Question about Abu Hamza extradition

Post Reply New Topic

If Abu Hamza can be extradited for the United States for anti western hate speech, why can't Nick Griffin be extradited to Israel for his holocaust denial?

Seriously, can someone answer this?

Because you don't have your facts straight. He's charged with 11 counts of terrorism, including taking hostages, supporting the establishment of a terrorist training camp.

If Nick Griffin takes hostages, support terror camps in Israel, supply the Palestinians with material support, and so on, we can talk.

I think the Israeli security services would entirely disagree with you.

If we talking about criminality, there is a whole host of incidences that the British National Party can be pinned on.

This, for a kick off- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Copeland

Holocaust denial isn't a crime in many Western countries. It's a disgusting, repulsive position to take, but doesn't directly threaten Jews in itself. Calling for Jews to be attacked though is breaking the law.

Your insinuation is not comparable. Nick Griffin, as repugnant as the little waster is, doesn't support terrorism, nor has he been involved in terrorist activities.

If you want to talk about Holocaust denial, do you want me to show you the regular, open occurrences of Holocaust denial and support of famous Holocaust deniers by popular clerics, broadcast constantly on mainstream TV in most Arab countries? Should all these people be sent to Israel? These are immensely popular, well-received and completely mainstream media figures in these countries. To them, it would be like saying that Terry Wogan or Simon Cowell should be sent to Israel.

Last edited by Tequila on 10 Oct 2012, 11:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

No more than Norway's libertarian Progress Party can be blamed for the activities of Breivik. Both of which repeatedly and explicitly reject violence.

Read your article:



Again, nothing to do with the BNP.

Griffin's party has in the past attacked jews.

http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100 ... ethod=full



Whats more i dont think you understand completely why holocaust denial is a sensitive issue that it is a threat to Jews. It serves to legitimise the policies of Adolf Hitler, and to undermine the historical significance of the genocide itself.



Erm, the insinuation is wholly comparable.

The BNP has been involved in political violence (as above) and the dogs in the street know they have offered support to loyalist death squads in Ulster.

If you like, I can link you more incidences of BNP thuggery not that it will do much other than further substantiate foregone conclusions.

While we're on the issue of BNP criminality some of them arent just thugs, they even have paedos in their ranks. You couldnt make it up, as they say

http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/hate-grou ... onvictions

Afforementioned anti semitism happens by figures in countries whose states are hostile to Israel so obviously are sympathetic to the point of protective of these figures.

Just because we cant do anything about it doesnt mean we should tolerate anti semitism on our own back yard. My goodness, I thought as a vocal Israel sympathiser we could at least agree on that much.

Last edited by thomas81 on 10 Oct 2012, 11:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

Such parties glorify and provide the ideological rationale of such violence. Much like what the BNP are doing.

Maybe I've misunderstood new legislation but isn't 'glorification of terrorism' now illegalised?

Certainly enough to get Mr Hamza in s**t, AFAIK the only crime he commited in the UK is run his mouth off. The precedence seems to run one way sadly. Typical right wing double think.

The Israeli security services can disagree as much as they like, however Holocaust denial is not a crime (in Britain), taking hostages, and providing material support for terrorists are. Israel has a law against holocaust denial though, but that doesn't matter in this context.

You did make a subtle premise change from "Why isn't Nick Griffin extradited for holocaust denial" to "Hey, members of the BNP have done criminal things" so let me just short-form as to why you're wrong.

A) If we buy your premise and apply that universally, then anyone who ever criticized religion should be extradited to Pakistan for trial using their archaic blasphemy laws. Hell, that's what you're arguing.

B) If we are applying the criminality of members of a party to their party leader, then we better put the leader of Labour on trial for corruption right now, and "Call me Dave" on trial for tax evasion.

The reason he was extradited was that he was charged with a crime in the US, much like Julian Assange is requested to be extradited from the UK to Sweden to face rape charges, or how just about any other criminal can be extradited within certain rules and laws to a country where such an agreement exist.

The issue is one of extraterritoriality.

The United States treats terrorist acts against US citizens anywhere to be offenses punishable under United States law. But the United States does not extend the same extraterritoriality to other classes of offenses.

So as far as Israel and Nick Griffin is concerned, until he commits an offence that Israel would punish extraterritorially--and which is also a crime in the United Kingdom--there is no basis for a request for extradition.

Wrong. A member of Griffin's party attacked Jews. If the BNP then came out and said that they agreed with his attack on Jewish people and that it's party policy to support violence against Jews, you might well have a point.

If a member of the Labour party brutally attacks EDL members unprovoked, does that make the Labour Party supportive of attacking EDL members, even though they say they're against it?

I'm sorry, but in general it's the far-left today that has a much bigger problem with violent suppression of free speech and assembly than the far-right. Not that it really makes much difference at the end of the day - they're generally two cheeks of the same arse.



I understand perfectly why it's a threat to Jews, thank you very much. I'll thank you not to try insulting my intelligence.

Members of the BNP have been involved in political violence. Same as Labour Party members and SWP members have been involved in political violence. Doesn't mean that their party supports it. Any respectable party would distance themselves from these types forthwith.

As for the loyalists and the BNP: "dogs on the street" = no proof. Again. My impression of the relationship between the BNP and Ulster loyalists is that loyalists generally dislike the BNP - they get very few votes in Northern Ireland and are generally very unwelcome. They've had some run-ins with loyalist types in the past over there and they usually have come off worse.



I could do the same with other parties. It doesn't mean that their party supports what they do.



And the Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem, UKIP, Green, RESPECT parties don't? All political parties across the world have these sorts of people in them.

All parties have their share of bigots, racists, sectarians, homophobes, child abusers, wife beaters, religious loons, thieves and other criminals. The difference is that in big parties like Labour and the Tories, they're a lot easier to simply ignore.



Notice they single out the BNP rather than talking about the many convictions of people in all parties. They have an anti-BNP agenda - fair enough, but they shouldn't pretend that they're impartial.



I never, ever said we should tolerate anti-Semitism - how dare you!

And I don't support Holocaust denial laws because it feeds into the bastards' persecution complex. Let them be challenged and ridiculed for their beliefs, don't put them beyond the pale. That just gives them validity and may well help to attract more sympathisers than would otherwise be the case.



Telling.

You're talking out of your behind again. You'd have a better claim if you said that the Labour Party and Conservative Party supports the violence of the UAF, considering that they directly fund them, even when made aware of the numerous violent incidents members of that organisation has been involved in.

The Progress Party, like UKIP and other parties, campaign for a reduction of immigration into Norway and for integration of existing immigrants into Norwegian society. They're not really a lot different from classical liberal/conservative political parties elsewhere in Europe. They were absolutely horrified just as much as, if not more than, anyone else when they learnt what that nutter had done. Peaceful voices like theirs have the most to lose by being smeared with a mass murderer's actions.

They also received 20% of the vote in the last Norwegian election. Are you saying that those voters approved of what Breivik did?

Ask TM about them. If I lived in Norway I'd almost certainly be putting a vote their way.



Where have the FrP glorified terrorism anywhere in their manifesto? Again, you're smearing vast portions of the political spectrum and public opinion with the actions of one violent lunatic, which almost no-one has defended, everyone has reviled and hated (Breivik is, without doubt, the most hated man in Norway, especially among FrP types) and even the most right-wing Norwegians have utterly despised him.

Actually, no they don't. I may as well argue that social democratic parties or socialist parties provided the rationale for Stalinism and the Red Khmer. What you're doing is to take someone who says A, then argue that they cause B, C, D and E.

You cannot blame a party for their members taking s**t to far unless its official party doctrine. For instance, if The Labour Party, were to argue "We should raise taxes on the rich by 3%" and one of their members took it upon himself to don a balaklava, carry a shotgun and breaking into rich people's houses, so he could give their belongings to poor people, I could argue that the labour party glorified and provided the ideological rationale for his actions, but it would be stupid of me to do so.

Or that, erm, Irish nationalist parties provide the rationale for republican violence! In fact, there's a much stronger case for that, especially with SF!

Scary irish voice: Are you protestant or catholic?

Scared person: I'm an atheist

Silence.......

Scary Irish voice: Protestant Atheist or Catholic Atheist?