Friday, September 23, 2005

This attack on free speech will fuel Muslim hostility

If Britain's proposed laws on inciting terrorism were applied fairly, those who incite wars of aggression would also be in the dock


In any event, the world has not yet agreed what constitutes "terrorism". the UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, tried to simplify matters by asserting that the killing of civilians was a terrorist act, but that was rightly rejected by the general assembly. The word "innocent", contained in the original draft, was left out. What about the US security firm Blackwater's security guards? What about armed Israeli civilians who create settlements on occupied Palestinian land? The kind of language proposed in the British legislation could easily characterise a call to resist allied occupation soldiers in Iraq as incitement. Is force now to be the preserve of the powerful?

Read the full article Here


Anonymous Nostradamnthem said...

It's going to be really hard for anybody to come up with an actionable definition of terrorism without nailing Bush and Blair to the wall to be skinned. Don't hold your breath waiting....

September 23, 2005 4:58 pm  
Blogger _H_ said...

it is a lose , lose situation for Busn n Blair this one ,

either as you say they nail themselves to the wall , or the end up calling Al-Qaeda freedom fighters

how on earth do you define terrorism

I have had plenty come here and try to define it (righties) but the definition never holds up to much scrutiny

September 24, 2005 4:24 am  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home