the jihad as a part of his or her faith. They are called to carry out such pious acts in the name of their religion/political ideology.
To coopt Christian terminology, their Islamic creed leads to their devout deeds. Their pious faith leads to their good works. Thought crimes lead to hand crimes. So, to ignore their motivating ideology is to set ourselves up only to wait for the next clean-up operation after another jihad attack.The much-touted strategy of “Countering Violent Extremism” (CVE) has been counterproductive and also proven so. Law enforcement and the people in charge are doing everyone a disservice (except the jihadists) by not learning about, studying, and identifying the marks of the motivating ideology behind these attacks.
Robert has repeatedly issued the statement that the authorities are wholly unconcerned about what is being taught in the mosques, or, even more basic, unconcerned about what is in the Koran. Why are all these converts getting the nasty idea that they should attack with cars, trucks, knives, and bombs? We might not prosecute thought crimes, but it would be wise at least to ask the question, “What is motivating their thoughts of Harb, or, what is causing the jihad seed to germinate in the mind of the Muslim?”
This isn’t rocket science. But it does reveal how willfully stupid or dhimmified the authorities and ostriches are. Limiting or ending Muslim immigration is only sensible for a civil society that wants to remain so.
gravenimage says
You are right, JAR.
Pious Muslims actually consider these atrocities to be “good deeds”, acting as their god demands.
This makes Jihadists *far* more dangerous than most Western criminals.
Lydia says
Because otherwise… how could they continue to wage jihad?!?!
Right?
At least that is what these leaders appear to be thinking and obviously are doing as if they are thinking!
DRHazard says
Yeah, and you should only go to a doctor after your curable illness becomes terminal. Europe is already in middle to late stage Islamic cancer.
Santa Voorhees says
Just one question: How can people be so retarded?
gravenimage says
It goes beyond ignorance–this is *willful* ignorance.
Adam says
The image alone of Max Hill, is the perfect face of the weak, gutless leadership of western civilization in the year of our Lord 2017. And then he speaks and all is confirmed.
I bet as soon as the Queen and Prince Charles hear of this, harsh language and a good tongue lashing are forthcoming. Indeed.
Donovan Nuera says
He looks like the late actor Larry Linville who played the craven and incompetent martinet Maj. Frank Burns on M*A*S*H
Arthur says
>>Mr Hill said: “We do not, and should not, criminalise thought without action or preparation for action.
In other words, don’t prosecute the “lone wolf” jihadi suicide bomber until he detonates. Of course, post-explosion, there will be no one left to prosecute. Taken all together, Mr. Hill’s advice is, “Do nothing.”
Frank Anderson says
Arthur, one of the first cases discussed in law school Criminal Law is also a case I would like to find again after 40 years by name and cite. It involved an archer arrested for killing a man about to throw the more or less 12th century equivalent of a Molotov cocktail onto a wooden structure called a “keep”, threatening all the occupants of that structure with a fiery and painful death.. The judge ruled in that case, which set a precedent generally followed to this day in all “common law” countries where self-defense is still allowed, that one is not required to wait until after the injury to act to prevent that injury. That case keeps coming up in issues today in many places.
PRCS says
“The Government’s terror watchdog today said introducing tough new laws to tackle hate preachers would be “quite wrong”
“the law should be targeted only at those who attempt to commit, or do carry out, acts of violence”
“We do not, and should not, criminalise thought without action or preparation for action”
“Mr Hill also urged ministers to speak to a wider range of Muslims…and criticised calls for them “to ‘do more’ to fight extremism” without spelling out what that should involve”
Well, his reasoning is correct. It’s the failure to define that actual problem that is THE problem:
Some key words used and overused in the article:
terror watchdog
hate preachers
extremism disruption orders
extremism
terrorism legislation
terrorists
terrorism
extremist clerics
terrorism
extremism
terrorism
extremism disruption orders
hate preachers
extremism disruption orders
extremists
counter-extremism strategy
extremist organisations
extremism
the most dangerous extremist individuals
extremism
too much tolerance of extremism
See a pattern?
Guest says
Who is this guy and why should we listen to him?
Relic says
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIRVOepV9Ik
religionofpeace says
Yeah right, jihadist should not be prosecuted. So what’s the point of being good citizen ?
Michael Copeland says
Max Hill QC does not appear to understand that these Islamic State fighters do not consider themselves British. By their actions they have already shown themselves to be anti-British. Has he not noticed?
He says they “should be “reintegrated into society” “. “RE”- integrated? Were they ever “integrated” in the first place?
It is up to an individual to integrate into a community. It is not the role of the community to “integrate” him, however that may be envisaged, and certainly not the community’s fault if the person fails.
Perhaps Mr Hill would take some of these poor dear “naive” youngsters into his own house, and show us how to “integrate” them.
British barristers are qualified in English law.
They have NO QUALIFICATION IN SHARIA LAW, and it shows.
Anne Smith says
To cheer everyone up read this excellent column by one of Britain’s leading journalists – and the comments below. More or less sums up exactly how everyone views this crass idiot Hill and gives a very accurate picture of how most of Britain is feels about him and his stupidity.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/do-solve-problem-like-returning-jihadis-got-pretty-good-idea/
The politicians have never ever been so detached from the views of the populace. Something has to got to give.
PRCS says
“Just imagine Grenfell doing her bright and breezy best to de-radicalise a class of repatriated Islamic State fanatics:”
Anyone here still not understand the real problem?
P.S. Remainder of article truncated by a paywall.
gravenimage says
Yes–these Jihadists do not consider themselves British–and neither should we.
Ann Sardine says
Is Max Hill a muslim?
gravenimage says
Nope–just a dhimmi tool.
Anne Smith says
Max Hill QC gives as one of his reasons to allow returning jihadis to come back to Britain that to do otherwise would result in a “lost generation”.
What an appalling argument from a supposedly educated man.
If Mr Hill would visit the British War Graves cemeteries around Europe and the rest of the world he would see thousand upon thousand of graves which represent the lost generation of brave young British men who died defending our country. That is our lost generation.
To call a few hundred disloyal and treasonous “citizens” of this country, who chose to join ISIS and indulge in a blood soaked orgy of murder rape and unparalleled savagery and aggression towards the UK, deserving of a welcome home to our country can only be the argument of a sadly misguided or deranged individual.
Could Mr Hill be one of the lawyers promoted by Mr Blair and his lawyer wife?
John Forbes says
The IDIOTS & COWARDS in the BRITISH LEGAL SYSTEM & the SO CALLED Establishment take some BEATING for UTTER STUPIDITY although this one is on a long list of LOWS !
There is simply NO LOGIC to this unless they have already agreed in the UPPER HOUSE of COWARDS that FREEDOM of speech & DEMOCRACY are not worth the bother & they will just give in as BAT EARS CHARLES SEEMS to have done already ???
After the ROTHERHAM & other towns MUSLIM CHILD RAPING EPISODES that these people knew about , DENIED, COVERED UP & IGNORED my CONTEMPT for these people is TOTAL !!
Matt says
I agree that we should not criminalise thought, only action. Joining a Caliphate that is at war with the UK is not merely thought, it is action. It is joining a joint enterprise that has been responsible for the most abhorrent acts in human history.
For that matter, wilfully continuing to be a Muslim, when your command is to wage war against unbelievers, is wilful action also. It is sedition and joining a seditious organisation and should be criminalised.
Michael Copeland says
Alas, sedition has been made no longer a crime.
See “Sedition” at Liberty GB:
https://libertygb.org.uk/news/sedition
steve says
A new word.!……’MAXHILLISM’……… Meaning; An overwhelming and desperate urge to destroy you own culture and replace it with a vastly inferior, clownish, coarse,crude and extremely barbaric belief system, in this case Islam.
Gamaliel says
What is the Muslims secret? Why does Europe which persecuted innocent Jews through history, defend guilty Muslims.
Frank Anderson says
Gamaliel, Prehaps it’s because Muslims hate Jews too.
Gamaliel says
What is the Muslims secret? Why does Europe which persecuted innocent Jews through history, defend guilty Muslims.
Henner720 says
they are scared.hence islamophobia.there is building up of terror imbalance . muslims slaughtering europeans on eu soil..eu strong measures to counter concentrationcamps since worldwars.that system keeps muslims alive. but alot of fear of system collape. if collape normal eu ppl Today, muslim killers tomorrow.jihadis want that, eu do not.
PRCS says
The gist of the article (not all the other issues posters here are dragging into the topic) was his assertion that “introducing tough new laws to tackle hate preachers would be “quite wrong””
From a freedom of speech issue (speech which does not incite violence) he is quite right.
The error, however, as it relates to Islam, is the failure to understand what Islam actually states.
C’mon, what in Hell is a “hate preacher”?
And does the British public at large ever challenge the use of these terms (from the article) as legitimate definitions of the real problem?
terror watchdog
hate preachers
extremism disruption orders
extremism
terrorism legislation
terrorism
extremist clerics
extremists
counter-extremism strategy
extremist organisations
the most dangerous extremist individuals
tolerance of extremism
Hummer says
Don’t jail rather deport them immediately. They are already riding your welfare system letting the “infidel” pay their way-end it now.
fido says
I’m embarrassed to admit that my heritage on both sides of my family is English. Can the people of the U.K. actually accept the insanity displayed by their “leaders”?!? Such utter and complete idiot insanity!!
Henner720 says
if (jailed.)
then {no contact to other personers.}
Else if (not feasable)
{ either reeducation or deathpenalty}.
Frank Anderson says
Henner, I am pretty sure the EU has outlawed the death penalty.