Via Instapundit: Yesterday on Twitter, Sam Hooper gave me a little grief – perhaps deserved – for my comments on the day’s Three Martini Lunch podcast generally supportive of U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May’s proposal of new measures in response to the recent Islamist terror attacks.
Hooper asked, “should someone be arrested for saying ‘I want to overthrow the US government and establish an Islamic state?” Not for actually doing it, mind you, but merely for saying the words. Are saying those words aloud a crime? If so, aren’t we getting unnervingly close to the concept of “Thought Crimes”?
It’s fair to ask that question; it’s entirely possible that my perspective on terrorism right now is emotionally clouded by the thought of those ten children, and 22 people overall, went to an Ariana Grande concert one night and never came home. Indeed, it would be odd and unnerving and inconsistent with our traditions of free expression to arrest and imprison someone for the mere expression of the thought.
(On the other hand, if you’re going to have a hate crime law the way the United Kingdom does, it’s pretty ridiculous to not apply it to someone who’s preaching violence against infidels.)
But when we’ve witnessed and endured Islamist terror attack after Islamist terror attack in one Western city after another, isn’t it fair to ask how many who call for an Islamist overthrow of the government and imposition of Sharia law are truly harmless?
Hooper asked, “should someone be arrested for saying ‘I want to overthrow the US government and establish an Islamic state?” Not for actually doing it, mind you, but merely for saying the words. Are saying those words aloud a crime? If so, aren’t we getting unnervingly close to the concept of “Thought Crimes”?
It’s fair to ask that question; it’s entirely possible that my perspective on terrorism right now is emotionally clouded by the thought of those ten children, and 22 people overall, went to an Ariana Grande concert one night and never came home. Indeed, it would be odd and unnerving and inconsistent with our traditions of free expression to arrest and imprison someone for the mere expression of the thought.
(On the other hand, if you’re going to have a hate crime law the way the United Kingdom does, it’s pretty ridiculous to not apply it to someone who’s preaching violence against infidels.)
But when we’ve witnessed and endured Islamist terror attack after Islamist terror attack in one Western city after another, isn’t it fair to ask how many who call for an Islamist overthrow of the government and imposition of Sharia law are truly harmless?
(Link to the whole thing)
6 comments:
This is why recognizing (1) the existence of a war on western values (however you want to term that) and (2) the identity of the enemy (islamic terrorists) are important, not just semantics. This is why the Obama admin went WAY out of its way ("workplace violence," "human caused disaster," avoiding use of "islamic terrorism" or any association of islam with the Bad Things and Expedited Death Situations That Keep Happening, etc. etc.) to avoid recognizing and identifying either.
I'd say if a person immigrates to a country and then says, "I want to overthrow this country's government and establish a new one"; I think it is fair to arrest them and send them back home to play with their own government.
Leland, that's true if and only if they are not a US citizen since they wouldn't be afforded Constitutional protection. I think this would make the case that unless certain visa documents actually confer certain Constitutional protection, then your argument is a moot point. If you are a US citizen, then expressing the idea of overthrowing the government would not only be upheld but protected. It's one thing to say it, it's wholly another thing to try and do it. That would be actionable.
During WWII, they locked you up if your ancestry and politics weren't kosher (literally), so...
What they count on is we have rules, they really don't.
The UK already has thought crimes (they practically invented them in the Anglosphere). I'm just amazed that they haven't made any progress in thwarting nut jobs. All of the perps lately were on the authority's radar. Well why didn't they act? How many other preps are "on their radar" right now and not being thwarted?
That being said, it is a formidable task to police their own jihadi population.
The thing is Meth, a large number of these terrorists are foreign nationals allowed into the country on a visa.
Post a Comment