Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2016 August 17

= August 17 =

Why do the wheels of justice turn so slow?
Anjem Choudary has been linked to upwards of 500 known radical Islamic terrorists and influenced many to engage in terrorist acts that resulted in human casualties. Why then, did it take twenty years to bring him to justice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.228.139 (talk) 06:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Being linked to terrorists is not directly an offence in the UK. Nor is influencing people who have gone on to commit acts of terrorism (though encouraging or glorifying acts of terrorism is). Choudary was convicted of inviting support for a proscribed terrorist organisation, which is illegal, and something he's only recently been caught doing. It took about a year to bring him to justice for that offence, which is not particularly long. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Addendum. There's a pertinent quote from the government's reviewer of terrorism legislation: it's "very difficult to craft a law that can clearly distinguish people who are dangerous from people who are simply revolting". -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * More on this subject here . --Viennese Waltz 13:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * They, especially in Britain, are not that scrupulous when it comes to arresting people who upload a video of their poodle making a certain gesture. There's a saying in RUssia - "find me the man, and I'll find you the crime." The simple, Ockhamian explanation is that the guy was probably useful. Asmrulz (talk) 18:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe it was some "if we arrest him now, he and his associates will know that we know" type of thing. Like the British let some German attacks simply happen so the Germans would remain in the dark about the fact that the Enigma had been cracked. But 20 years? In any case, as this stuff is presumably half-automated anyway, simply being at the center of a 500-man t***r network should have been reason enough to look into the guy a bit. Asmrulz (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That's an urban myth (see Coventry Blitz). The German messages are no longer secret, and reading them it's clear that often they were simply too vague to act on properly (before the Coventry Blitz, the Germans changed the codename for the city Coventry to "KORN", so although the British deciphered the message they had no clue about which city would be attacked). Smurrayinchester 08:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * By "look" I meant SWAT guys (or the British equivalent) falling from the ceiling, because, as I said, Britain arrests people for less. Asmrulz (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Citation needed for pretty much every single statement you made. You seem to have a rather interesting view of the English (note, justice is devolved) justice system. Fgf10 (talk) 07:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Does it count as devolved if it was never consolidated? —Tamfang (talk) 08:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "Justice" as a topic of legislative competency is partly devolved - i.e. it is devolved on some sub-topics, reserved on others. "Devolution" is about legislative and administrative power, and it describes a situation where a power is vested by the central government in a sub-national government, and which can be taken back by the central government if it so chooses.
 * The criminal justice system has always been separate and was never combined. Each of the former kingdoms has its own criminal justice system, they are separate subnational jurisdictions. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Good points well made, I phrased poorly. Still, my point stands. Fgf10 (talk) 09:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC) )
 * The SWAT thing was quite obviously in jest. As to "arresting people for less", there you go: [1 ],[2 ] Asmrulz (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not clear to me that he's done anything (or at least anything that's been adequately proved) that actually ought to be against the law. I haven't researched in detail as to whether he's crossed the line into inciting specific acts.  If not, I suspect if he were in the United States, his actions would be considered protected free speech.  (And in case my subtext is unclear, I think the US line on these things is better than most of the rest of the world's.) --Trovatore (talk) 19:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Good thing then we don't need opinions here, so your statement can be safely disregarded. Fgf10 (talk) 07:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, you're safe to disregard it, why wouldn't you be? It's still correct, though. --Trovatore (talk) 14:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Citation needed. Your statementa are far from correct. In the US, the first amendment makes prosecutions for hate speech etc far more difficult than the are in the UK. Fgf10 (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You've just effectively agreed with Il Trovatore's statement. Sehr gut. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Only if you if you are of the bizarre opinion that hate speech is good. Fair enough if you are. Most of the country here would disagree with you. Fgf10 (talk) 17:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You have a severe logical error there. You do not have to think "hate speech is good" to believe "hate speech should be protected as free speech".  In order to make that deduction that is, the deduction that you do need to think it's good to think it should be protected, you would have to believe that "only good speech should be protected as free speech", which essentially means you don't believe in free speech at all. --Trovatore (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No logical error at all. Hate speech is not protected as free speech here, and I am very happy it is not. If that means that, according to you, I don't believe in free speech, than so be it. I won't lose any sleep over it. And yes, as far as I'm concerned, the only reason for you to want to protect hate speech is to think it has a place in society. We made the decision here that it doesn't. Fgf10 (talk) 18:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The logical error I pointed out remains a logical error. You can take the normative view that hate speech should not be protected as free speech (you're wrong, but your claim cannot be refuted by logic alone).  But that doesn't save your claim that the only way you can support protecting hate speech as free speech is to think that hate speech is good. --Trovatore (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, if you genuinely think hate speech should be protected, our worlds are so far removed that making further points is futile. Either way is an opinion, no wrong or right. I'm just very very glad I don't live in your world (or country for that matter). Fgf10 (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is that "hate speech" is a slippery term. Tell me which of the following allegations qualifies as "hate speech":
 * "Muslims are terrorists."
 * "Christians are terrorists."
 * "Jews are terrorists."
 * "Buddhists are terrorists."
 * ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "Muslims are terrorists" and "Jews are terrorists" are the two statements which would qualify as hate speech; Islamophobia and antisemitism respectively. The other two are just incendiary comments, not necessarily hate speech.--WaltCip (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That's such a culture-specific comment, I can pretty much pinpoint your cultural background just from that comment. If you live in the parts of south/southeast Asia where militant Buddhists are a real problem and not an oxymoron, you would probably say "Buddhists are terrorists" is "hate speech". Similarly, there are many people out there for whom "Christians are terrorists" is a very real thing. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "That's such a culture-specific comment" -- That's the point.--WaltCip (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Do explain. Baseball Bugs' point was that "hate speech" is difficult to objectively define, and you have proven his point, but that didn't read like the "point" of your comment. Your comment reads like you believe there is an objective basis on which two of the examples are hate speech and the other two are not. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This is an example of social justice in the U.S. on the part of the government. The two statements I fingered as "hate speech" are considered as such by judicial bodies in the U.S. due to the history of prejudicial discrimination and violence against declared minority groups. It is exactly why "I hate black people" is considered racism while "I hate white people" is not. Violence and prejudice against Buddhism and Christianity is not as widespread in the U.S.. And as explained above, other governments are taking it upon themselves to deem such speech as crimes worthy of prosecution, so they might view such statements differently depending on where they are uttered.--WaltCip (talk) 18:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it is more that the founding fathers of the US felt that the government couldn't be trusted with deciding which speech is hate speech. If you believe the government handles such things well and fairly, then good.  Back in the 18th century, laws against speech were often used by the government to persecute minorities and political dissenters.  Americans at the time wanted to ensure that wouldn't happen in their new republic even if that meant tolerating many forms of offensive speech.  Dragons flight (talk) 19:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And it's clear from the response to my question above that the government indeed cannot be trusted to regulate speech. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * SWAT = SAS. Sleigh (talk) 13:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Only in very extreme cases. It would normally be the regional firearms units or counter terrorism units. Best known is probably London's CO19. Definitely not military. Fgf10 (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed; SAS = Delta Force. Alansplodge (talk) 16:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * James Bond is the British Batman, but the American James Bond is Carter. Nick Carter. The British Nick Carter is not Nick Carter, but if this true story were a detective novel, he'd probably play a more prominent role. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm, Bond as Batman? I'm not too convinced.  They're both rich (or at least comfortable in the company of the rich), suave, smart, and make similar uses of technology, so I see how you can make the analogy.  But Batman is a tortured soul, imprisoned by a need for vengeance that he can never really satisfy, ultimately to be pitied more than admired.  Bond is a carefree nihilist, in it for a paycheck, travel benefits, and the considerable advantage it gives him in his amorous pursuits. --Trovatore (talk) 19:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Both of Bond's parents died when he was young too. In a car accident, but still...--WaltCip (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Still nothing! Narcissistic alcoholic sex addicts are tortured souls, too, and they both solve terrorists before audiences get bored. Bond just keeps his moping on the inside, instead of wearing a cape. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That sounds more critical of Bond than I really meant to be. There are attractive things about cheerful nihilists.  In some ways he might be a better person than Batman; obsession with vengeance is one of the worst aspects of human nature.  Bond just isn't very deep or interesting.  What you see is what you get, and what you see is just cold competence. --Trovatore (talk) 20:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Bond is definitely the funner person, but he also killed way more people than Batman ever will. Ted Bundy-wise, he's better at his job. Jiminy Cricket-wise, Batman's better to leave your children around. Despite the mask, he's way more transparent and a terrible liar. I'd sooner have a beer with Bond, but would rather Batman lead my country in the fight against terror. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * There's a lot of bizarre commentary in this; my own will doubtless also seem bizarre to some, but it seems less so to me. The notion that, say, in the U.S. a black can't be racist against whites is absurd.  Oh sure, one sees more effects of racism going in the opposite direction, but it is the same idea with similar effects.  On a person by person basis, a Reginald Denny can say that black racism is no joke; even if you can show a larger number of black folks who are dead or unjustly in prison, that doesn't change the relevance to him, and an individualized term like "a racist" is only meaningful when speaking of individual cases.  I would go further and say that many different kinds of racism are in fact mutually reinforcing and move relatively freely within a culture from one race to another.  The religious concept of a demon seems very useful here (more so than the sanitized secular knockoff of a meme, since there is no reason to assume that ideas within a human brain are not capable of any independent thought.  A demon does not care which mob it incites to lynch what person, only for the result.  Additionally, a bigoted mind-view is just as capable of killing a gay man by convincing him that his life is worthless and leading him to suicide or careless sexual practices as it is by inciting a heterosexual to a hate crime, and I see the two as being in an equilibrium within a population of people who simply are used toward a demonic goal however they most readily serve.


 * Now the notion of suppressing "hate speech" is based on the notion that these things, whether you call them bad ideas, memes, or demons, are transmitted from one person to another solely by their open and frank expression in obvious form. However, the pervasive role of bullying (or conversely, good old boy networks etc.) in the governance of man argues that this is not the case.  (For example, in the positive sense, the "money supply", the issuance of free money by the Federal Reserve to favored bankers; in the negative sense, the society-wide phenomena under a Duterte or an Erdogan)  People often express beliefs or act on them based on a prospect of reward or punishment, and often that reward is pretty obvious and straightforward.  For example, the mythos of suicide bomber as a religious zealot comes up against the reality of straightforward payments to the families.   Show the average American or even the average German -- today, that is -- a copy of Mein Kampf and he is not going to become a Nazi; the book, which the prohibitor of hate speech would suggest is the concentrated essence of Naziism, is in fact virtually harmless, with only the faintest chance of carrying some spore of infection to a predisposed mind.  But if you were in 1933 Germany the book would be much more convincing, because any good parent would know that if he did not speak of the book with the utmost respect and convince his child to agree wholeheartedly with the wisdom of his teachings, the kid might be coming back with a mouthful of broken teeth.  And so the speech is really a distraction from the more fundamental sort of bullying and cliquishness on which societies are based, with very tangible causal networks of reward or penalty, from which all wealth and misery are so pointlessly created.


 * Now in the case of Choudhary there are many things that are not immediately obvious and may even represent the sort of legal advice we don't claim to be competent to give. In general it is clear that Britain has been moving away from freedom of speech, and indeed seems to object to the insufficient level of protection for it required for EU membership.  I don't expect Britain to do well at all with this.  To allow someone to speak is to allow the refutation of what he has to say, whereas to censor it invites the assumption that it is correct, no matter how crazy it sounds (cf. falsifiability)  However, there is also good reason in the article to wonder if Choudhary's actions ever went beyond mere speech, and actually had a more direct conspiratorial role; this is more or less what the OP alleges.  Well, the act of convicting him solely for "encouraging" people Britain doesn't want to leave for Syria is not persuasive evidence for that.  Legally speaking, he goes to jail for encouraging something that was once legal to encourage, and so it is not the "wheels of justice" that turned slow, but the wheels of legislation, and that moved so slowly because the parking brake was supposed to be set on these matters. Wnt (talk) 01:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I would like to point you to the murder of Lee Rigby and Choudary's alleged role, if any, in the radicalisation of Michael Adebolajo. There's a list of 500 terrorists allegedly radicalized by Choudary. Why and how can you defend this as free speech?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.229.191 (talk) 04:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything in our article that links Choudhary to that attack, or even specifically recognizes him for "radicalizing" the attacker before it. The government obviously held an investigation and was apparently unable to prosecute him for involvement.  As despicable as his beliefs may be, the consequences of prosecuting the people who create a motive for a crime would be extreme.  For example, suppose someone starts an organization that puts out a report that coal-fired power plants kill 115,000 people a year in India, or for a more direct analogy, merely reprints that report in a news magazine.   Someone in India loses his mother to an asthma attack and goes and blows up a meeting of coal energy executives.  Do you prosecute the author of the Scientific American article?  Why or why not? Wnt (talk) 12:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That's the reason many teachers don't allow students to cite Wikipedia. That you can't find it in the article doesn't mean there isn't a documented connection written about in many sources.  Many UK Muslims opposed Choudhary and asked the media to stop giving him a platform for his extremist rhetoric. So one has to ask why the media helped him promote his views in the first place, when there are hundreds of reasonable people who can't get heard.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.228.9 (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Because fanning the flames of Islamophobia sells more newspapers. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * People are allowed to have "radical" opinions. People are allowed to try to convince others of such opinions.  Or at least, they are allowed to in a free country.  The state has no business whatsoever using the force of law to try to prevent people from holding opinions, no matter how vile.  This means absolutely all opinions; there are no exceptions.
 * So a "role in radicalization" should absolutely be protected as free speech.
 * Now, if you can prove he told anyone "murder Lee Rigby", that, of course, is another matter entirely. --Trovatore (talk) 07:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Your statement is neither true nor in current practice in any government anywhere in the world. Taking a libertarian philosophical position and applying it to a non-libertarian world is bordering on fantasizing. In the real world, all opinions are not protected and the law as well as the state intervenes quite often depending on the jurisdiction and the type of law. You may want to read the articles on defamation and shouting fire in a crowded theater to start.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.227.22 (talk) 08:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The thing about "fire in a crowded theater" has been handed down from the highest authorities and is quoted and requoted all over the world. It is also complete, arrant, contemptible bullshit.  Our article doesn't list even a single case of a prosecution of anyone who actually shouted fire in a theater.  Meanwhile, I've read of several cases where fire was shouted (or other things; I remember reading a call of "Black Hand!" once caused a deadly panic).  In these cases people died, and no prosecution took place.  Nowadays, of course, the effects are not lethal  because the proper response, a safe theater, has been implemented.  Still, comparable events kill people  and no, nobody will be prosecuted.  The only thing that this moron's bleat of a phrase was ever meant to kill was the democratic opposition to an evil and imperialist war intended to kill an unwanted underclass so more of their goodies would be available to the rich... and the underlying principle of freedom that it represented.
 * Now why is it that people should be protected when they have the desire to kill people in horrible ways? Because society is full of them.  Practically any "ex" will look at a gun at some point or another with something other than suicide on his or her mind.  The purpose of law is to create a high wall between an ineffaceable desire to do harm and the reality.  The pedophile is not a criminal ... if he keeps his hands to himself.  Only the authorities foul that up with other deviations from free speech, creating a massive black market, allegedly in the billions that requires large numbers of abducted children to keep the money flowing.  No, society is not committed fully to liberty, but it should be, because every deviation from liberty means that people suffer and die unnecessarily.  If we let a few radical Muslims in a country stand on the hill crowing death all day, before long through sheer habit that is all they would do, even as the rest of the people would learn to refute and insult every point; but make it a war, and we can expect them to join it. Wnt (talk) 13:07, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If you are so interested in how society should be rather than how it truly is, why not spearhead your efforts and focus on Muslim majority countries where Liberty, freedom of speech, and democracy is all but nonexistent? Instead, you would have us believe that western societies should tolerate and allow speech that threatens to harm and deny others the freedom you defend.  There is no right to such speech.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.227.136 (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If you stifle "harmful" speech, then you compromise your own freedom. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * All societies stifle speech in some way; threats, defamation, intent to harm, all of these things are tightly controlled. There is no society in the world where you can say what you want at any time and expect people to allow it.  It doesn't exist.  The major issue that nobody is addressing is that Choudary and his compatriots are the very ones who seek to stifle free speech, not those who oppose him.  And yet, somehow, this is turned around on its head.  Cartoonists freely depict religious figures in their art and are killed; filmmakers criticize religion and are murdered; dissidents in the same religious ranks are killed for believing differently; women are attacked and murdered for showing skin, for choosing their mates, for having an affair, for marrying outside their religion; LGBTQ are killed for being who they are; writers are killed for imagining a story; painters are killed for creating art.  And yet, and yet, we are told throughout this thread that those who seek to put a stop to the incitement of violence are the ones suppressing speech!  How can this be?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.230.111 (talk) 19:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Threats and defamation against individuals can be harmful, and are not protected free speech. Regardless of laws, there will also be those who want to kill others, for any number of reasons. If they announce it ahead of time, they might be arrested for overt threats or sued for libel. Vague, general threatening opinions are a different matter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I am no fan of Islam. I simply don't happen to believe that censorship works for any good purpose that it claims to work for, while being quite convinced it works for evil purposes it tends not to advertise.  I am convinced that people can argue against Islam and especially radical Islam more effectively than they can fight it with police and prosecutions.  If you want to go oppose Choudhary's beliefs, great!  Write an essay, add mocking commentary beneath his YouTube video, burn some Korans, draw some comics of Muhammad robbing caravans, sending assassins after poets and raping a nine-year-old girl.  (True, not all these comics are legal in England, but they ought to be; that too is injustice)  But don't go putting people in jail simply because they believe this Islamic dreck.  Realistically speaking, there were about four million Ku Klux Klan members at the height of its power and they killed a bit over 3000 people; there have been over three million Muslims in the U.S. and they killed a bit over 3000 people.  That's about 1 murder per 1000, which is less than the roughly 1-per-333 for the U.S. you see at List of countries by intentional homicide rate.  No doubt the hardest core Klansmen and the folks like Choudhary are a tad more represented, but still, we're talking about numbers not far above the background rate.  It's enough to hurt, especially if one of yours is the one killed, but not enough to tear apart society to stop.  And... there are folks who believe in the War on Drugs -- who do more damage to our various countries than Islam has, or would even if it had ten times the people or ten times as radical a group of believers -- and who's going to throw them in jail?  No, the most dangerous ideas are always the most widely believed, and nobody ever bans them. Wnt (talk) 20:36, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * See my comment here So, Anjem Choudary may have caused a few retarded people to join ISIS, but on balance you should expect that his hate speech had a net positive influence, i.e. the feedback from society against his arguments had a stronger effect in the opposite direction. Count Iblis (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * To say it had a "positive influence" seems just a tad too charitable. I don't think that having someone rant on in favor of radical Islam is actually a better thing than having him, oh, rant vapidly about New Age crystals and astrology.  But I think that it's like a child handing in a test paper - you can't get worse than having all wrong, and having all wrong is (or should be) no worse than not trying to learn a subject at all.  His ideas are all wrong, yet they require some tangible act to become a crime and a true negative; but they also require some tangible external act of observation, criticism and commentary to produce any positive value. Wnt (talk) 01:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)