We are terrorists and we are proud!

[Rainman05]

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/danish-bo...ars-inciting-terrorism-081640285.html#sIyp0mL

Danish bookseller sentenced to four years for inciting terrorism

COPENHAGEN (Reuters) - A Danish-Moroccan bookseller has been jailed for four years for supporting and inciting terrorism in posts on Facebook.
A lawyer for bookseller Sam Mansour argued that his Facebook messages such as "We are terrorists, and we are proud" were a matter of freedom of speech, just as Danish cartoonists who drew the Prophet Mohammad in 2005, outraging many Muslims, were deemed to have been exercising their right to free speech.
"I just used the civil rights that Danish society has given me," Mansour said in his defence statement, adding that he had hurt no one.

Mansour's other posts included "Jihad is a duty".

50+ years old. Repeat offender as a promoter of jihad and terrorism.

Another person who has a job, has been living in denmark for some time now, and lo and behold, still hates the country where is living and wishes it to be the same as the country he left. Unintegratable.

But lets talk about freedom of speech.

This is hate speech. Is hate speech freedom of speech or not? I mean, jihad is war and terrorism so therefore, inciting to terrorism isn't covered by free speech, that's what the Danes say.
But here's a question.
Let's say that in the current context with Russia people would say
"war with Russia is just"
or
"War with Russia is a duty"
or
"We are anti-Russians and we are proud of it!"
Would that be hate speech/ not free speech?

You see, as damaging as such statements would be and as stupid as they would be, would someone deserve to be jailed for them in a free and democratic country?
I have a feeling that you would most likely not be jailed for such statements.

Now it may seem like I'm defending this islamist guy, I'm not. I am however noticing that because of muslims, Europeans are at risk (in multiple ways, but here I'll focus just one way) of losing, in whole or in part, their civic liberties. Which we would never have to lose if it weren't for the many muslims in Europe.

Freedom of expression is there to safeguard the right of unpopular opinions. And supporting jihadism is not just an unpopular opinion (it is very popular with muslims, but unpopular with Europeans), it's a criminal one, but still... having set a precedent for such crackdown years ago because of muslims seems such a waste and a pity. In other words, having the right of freedom of expression suffer dents because of an asinine opinion that is very popular with muslims seems like a waste and it sets the path for it to be more and more diminished. And I fear for that. And it is early days now and some may say "that will never happen" but those people are just overwhelmingly stupid. Keep putting dents into freedom of expression, a bit here, a bit there, and when it will have to be a shield for you, you'll how it is full of cracks.

 

[German guy]

IMO, freedom of speech does not include the right to call for crimes.

Call for a crime, and you lose your freedom of speech. Calling for jihad is calling for a crime. Case closed, as far as I am concerned.

 

[Rainman05]

IMO, freedom of speech does not include the right to call for crimes.

Call for a crime, and you lose your freedom of speech. Calling for jihad is calling for a crime. Case closed, as far as I am concerned.

See that's what I was thinking too.

But would you say then that if I were to say
" War with Russia is a duty"

Would that be a crime?
Or does it have to be "Go kill Russians"
Is that a crime?

"war with russia" is a state act, so there are safeguards and implications, and all that, while "go kill russians" is a personal act. Like if there was a russophobe group whose members would randomly kill russians just coz they're russians.

I mean, I know that technically there is a difference in the process, but the end result is the same, dead russians. So what I am asking is where do we draw the line? Do we look at the end result or do we look at the process? In murder, there is a process involved, so the difference between murder in the 1st degree and manslaughter is intent to kill. Is there such a distinction when it comes to terrorism? And where is that distinction?

I'm asking because terrorism is a "new thing" in the world. And the definitions are blurry at best. I mean, it's been around for milleniums but always in the form of a concentrated, organized action taken on by organized individuals with intent to achieve a greater purpose. Like overthrowing a regime or holding the authorities hostage so that a criminal gang can do what it wants. Terrorism is just killing random people for the fun of it done by mentally legally sane individuals. So you can see how such an abstract definition makes me wonder.

Anyway, this whole post may make no sense because I don't know yet. I don't have a clear concise idea and my mind cannot come up with a clear definition that has clear parameters and I fear that's because there is no clear definition with clear parameters anywhere. And that's a problem because people can use the statement "this is to fight terrorism" to do legal abuse and constrain "inconvenient" civil rights... and its' not always done with evil intention, some people may wanna do it thinking it's the right thing and not looking at broader implications.

 

[PeteEU]

Some background on this guy. He is not a recent "immigrant"... in fact I would not call him an immigrant as it would be an insult to immigrants.

He came to Denmark in 1983 when he was part of a family reunification with his sister.. you see in all their wisdom the Social Democrats in the 1970s made it possible for immigrants and official refugees to get close family members to Denmark. This single law has caused most of the problems in Denmark when it comes to immigrants. It was the most brain-dead law ever as it meant that people of course abused the system.

Person A immigrated to Denmark legally during the 1960s when there was jobs. By the 1970s there was no jobs but they were not thrown out. But now they missed their sister and mother and father, who then could come to Denmark. The sister could bring her family, aka husband, and he could eventually get his parents and siblings.. you get the drift right? The abuse was so massive that you had "marriage trips" by men and women to the "homeland", mostly Morocco, Turkey and Lebanon (Palestinians), where they as 16-18 year olds were sent to get married and that way get 10+ people to Denmark. You think the whole anchor baby thing in the US is a problem.. you know nothing.

Now this law was thankfully changed during the 1980s, but not by 1983 if I remember right... we still have a family reunification law, but it is very strict these days especially relative to the bad old days.

Anyways, he married a Danish girl, converted her to Islam.. they had kids, and got divorced. After his first conviction he married another Danish girl and converted her. Now the problem is here, that most Danes would love to kick this moron out and I would be at the front of the que to do so, but he is married to a Dane and has Danish children and that is when we get into legal problems it seems.

So he goes to jail for repeat offending and costs the Danish taxpayer even more. No instead he should have been kicked out and had his kids taken away from him. Scum like him and his followers have no reason what so ever to stay in Denmark or Europe.. move to ****ing Iraq among their ISIS brothers and see how they like that better.

As for his free speech.. as long as he wants to remove free speech from everyone including me, then he has no right to free speech. He is sub-human scum.

I am so tired of radicals like him tainting everyone else around him.. regardless if it is a Muslim or Christian or Jew.

 

[DDD]

After so much bashing this guy, an image would be in order?

 

[gunner]

Some background on this guy. He is not a recent "immigrant"... in fact I would not call him an immigrant as it would be an insult to immigrants.

He came to Denmark in 1983 when he was part of a family reunification with his sister.. you see in all their wisdom the Social Democrats in the 1970s made it possible for immigrants and official refugees to get close family members to Denmark. This single law has caused most of the problems in Denmark when it comes to immigrants. It was the most brain-dead law ever as it meant that people of course abused the system.

Person A immigrated to Denmark legally during the 1960s when there was jobs. By the 1970s there was no jobs but they were not thrown out. But now they missed their sister and mother and father, who then could come to Denmark. The sister could bring her family, aka husband, and he could eventually get his parents and siblings.. you get the drift right? The abuse was so massive that you had "marriage trips" by men and women to the "homeland", mostly Morocco, Turkey and Lebanon (Palestinians), where they as 16-18 year olds were sent to get married and that way get 10+ people to Denmark. You think the whole anchor baby thing in the US is a problem.. you know nothing.

Now this law was thankfully changed during the 1980s, but not by 1983 if I remember right... we still have a family reunification law, but it is very strict these days especially relative to the bad old days.

Anyways, he married a Danish girl, converted her to Islam.. they had kids, and got divorced. After his first conviction he married another Danish girl and converted her. Now the problem is here, that most Danes would love to kick this moron out and I would be at the front of the que to do so, but he is married to a Dane and has Danish children and that is when we get into legal problems it seems.
So he goes to jail for repeat offending and costs the Danish taxpayer even more. No instead he should have been kicked out and had his kids taken away from him. Scum like him and his followers have no reason what so ever to stay in Denmark or Europe.. move to ****ing Iraq among their ISIS brothers and see how they like that better.

As for his free speech.. as long as he wants to remove free speech from everyone including me, then he has no right to free speech. He is sub-human scum.

I am so tired of radicals like him tainting everyone else around him.. regardless if it is a Muslim or Christian or Jew.

The bolded part. PETER EU, please do not miss the irony!

Paul

 

[PeteEU]

The bolded part. PETER EU, please do not miss the irony!

Paul

Not sure what you mean here to be honest. Are trying to blame the EU for something?

 

[Brochacholomigo]

After so much bashing this guy, an image would be in order?

I Googled his name, and these guys showed up the most. Good luck guessing which one is the one from the article.

 

[gunner]

Not sure what you mean here to be honest. Are trying to blame the EU for something?

Right to a family?

Paul

 

[gunner]

I Googled his name, and these guys showed up the most. Good luck guessing which one is the one from the article.

So what exactly is it you like in Petes post?

Paul

 

[Brochacholomigo]

So what exactly is it you like in Petes post?

Paul

I also didn't know what your point was. Also, as you will see from a quick glance to the left side of the screen, I like most, if not all, posts that I find any common ground with.

 

[gunner]

I also didn't know what your point was. Also, as you will see from a quick glance to the left side of the screen, I like most, if not all, posts that I find any common ground with.

OK. What common ground did you find with Pete?

Paul

 

[PeteEU]

Right to a family?

Paul

Has nothing what so ever to do with the EU. That is the European Convention of Human Rights, which pre-dates the EU/EEC by a decade. It was also written by a former Tory minister, has been part of UK law, and Danish law at least since 1948 if not before.

 

[Brochacholomigo]

OK. What common ground did you find with Pete?

Paul

The beginning of my first reply to you.

I also didn't know what your point was.

 

[gunner]

Has nothing what so ever to do with the EU. That is the European Convention of Human Rights, which pre-dates the EU/EEC by a decade. It was also written by a former Tory minister, has been part of UK law, and Danish law at least since 1948 if not before.

I know fully were it originated from. Stop assuming I'm some ill informed, outsider. The policy has been stretched so far by the ECHR, that is resembles very little of the original intended people's.

Paul

 

[PeteEU]

I know fully were it originated from. Stop assuming I'm some ill informed, outsider. The policy has been stretched so far by the ECHR, that is resembles very little of the original intended people's.

Paul

Then stop calling it "EU".. it aint. As for the ECHR interpreting the treaty, well that is another matter but it is their job. If anything you need to blame David Maxwell Fyfe, 1st Earl of Kilmuir as he was the man behind the treaty.

 

[DDD]

I Googled his name, and these guys showed up the most. Good luck guessing which one is the one from the article.

The second one seems a more typical Islamic fundy. I could be wrong though.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

-- As for his free speech.. as long as he wants to remove free speech from everyone including me, then he has no right to free speech. He is sub-human scum --

This is where the true test of freedom of speech to say something unpleasant comes in. I think if you have one rule that covers freedom of speech for one group then it should apply to all. The boundaries should also be clear for freedom of speech should also be clear and apply to all.

 

[PeteEU]

This is where the true test of freedom of speech to say something unpleasant comes in. I think if you have one rule that covers freedom of speech for one group then it should apply to all. The boundaries should also be clear for freedom of speech should also be clear and apply to all.

Yes but he can do his free hate speech from Morocco or IS Syria.

 

[PeteEU]

The second one seems a more typical Islamic fundy. I could be wrong though.

It is the second one.