Al Qaeda Warrior Uses Internet to Rally Women - NY Times

[TrexLink]

Wonderbread - I do not claim to have the answer. What you say is inherently comforting, instinctively right, but at what stage of the game do you step on dissent?

I think somebody criticizing our society, lauding (for instance) bin Laden and so forth is - however disgusting you and I may find it - entitled to do so. If you quash that, it's the first step towards censoring anything the party/prince/junta/cabinet in power disagrees with.

I believe that anybody posting bomb-making directions (with or without the shilly-shallying defence line This information is for interest only - do not attempt!) has crossed the line. But where do you draw that line?  That's the tough part.

Don't get me wrong - if this woman and her clan fell under a convenient bus, I wouldn't mourn for more than a nanosecond, but free speech is a tricky issue.

 

[George Wallace]

As was pointed out earlier, she is a hypocrite.  She does not practice what she preaches.  She has not passed the Final PC.  Thus she has failed the Crse, and is therefore unqualified to make the comments that she does.  >

 

[X-mo-1979]

Charlie Manson didnt "kill" anyone...he's in jail.

What's the freakin difference?

Not to mention inciting violence,hate...

Can I really get away with that?

(and by "that" I mean slipper's with sexy on them)

 

[Fusaki]

...at what stage of the game do you step on dissent?

I think somebody criticizing our society, lauding (for instance) bin Laden and so forth is - however disgusting you and I may find it - entitled to do so. If you quash that, it's the first step towards censoring anything the party/prince/junta/cabinet in power disagrees with.

I think this is a good place to start:
http://www.ps-sp.gc.ca/prg/ns/le/cle-en.asp

I'm all about free speech, and I'm a firm believer that those who trade freedom for security end up with neither. But just like the use of lethal force, the limiting of freedom of speech can be carried out by a legitimate authority in an ethical way. I think the trick is to apply it in as specific way as is practical.

For example:

A police officer in a stable nation has the authority to use lethal force under a very specific set of circumstances. A soldier has the authority to use lethal force in an unstable nation under a wider set of circumstances.  A soldier is still morally and legally bound to use as much discretion as possible when killing bad guys, but his rules of engagement will lay out his left and right of arcs as clearly as possible.

When it comes to freedom of speech, I think the Canadian Government's list of terrorist organizations plus any group we are actively at war with, would make a very nice left and right of arc for limiting free speech. How it is applied depends on each situation. In Afghanistan, I think a print shop making Taliban propaghanda posters might be an excellant target for a JDAM. Taliban politicians in Afghanistan might not be trigger pullers themselves, but hey, neither is the #2 on the Talib mortar team outside PBW. They're both bad guys, and they've both got Hellfires with their name's on 'em.

Obviously we wouldn't want to undermine the Belgian government by dropping bombs on Miss El Aroud's apratment, but she should be delt with the same way as any other Al Qaida member known to be living in that country. If she was living in Canada, I'd say that speaking for an organization that is on the Government of Canada's list of terrorist entities would make you part of that terrorist entity. That is a very specific set of circumstances that I believe would be the moral justification for the police to take action against her.

But hey, I'm just a LAV gunner...

 

[OldSolduer]

OK I bit...the badgers are hilarious.


Back to the topic....what a b!tch. Some 7.62 jewellry would look good in between here eyes.
Oh but we can't do that can we? Freedom of speech and all, right?

 

[George Wallace]

5.56 mm is the zirconium version.  Much cheaper.  It is much better to be up close and personal, than have a "long distance relationship.  >

 

[OldSolduer]

OK then George....what about a .22 calibre.....very up close & personal.

That's how they got Dr. Gerald Bull....whoever "they" were.

 

[Greymatters]

This is the paradox of democracy and free speech.  If freedom to speak openly is limited only to those with whom you agree, what is the difference between that and, say, China?  If we are to have freedom of speech, it must be extended to rabidly unpopular opinions and speeches.

Free speech isnt a free appetizer.  Its a concept that is embedded in the fabric of our society, and upon which many ofour laws are formed to ensure and support.  Those who abide by this system are entitled to the benefits of the system, that including free speech.

The persons in question do not support free speech, do not support our concept of western society , and in many concepts are directly opposed to the concepts of democratic representation/ freedom of religion/right to life/equal rights/liberty/happiness/free congregation/etc. 

If you are not part of the system, and do not support the system, you are not entitled to the benefits of the system.  Free speech is for those who are willing to abide by the rules, not for those who hijack the system and use it for setting up and destroying the system.

For this site in particular, you can go back through my posts as an example and you will find that at times Ive said some extremely unpopular things.  I do not agree with everyone on this site.  There are even a couple of people on this site I dislike.  Im sure there are a couple of people who dislike me (well, who knows, maybe hundreds dislike me).  I wont get invited to the next high tea, but no one can kick me out unless I disobey the site rules, and as long as I stay within them, Im entitled to the same rights they are.  You will find if you research that people get kicked out of this site not because they say rabid things but because they broke the site rules, which are enforced rigidly.     

Back to your comment - There is no paradox.  Freedom to speak openly is not limited only to those with we agree with, but to those willing to support the concepts for everyone.  The difference between us and China is that here you have it and in China you dont.  It is extended to rabidly unpopular opinions and speeches provided those persons also extend that privelage to everyone else (which they usually dont).

Rant out, over...

 

[scoutfinch]

To paraphrase Voltaire (and my Dad from whom I heard it first as we were driving past some long haired, dope smoking, friends of Jesus protesting at the airfield gate at Lahr):

"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend with my life your right to say it"

 

[OldSolduer]

I can't agree with TrexLink.
While opinions differ, to actively encourage people to murder is NOT free speech. It's counsel to commit murder. And I believe that is covered in the Criminal Code of Canada.

 

[TrexLink]

I can't agree with TrexLink.
While opinions differ, to actively encourage people to murder is NOT free speech. It's counsel to commit murder. And I believe that is covered in the Criminal Code of Canada.

Oldsoldier - I fully agree that there need to be limits.  One cannot stand up in a crowded theatre and should, "Fire!", for instance.  We have restrictions on child pornography. Similarly, there is hate crime legislation on the books.

Given that we agree on that much, the question comes back to my original point - where do you draw the line? Scoutfinch and Greymatters have summed it up pretty well, but I will try again.  If the person or persons in power limits 'free speech' to opinions he or they themselves are comfortable with, then there is indeed no free speech. The test of freedom, in other words, is not determined when everybody is in agreement, but when they disagree, perhaps strongly.

I was never comfortable with the general philosophy behind US Supreme Court Justice William Douglas' rulings and opinions, but one he issued rings very true:  A function of free speech is to invite dispute.  It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger.  Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea.

The big question of course, given that we are agreed that not everything should be considered 'free speech', is how high we set the bar?  In this case, this contemptible woman was charged and convicted for how far she went.  That much impresses me, even though the sentence was a joke.

 

[OldSolduer]

To invite dispute is one thing Trex, to counsel people to become suicide bombers and murderers is quite another. That is not "free" speech...its a criminal act. From teh Criminal Code of Canada:
"1) Where a person counsels another person to be a party to an offence and that other person is afterwards a party to that offence, the person who counselled is a party to that offence, notwithstanding that the offence was committed in a way different from that which was counselled. "

2) Every one who counsels another person to be a party to an offence is a party to every offence that the other commits in consequence of the counselling that the person who counselled knew or ought to have known was likely to be committed in consequence of the counselling.
Definition of “counsel”

(3) For the purposes of this Act, "counsel" includes procure, solicit or incite.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 22; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 7.

Does this not cover it? I guess the Belgians have a different view...

 

[TrexLink]

Oldsoldier - I think I said quite clearly that I approved of this particular woman being taken to court. Hand me the lever; I'll throw the trap, OK? 

Incitement to crime is wrong and nobody denies that. That particular action is indeed over the line.

On the other hand, merely stating on the internet that bin Laden is a good man, a holy man and that his aims are just and proper (gag!) must be permitted if our boast about freedom is to endure.

 

[Fusaki]

Given that we agree on that much, the question comes back to my original point - where do you draw the line?

See my previous post, and it's link to the Canadian Government's list of Terrorist Organizations.

Limiting the propaghanda of any group that our government considers to be terrorist, or any group that we are currently at war with seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable place to draw the line. It's not as if we'd be stomping on the free speech of every group that disagreed with us. It's stomping on the free speech of a few very specific groups we are at war with.

Freedom of speech is, IMHO, closely linked with the freedom to live. Police and the military have the legal right to revoke someone's freedom to live, under a very specific set of circumstances. Police and military should also have the right to revoke someone's freedom of speech, again provided that the situation falls within a very specific set of circumstances. We only become a totalitarian state if those specific circumstances become a broad set of circumstances. This is the difference between a government that protects it's people and a government that oppresses it's people.

 

[TrexLink]

This is the difference between a government that protects it's people and a government that oppresses it's people.

I know what you are trying to say and I understand it. I cannot say that I fully agree with it, however.  The general filter you propose is probably as good as one can get, but it still disturbs me. There is a difference between urging somebody to commit a crime and supporting a highly unpopular cause. It is too easy for a group to simply be declared 'terrorist' by fiat, leaving them and their supporters no recourse or appeal.  Imagine if Dick Nixon had had such powers.

One thing that does strike me is the one line above. I think I know what you are trying to say, but I'm pretty much of an anarchist/Randite/lesser faire type. Frankly, I wish the certain circles would stop trying to protect me so damned much and just left me alone more.  The PC 'momma-knows-best' arrogance in some circles is starting to get to me. No, on second thought, scratch 'starting'.  I'm so protected now, against my will, that I would settle for a great deal less.  On the subject - ever notice that nobody ever says, "I really don't like what I'm doing - please pass a law to stop me."  Not! It's always, "I don't  like what he's doing - please pass a law to stop him."

 

[Fusaki]

I know what you are trying to say and I understand it. I cannot say that I fully agree with it, however.  The general filter you propose is probably as good as one can get, but it still disturbs me. There is a difference between urging somebody to commit a crime and supporting a highly unpopular cause. It is too easy for a group to simply be declared 'terrorist' by fiat, leaving them and their supporters no recourse or appeal.  Imagine if Dick Nixon had had such powers.

Well, the way I see it, we can declare someone an enemy combatant and kill them - provided that the specific situation calls for it. I don't think it's too much of a leap of logic to declare someone an enemy combatant and curb his or her freedom of speech - provided that the specific situation has called for it.

The fact of the matter is that terrorists are finding holes in the legal system that is supposed to protect us, and exploiting them. The more we can do to specify what is acceptable and what isn't is what will make it harder for anti-western extremists to carry out attacks against us. Our legal system is capable of handling judgement on matters life and death, it is also capable of handling judgement on freedom of speech.

The PC 'momma-knows-best' arrogance in some circles is starting to get to me. No, on second thought, scratch 'starting'.  I'm so protected now, against my will, that I would settle for a great deal less. 

Thats easy to say coming from the insulated perspective of the western world. But I'll take a shot in the dark here and bet that Israelis don't complain about airport security, if you see where I'm going with this...

 

[X-mo-1979]

In 2007 a Swiss court convicted them(he and her husband) of operating Web sites that supported Al Qaeda. Her sentence was suspended; he served 23 days.

Convicted last June of promoting violence and supporting a criminal organization, she received a six-month suspended sentence; Mr. Garsalloui, who was convicted of more serious charges, was released after 23 days. Despite Ms. El Aroud’s prominence, it is once again her husband whom the authorities view as a bigger threat. They suspect he was recruiting to carry out attacks last December and that he has connections to terrorist groups operating in the tribal areas of Pakistan.

Now, even as Ms. El Aroud remains under constant surveillance, she is back home rallying militants on her main Internet forum and collecting more than $1,100 a month in government unemployment benefits.


Here's a thought if Mr.Stephen Boissoin (may remember the name)can get charged guilty of hate speech against the gay community for a letter he wrote a newspaper,how could anyone get away with this sort of thing?Although both are hate speech's this woman is also inciting violence.

I highlighted the tribal area's of Pakistan for a reason.How far of a stretch would it be to charge her for aiding terrorism,or murder for that matter?

 

[the_girlfirend]

But this woman is one of so many, would it even make a difference to stop her?
Those organizations know how it works, they know how to recruit people.

I know that extremists are recuiting canadian citizens every day and exactly the same way she does.
what if they became 1% of the population?
It would be the end of the world as we know it...

How do we stop that from happening? I feel so powerless.  ???

 

[1feral1]

OK then George....what about a .22 calibre.....very up close & personal.

That's how they got Dr. Gerald Bull....whoever "they" were.

I made a similar comment all tongue in cheek of course (on the Kadhr thread), and a few limpwristers had a whinge to the mods and actually complained, and guess who got a wee bit of a spanking.

Be careful what you say on here, we don't wanna offend anyone do we  : especially the dogooders (ya they even exist on here too).

 

[Zell_Dietrich]

Normally this could be a case of rights to free speech vs harm caused by people saying stupid things.  This doesn't come even close to being that. 

If she was in Canada,  she would be subject to many many laws.  As a foreigner she could be "black bagged" and held indefinitely, without trial... well the evidence does need to be shown to a Federal Court judge, but this can be done "in camera" (witgout the accused there whoo hoo).  http://www.amnesty.ca/take_action/actions/canada_certificates.php ( http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/I-2.5/index.html )  Then we could simply deport her, at our leisure.  I'm not sure if we have to pay attention to where we deport her to, I'm not sure on that one.  (the easiest thing would be to drive her to the border and say get out - after alerting the Yanks where to pick her up)

Now we can debate the ethics of this (and many do) but facts are that this process only is allowed for non-canadians who came here and we have evidence that they intend to do harm.

If she was Canadian... we could get her on a very large, and expanding set of laws.  Terrorism:  http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-46/bo-ga:l_II_1//en#anchorbo-ga:l_II_1

And just for giggles we could get her with high treason: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-46/bo-ga:l_II//en#anchorbo-ga:l_II
High treason

46. (1) Every one commits high treason who, in Canada,

(a) kills or attempts to kill Her Majesty, or does her any bodily harm tending to death or destruction, maims or wounds her, or imprisons or restrains her;

(b) levies war against Canada or does any act preparatory thereto; or

(c) assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are.

These are very standard laws, and I am beyond surprised that the Belgin don't have similar laws on their books.