I was just ruminating some sort of response to the treason debate when the offending preacher skipped the country leaving the prime minister playing to himself. As the media machine faltered he threatened to return, giving them the opportunity to start talking about banning him again.
After hearing very eloquent Muslims who have been various shades of not condemning or not condoning the bombings, and various more alarming claims of "a great victory for Al-Qaida" have also been made I find myself in the remarkable position of agreeing with the government.
As Michael Howard
urges the judiciary today to stop thwarting the will of MPs and play a full part in the fight against terrorism.
I say bollocks. Let the judiciary take him up on his challenge.
Let it be treason.
Treason against innocents of this country.
Overhaul these laws so that they actually mean something.
Condemning or not condoning should be argued by a jury of my piers.
I think that the judiciary are the only effective force of dissent left in British society.
And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free
5 comments:
Treason's a great place to start, and the courts seem appropriate enough.
It seems that the power-struggle is already starting between legislators and the judiciary. Very counter-productive.
"...I find myself in the remarkable position of agreeing with the government"
Are you feeling well? Fever? Touch of the flu? ;-)
"...when the offending preacher skipped the country..."
Trials are a good start, and perhaps deportation. What happens when someone, in a safe haven, plans attack after attack? After a while, heaping life sentences on him by the dozen in absentia might start to seem a little, oh, I don't know, unsatisfying. What then?
"After a while, heaping life sentences on him by the dozen in absentia might start to seem a little, oh, I don't know, unsatisfying. What then?"
m says - do as the Israelis do - sentence them to death by assasination whereever they are in the world, then make sure you carry it out.
I too agree with the government's stance on deportation - but I'm not entirely sure whether the hands of the courts have a little too much freedom in this matter at the moment - maybe they should have them tied far more tightly in this matter with leglislation than they are at present. At least the government is making the right noises about doing just that if the judiciary do not toe the line.
do you think that would work?
What are the legal requirements to charge treason in Britain?
You are deemed to have committed treason if you fail in your "duty of allegiance to the British Crown".
I've failed already. I hate the queen and have no aliegance to her whatsoever.
Post a Comment