Hoist by their own petard?
According to Edward Fitzgerald, QC, acting for the defence in the trial of Abu Hamza, the "Crown's case against the former imam of Finsbury Park Mosque was 'simplistic in the extreme'." His rationale for this assertion, it seems, was that the statements he made, for which he was on trial for soliciting to murder under the Offences Against The Person Act 1861 (and not, incidentally, under the allegedly vital legislation currently being blithely voted into law), were "drawn directly from Islam's holy book". Mr. Fitzgerald went on to point out that "all the great monotheistc religions had scriptures that contained 'the language of blood and retribution'."
Mr. Hamza was found guilty of the six charges of soliciting to murder, as well as three charges related to the use of threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with the intention of stirring up racial hatred, and a couple of other charges. (Just as a brief aside: racial hatred? It seems indubitable that Mr. Hamza's words and actions were entirely religiously motivated. Yet a prosecution has been brought successfully under laws pertaining to racial hatred. Hmmm. Who'da thunk it?) To me it seems to follow, entirely logically, that the verses of the Qu'ran that Mr. Fitzgerald went to such pains to quote in open court - that is, 2.216 and 9.111 - constitute, if spoken aloud in a public place, soliciting to murder.
Mr. Fitzgerald was of course correct to point out that the Qu'ran is not the only holy text with bloodthirsty passages, and there can be no doubt that if one were to stand in a likely spot quoting certain verses from Leviticus or Exodus or - why not? - Revelation, one could be arrested with all despatch, and probably tried and imprisoned a good deal faster and with a good deal less media hand-wringing than Mr. Hamza, even without a cache of arms and bomb-manuals back at the crib. I am not attempting here to separate the Qu'ran from the Bible or even the Tanakh or the Talmud, or to paint it as especially troublesome (although its more delusional adherents are certainly another matter). As creation myths go I'm sure they're all equally charming in places, and equally bellicose in others (although I reiterate my previous remarks about the extensive remit, not limited to matters of faith, that the Qu'ran grants itself). My concern is simply this: there is, I am sure, some legal mechanism, which may or may not fall under the definition of precedent, by which the finding guilty of Mr. Hamza, after his remarks were explicitly attibuted to the Qu'ran, by his own barrister, no less, now implicates the Qu'ran itself under the same laws. If a man can be imprisoned for soliciting to murder having stated clearly that he was quoting directly from a certain document, what legal status does that confer upon the document?
Mr. Hamza was found guilty of the six charges of soliciting to murder, as well as three charges related to the use of threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with the intention of stirring up racial hatred, and a couple of other charges. (Just as a brief aside: racial hatred? It seems indubitable that Mr. Hamza's words and actions were entirely religiously motivated. Yet a prosecution has been brought successfully under laws pertaining to racial hatred. Hmmm. Who'da thunk it?) To me it seems to follow, entirely logically, that the verses of the Qu'ran that Mr. Fitzgerald went to such pains to quote in open court - that is, 2.216 and 9.111 - constitute, if spoken aloud in a public place, soliciting to murder.
Mr. Fitzgerald was of course correct to point out that the Qu'ran is not the only holy text with bloodthirsty passages, and there can be no doubt that if one were to stand in a likely spot quoting certain verses from Leviticus or Exodus or - why not? - Revelation, one could be arrested with all despatch, and probably tried and imprisoned a good deal faster and with a good deal less media hand-wringing than Mr. Hamza, even without a cache of arms and bomb-manuals back at the crib. I am not attempting here to separate the Qu'ran from the Bible or even the Tanakh or the Talmud, or to paint it as especially troublesome (although its more delusional adherents are certainly another matter). As creation myths go I'm sure they're all equally charming in places, and equally bellicose in others (although I reiterate my previous remarks about the extensive remit, not limited to matters of faith, that the Qu'ran grants itself). My concern is simply this: there is, I am sure, some legal mechanism, which may or may not fall under the definition of precedent, by which the finding guilty of Mr. Hamza, after his remarks were explicitly attibuted to the Qu'ran, by his own barrister, no less, now implicates the Qu'ran itself under the same laws. If a man can be imprisoned for soliciting to murder having stated clearly that he was quoting directly from a certain document, what legal status does that confer upon the document?
posted by Novus at 02:14
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home