24th June, 2010
‘Man jailed for urging PM killings’
The kill Blair & Brown charge was shelved.
The BBC report (13:58 today) is more accurate. Few others are, online. BBC excerpt:
Charges, which he denied, of soliciting to kill the ex-PMs were not pursued.
In May, when Kanmi admitted some charges, the Crown Prosecution Service said it was willing for the counts relating to Mr Brown and Mr Blair to lie on file.
LYING ON FILE
‘Lying on file’ doesn’t mean the suspect is lying. Good gracious, of course not! Basically it means the CPS has decided to “drop” the pursuit of this charge.
In other words this “urging” to kill named individuals was NOT seen as incitement to violence, or anything all that serious. Or it was not seen as chargeable. Or, most likely, it was not seen as winnable.
WHY would the courts allow the murder incitement charges to lie on file? The terrorism act clearly says that incitement to kill (even generally) is an offence and chargeable. Is not a more particular targeted threat – to named individuals – even MORE inciteful?
If it were you or I whose names were on that internet site would we not feel that this man should be charged with inciting others to murder us?
DENIAL FACTORS & PUBLIC/LEGAL SMPATHIES
The reasons for us turning a blind eye to the urging of the murder of politicians are many and complex. They are to do with human rights (not the politicians’ rights, of course, only those of the would-be assassin’s.) They are also to do with the victim/perpetrator argument being turned on its head with the help of the liberal literati, the press and ‘informed opinion’.
Thus this man’s free speech is free and is his. After all he only incited because he felt his whole religion had been attacked and threatened. So, even if he had succeeded in inciting others to action, it is likely that the proportionality comparison would have been mooted as the reason in the court of public opinion – the left anti-war press – if not in the real court. And the courts cannot risk upsetting public opinion by finding against this poor inciter victim, now can it?
Anyway, the possibility of losing one or two politicians in this way is nothing like as bad as pursuing a whole religion, after all. Is it?
Well, is it?
DON’T CONFUSE US WITH TOO MANY FACTS
So, I put the above free speech/human rights/victimised religion/ proportionality argument to one side. After all he is not on his own in this kind of call. We are all allowed to call for death to British/western politicians these days, aren’t we? Putting that aside as a given – (sorry but that’s where we are in 2010, thanks to such as the Guardian CiF pages where Free Speech trumps all, unless you’re pro-Israel, of course) – for which other reasons was he not charged with incitement to kill Blair & Brown? Despite the incitement being all over the internet?
For at least two other reasons –
It’s political, people.
One, the public, whose brains have been addled to the extent that they see the perpetrators as victims and the victims as perpetrators. Such widespread “liberal” thinking would mean that if this man had been convicted of the incitement charge, the literati would likely have come out in favour of the would-be assassin rather than the could-have-been-already-dead politicians.
Two, the Crown Prosecution Service knows when its beaten. Even with the words in black and white (red too if I remember correctly) on the internet, this charge would have unwinnable for the CPS in the long run. Because with the inevitable appeal or two (HR courts being the “2”), this ‘kill PMs’ charge might have compromised ALL the charges, so allowing the man to escape all justice.
How come, I think I hear you ask again. I’ll tell you in a moment.
But first, what does the TERRORISM ACT of 2006 say? In Section 1 –
Encouragement of terrorism
(1) This section applies to a statement that is likely to be understood by some or all of the members of the public to whom it is published as a direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement to them to the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences.
(2) A person commits an offence if—
(a) he publishes a statement to which this section applies or causes another to publish such a statement; and
(b) at the time he publishes it or causes it to be published, he—
(i) intends members of the public to be directly or indirectly encouraged or otherwise induced by the statement to commit, prepare or instigate acts of terrorism or Convention offences; or
(ii) is reckless as to whether members of the public will be directly or indirectly encouraged or otherwise induced by the statement to commit, prepare or instigate such acts or offences.
That is EXACTLY what this man was originally charged with.
If you do not accept my points on “addled-brained” public opinion I recognise we do agree on what I describe as the British Denial syndrome on Islamist terrorism in Britain.
If you do not accept a possible judicial drawback and thus failure because of our courts’ liberal tendencies let me assure you that this situation has already arisen in this country. Yes, it has happened before in our ever-so fair, fair-minded courts.
It happened when a judge, hearing an appeal, decided that the original jury which had been faced with several charges, may have been confused as to what they were originally trying to convict the man on! So, in case they were confused, looking at one charge and not another poor innocents, he dismissed the whole case. The man won his appeal.
This has happened within our judicial system. Melanie Phillips refers to in her book LONDONISTAN. If I find the link I will add it here later.
This man was not given the opportunity to claim case law and cite confused jurors when it came to an appeal, which it will, as it always does.
So for the lesser charges of – collecting or making a record of information likely to be useful to a terrorist and three counts of disseminating terrorist publications – all of which he admitted, he received sentences of five years’ imprisonment for all his offences, apart from one count of dissemination in which he was given a four-year jail term. All sentences run concurrently.
Which means he’ll be out in about two years.
THE PRESS REPORTS WERE SIMPLY WRONG ON THIS SENTENCE AND CHARGE
- 1. The UK Reuters, report said: ‘British Muslim jailed for “kill Blair” threat’
- 2. From UKPA – ‘Man jailed for urging PM killings’
- 3. The Independent leads WRONGLY with this – ‘Man jailed for urging Blair and Brown assassinations’
- 4. The Metro has it wrong too – ‘Man jailed for urging PM killings‘
- 5. The Malaysian Insider – ‘British Muslim jailed for ‘kill Blair’ threat’
- 6. And from here at Fox there are, so far, the following Facebook & Twitter links (EACH AND EVERY one of them is WRONG!) Personally I do hope FOX fo r one will take up the story as to why exactly this man was NOT found guilty or even ultimately charged with incitement to kill two leading politicians. The British press sure as hell won’t. They already know why.
RT @foxheadlines: WORLD: British man jailed for 5 years over planned terror plot to kill Tony Blair, Gordon Brown http://fxn.ws/bjp1x6
So, of the reports I have found so far, only The BBC’s and the Guardian’s report and headlines are accurate
But you might note how The Guardian mentions his “miserable childhood”, cited by his defence. Awwww. Sweetheart. That kind of thing turns a lot of us to threaten to kill Prime Ministers.
Reuters report with this misleading headline – British Muslim jailed for “kill Blair” threat
LONDON (Reuters) – A British-born Muslim who pretended to lead “al Qaeda in Britain” and urged sympathisers to assassinate Tony Blair and Gordon Brown was jailed for five years on Thursday.
Ishaq Kanmi, 24, wrote on a Jihadi website that the two former prime ministers would be targeted by “martyrdom seekers” if his demands were not met.
He promoted himself online as Umar Rabie — the leader of “al Qaeda in Britain” — as he composed messages on a public computer at the Central Library in Blackburn, Lancashire.
Manchester Crown Court heard how the claimed UK cell of al Qaeda was fictitious and that there was no evidence the defendant had any links with the group.
The trial had also heard how Kanmi was a “lonely young man” who had been bullied at school and who later “wallowed” in extremist material downloaded at his library, the Press Association reported.
Prosecutors said Kanmi issued a two-month deadline in January 2008 calling for the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, together with the release of all Muslim inmates from the high-security Belmarsh prison in London.
He pleaded guilty at an earlier hearing to professing to belong to al Qaeda and inviting support for it, but denied soliciting the murder of Blair and Brown.
Kanmi was arrested at Manchester Airport as he waited to board a flight to Finland in August 2008.
He had three electronic storage devices in his suitcase and was carrying a mobile phone which all contained terrorism-related information which he intended to distribute.
(Writing by Stefano Ambrogi; Editing by Steve Addison)
Jihad Watch takes a different angle in its headline – U.K.: Jihadist on trial for calling for death of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown was “lonely” Almost accurate though. Except for the one little factor – the charge of calling for deaths of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. That was left on file in May. This man was only found guilty, also in May, of lesser charges. He was sentenced tody onthese lesser charges.
As I said, we Brits don’t really want to challenge or even upset anyone who’d like to kill us. After all … well …they might actually DO it.
Jihad Watch uses a suitably understanding video link to the Big O. No, not Obama.
- 1. UK, June, 2006: Human rights ruling leaves anti-terror law in tatters
- 2. USA, today: Jihad Denial Syndrome also exists in the USA Congress.
‘See no jihad. Hear no jihad. Speak no jihad.
This sums up the Obama administration’s national security assessment regarding our ongoing conflict with global Islamic jihad. Unfortunately for us, it seems they have come down with a severe case of Jihad Denial Syndrome (JDS).
Americans were tipped off to this when the Pentagon released its report on the Fort Hood jihadist attack. The mountains of evidence, including Nidal Hasan screaming “Allahu Akbar” as he fired away, indisputably revealed that Hasan was motivated by the ideology of jihad.
Yet the body of the Pentagon report achieves the remarkable feat of avoiding a single mention of “radical Islam,” “jihad” or any similar reference.’
Tags: 5 years jail, assassinate prime ministers, five years prison, Gordon Brown, incitement, internet incitement, Ishaq Kanmi, jihadist not charged with incitement, kill Blair and Brown, murder charges dropped, plotter jailed, Tony Blair, UK plotter