The Forum > General Discussion > What should we do with people like Samina Malik?
What should we do with people like Samina Malik?
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
-
- All
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Saturday, 8 December 2007 10:53:43 AM
| |
She was actively inciting genocide of non believers.Is this against our laws?I think that there has to be a distinction made between people who say things casually and those whose intent is clear and ongoing.If enough evidence is gathered and the intent is clear,yes then she should be charged.
Posted by Arjay, Saturday, 8 December 2007 4:18:01 PM
| |
Dear Steve,
What are our options when confronted with someone like Malik? Well, as you've seen from all the adds that state, "If you suspect anything / or anyone acting suspiciously...report them." We have anti-terrorist laws in place in this country. Let the law deal with someone like Malik. It did so in the UK - She was charged, and hopefully got enough of a scare that she won't pursue it any further. Writing poetry and thinking of herself as a martyr she thought was 'cool.' But when faced with the reality of her action - well, as I said, let's hope that being put on trial was enough to bring her back to reality. Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 8 December 2007 5:41:28 PM
| |
Do neither of you, Foxy & Arjay, see any danger in laws that criminalise thought?
Do neither of you worry about us becoming a police state? Perhaps giving the state Stasi-like powers poses a greater danger than the likes of Samina Malik Posted by stevenlmeyer, Saturday, 8 December 2007 6:04:21 PM
| |
Dear Steve,
Stasi, Gestapo, KGB, MI5, FBI, CIA, ASIO, They all were/are pretty frightening - of course. Some more than others. But what is just as scary to me - are the London bombings, the Bali bombings, the Twin-Towers in New York and the list goes on... I don't want us to live in a George Orwell "Big Brother" world. No normal person would. However, when we know that there are certain small groups out there that are bent on not only killing themselves but taking victims with them and when evidence casts suspicion on a given person - I would rather have that matter looked into. I'd rather be safe than sorry. Our terrorism laws don't infringe on civil liberties and human rights (otherwise both parties wouldn't have agreed to pass them in parliament.) And Malik, in the UK - was given a fair trial - and received a suspended sentence. So what's your problem? Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 8 December 2007 6:35:28 PM
| |
Steven
'thought' crimes are already in place. 'Grooming' children on the net is a crime,and nothing is actually 'done' its all about thought. Downloading child pornography is a 'crime'.. but no child is hurt or touched. Again...its a 'thought' crime. It is patently rediculous to suggest that either grooming or downloading are unrelated to the 'thought' they are simply the early outworking of the end game. Obviously, with terrorism, the level of 'intent' is the hardest part to determine. -Grooming.. 'intent' -Downloading Porn.. may or may not involve 'intent' to hurt a child. Downloading beheading videos and relishing them... + seeing oneself as a 'martyr' ? well if there is any less 'intent' there than in the other exemples.... I cannot see where. Dear Foxy ...you suggested that the 'shock' of being arrested might have sufficiently shaken her up and brought her back to reality? Having visted the committal hearing in Melbourne of the 13 arrested alledged terror suspects, I assure you, there is not the slightest hint of 'back to reality' on any of their faces, except one, who's brother I chatted with in the court. You really need to explore some of the ranting, preaching, sloguns, 'grooming' (in a terrorist context) and moulding which goes on in the world of radical Islam. "We love death more than you love life" kind of thing. Here is some info for your perusal. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKt7J1U1Cs8 Watch....and learn. Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 8 December 2007 7:45:20 PM
| |
Steve and Foxy might find this vid interesting.. its about Samina Malik
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbIosTmXXQo&feature=related Some interesting aspects. Cheers Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 8 December 2007 8:04:16 PM
| |
Seconding what David said:
Secular society already has thought crimes on its books: -Some countries lock-up people who express the thought that The Holocaust did not happen (as David Irving found out), & -If you kill or bash someone and you are motivated by racist or ‘homophobic’ thoughts –you stand to get an added sentence. Then we have the thought crimes on the religious books. Where we are told that if you think of a woman in a lustful way, you have already sinned. And who can forget those feminist posters around campus that asserted that if you ‘leered’ at a woman you were already guilty of a host of horrendous crimes… Posted by Horus, Saturday, 8 December 2007 8:29:49 PM
| |
If someone breaks the law in actually making statements encouraging
an act of terrorism then the law should be applied. That law should apply a lifetime ban on being employed in proscribed industries, such as aviation, public transport, data systems etc. The list would be long but it should be looked at in the light that a typhus carrier would not be employed as a nurse or a chef. Someone who had a psycholical problem would not be employed as an airline pilot or a train driver. Likewise a moslem who has advocated or supported acts of terrorism should be proscribed from what are generally acepted target industries. You don't like it ? Tough ! Posted by Bazz, Monday, 10 December 2007 9:27:40 AM
| |
the question at the thread's title was 'What should we do with people like Samina Malik?'.
While I agree on the danger of creating and acting on 'thought crimes', the other side of the coin is to wait until something actually happens, which doesn't help potential victims. Maybe an investigation should be carried out to see if the person in question is capable and willing to take the thought further into action. I don't think that excuses of overstretched police resources etc should be used to back out of this. Take some cops away from traffic duty where they were employed to stop someone driving a few Ks over the limit or revving up a noisy car. Then, if the investigation proved a genuine risk of thoughts escalating to violence etc, inter or, if forein-born, deport the potential perpetrator. I wonder how the muslim countries would deal with similar 'threats'. Posted by Jack the Lad, Monday, 10 December 2007 12:26:40 PM
| |
I don’t know if Malik is a British national but she should be offered the opportunity to live in one of the Muslim republics. She can the practice her beliefs with her Muslim brothers. She has no place in any western society but should fit in well in Iran or Yemen.
Posted by SILLE, Monday, 10 December 2007 6:16:38 PM
| |
Samina Malik is not intending to be a terrorist threat. Unfortunately her values and beliefs speak volumes and can fuel the mind of someone who could potentially be one.
Music is universal and controversial. Here's lyrics from an emcee by the name of Cilvaringz whose track is titled "Death to America" http://www.lyricsmania.com/lyrics/cilvaringz_lyrics_15758/i_lyrics_45750/death_to_america_lyrics_494575.html Should he be charged as well? Is this freedom of speech? Should they be held responsible for any blood shed they influenced? --- http://www.paydayland.com.au Posted by Keri, Tuesday, 11 December 2007 2:30:43 AM
| |
KERI,
On the whole I have to agree with you. I do not know what are Malik's intentions. But until she commits an overt act or until she conspires actively with another it seems she is being convicted of thought crime. And I agree that if we applied the same principle to rappers – nice one that – we would have a lot of people in prison. Yes, giving the likes of Malik free reign to continue producing this filth does increase the chances of a body count. People COULD die or be maimed. Yet the giving the state powers to censor our thoughts seems to me to be the GREATER RISK. In the end it may be easier to get rid of the terrorists than to dial back the powers of a police state. JACK THE LAD There is a limit to police resources. Right now more people die from traffic accidents than from terrorist attacks so police doing traffic duty is not necessarily a misuse of those resources. On the other hand I think we should have a traffic police separate from the main police force. Just BTW the number of people who died as a result of 9 / 11 was roughly the same as the number killed EVERY MONTH in traffic accidents in the US. The number who died in Britain's 7 / 7 bombing are the equivalent of roughly ONE WEEK'S worth of traffic fatalities in the UK. Posted by stevenlmeyer, Tuesday, 11 December 2007 7:04:03 AM
| |
Thank you for a thought-provoking post.
However repugnant this person’s views, I don’t think she has done anything that can or should be deemed a crime. And to make thought into crime is a serious erosion of our freedom, as well as the start of a scary slippery slope. To live in a free society is risky. People will hold and express offensive and even dangerous opinions. Where citizens’ every action is not controlled or watched by the state, there may be more opportunities to overstep the bounds of what is legal and permissible. But I’d far rather live in a free society and run its risks than seek the false security of coerced conformity, which so often turns against not just the dangerous and criminal citizens but also the unpopular, free-thinking or simply odd ones. Anyway, as you say, our perception of the risk of terrorism are disproportionate. Governments of course encourage this, as seems to justify the removal of our freedoms in response to terrorism. Posted by Rhian, Tuesday, 11 December 2007 8:45:02 PM
| |
Yes - this is a thought provoking thread. On balance, I find myself in agreement with Steven for a pleasant change :)
If we lock people up for what they think and write, we've lost it. Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 11 December 2007 8:58:31 PM
| |
CJ Morgan,
I wonder whether you really do agree with me. Freedom of speech for Samina Malik is also freedom of speech for a skinhead who rhapsodises about "mowing down" Muslims with a machine gun outside Lakemba Mosque. It is freedom of speech for the pervert who publishes on the internet his fanatasies about raping four year old children. It is freedom of speech for Professor Andrew Fraser of Macquarie University who advocates a return to the White Australia Policy. CJ Morgan, You may want to view this youtube clip. (Link originally posted by Boaz) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbIosTmXXQo&feature=related I happen to think that the risks of censorship outweigh, by far, the risks of allowing skinheads or racists their say. But I shall not pretend free speech is risk free. It isn't people can die as a result of free speech. People's lives can be ruined. But censorship also kills and on a far grander scale Posted by stevenlmeyer, Wednesday, 12 December 2007 8:53:36 AM
| |
What a good post. For my contribution I would like to agree with the author.
We are all guilty of thought crime. Sometimes I would love to neutralise my boss. But the rational and unemotional part of my thought processes prohibits me from doing something which I believe is morally and legally wrong. I might even express a desire to commit an act knowing that I had not the ability to effect my purpose. For another person, who does not know me, to judge that I am not going to regulate my own behaviour sounds frightening to me. Thought policing. Option 3 is disturbingly the safer option for our society as a whole. Posted by sintch, Wednesday, 19 December 2007 1:38:11 PM
|
She also called herself the "Lyrical terrorist." In one of her poems she wrote, "The desire within me increases every day to go for martyrdom, the need to go increases second by second."
See:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/08/npoet108.xml
When reading about Malik I'm reminded of the behaviour of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold in the weeks preceding the Columbine shooting.
Samina Malik was convicted under one of Britain's anti-terrorist laws. She was given a nine month suspended sentence.
So far we know, Malik did not commit any overt act of terrorism. Nor, on the evidence presented, was she conspiring with anyone to do so.
Inayat Bunglawala of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) thinks Malik was convicted of "thought crime."
See:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/inayat_bunglawala/2007/12/dont_even_think_about_it.html
Leaving aside the fact that a defence of free speech from anyone associated with the MCB is rank hypocrisy, I find myself in agreement with Bunglawala. Malik was arrested for "thought crime."
What are our options when confronted with the likes of Malik?
(1) We can keep her under surveillance.
(2) We can take pre-emptive action before she commits a violent act. This is, in effect, what the Brits did.
(3) We can wait for her to commit an overt act and then arrest her.
IN TV land (1) may be feasible. In the real world the resources do not exist for keeping sickos like Malik under surveillance
Option (2) risks us becoming a police state in which no one is safe.
I think (3) is actually the least unpalatable option. In the long run it is less dangerous than (2)
But the price of option (3) could be civilian casualties.
Of course I would not like to be a Muslim in Britain if someone like Malik actually carried out one of her sick fantasies. Suppose she had videoed herself beheading someone and placed it on youtube?