The British press is under a gag order not to reveal the name of al Qaeda’s main fundraiser and go between in Britain. The man, identified only as “G”, was one of five who had successfully challenged in the British High Court the government’s powers to freeze terrorist suspects assets.
[…]
This will probably come as a shock to no one, but since the British press won’t reveal “G’s” name yet give every possible hint as to his identity, here it is: G is MOHAMMED AL GHABRA.
Much more at the link.
Stupid judges
“Stupid Judges”? Not really. Judges have to act according to Law. It’s the Law that is wrong. The country has suffered an Act of War. Where is the Law that deals with that? The US has the Homeland Security Act. It’s not adequate in dealing with these Activities but it should be.
There should be Law that addresses “Fifth Columnist” activities in all western countries that Radical Islam has declared they are at war with. Why is there not? That’s the question. If there were adequate Law to address the problem the HR Commissions would be short a few cases and the radicals shooting off their mouths would be sent to jail; sans judges. Instead we have Hanoi Jane’s on every corner.
The Law is once again proven an ass, happens all the time. Judges have been known to interpret laws to suit their own ideas as well using loop holes we the great unwashed are not privy to.
We are at war against terrorism, our soldiers and innocent people dying because of it and we’re still protecting known terrorists and supporters like the Khadrs here in Canada. We continue feeding and housing them while the slugs breed more of the same on our dime.
Once they set foot in Canada they’re protected by the late Bozo Trudeau’s Charter, can’t get rid of them, they have all the protection we have and more. They can speak out against us, the HRC’c never worry, that’s their right, we do not have that same right, they are more equal than we.
Just ask Levant and Steyn.
Stewart Bell’s article in the National Post yesterday titled “Home-grown ‘champion of Islam’ was another eye opener for those who need it.
His picture appears with the article, well it’s a human head covered in the traditional dishrag material,bespectacled eyes peering out. Can’t show his face, someone might discriminate against him!
His name is Naeem Muhammad Khan, he lives in, where else, Toronto. apparently he has no job but has an apartment and hopes to complete a degree in business. It states he’s an Islamist, not a terrorist, thank God/Allah for that!
His profile on Facebook includes “Support our Troops”. Bell asks “Which troops are you encouraging people to support and why?”
Answer: “Support our Troops means supporting the mujahideen[soldiers of God] who are fighting for their freedom and rights against illegal occupation in many, many places over the world like Afghanistan, Iraq, Chechnya,Kashmir, Palestine and Somalia.”
So there you have it folks, all the freedom of speech anyone could wish for right here in Canada.
This dude is 23 years old. He also cites Osama Bin Laden as a Hero and “rejects democracy and all other forms of governance except Islam”.
Guess our democracy will be fine for it’s safety and comforts and free whatever he requires until he finds the “Islamist” state he likes.
Nice to be able to afford a Toronto apartment, have a plan to finish a university degree,all in a system he doesn’t believe in, while he sits on his arse at his computer spreading the word for the Islamic cause or whatever and he has every right to do so in this democracy.
Oh Canada indeed! More like Trudeaupia.
Gunney
The country has suffered an Act of War. Where is the Law that deals with that?
There is no need of a bloody law to respond to an act of war. The correct response to an act of war is to kill and destroy the enemy, by any means.
There are laws against sedition and treason. They should be employed.
So is MOHAMMED AL GHABRA the British (outed) al_Qaeda guy related to our Mississuaga- Erindale yappy Liberal Ontario Memeber of parliament?
Just curious.
RW; that is what I was inferring. That’s what “Fifth Columnists” are. They are members of our own societies either planted or born here who aid and abet the enemy. They can be either just stupid people or enemy agents; no matter they are just as dangerous. When your soldiers are in the field dealing with the enemy, the debate is truly over. During WW11, the big one, self proclaimed Nazis were carted off to jail in my home town. We had a law against sedition and treason.
A temporary law such as the old War Measures Act was a good thing.
Liz J; well spoken. This is a Mackenzie Institute editorial of 2002:
Editor’s Remarks
The modem liberal (Canadians, please note the small case ‘L’)
has a remarkably poor track record at recognizing evil until it
is too late. Mackenzie King thought Hitler a rough but
admirable fellow until the war began; he was not unique in this.
Others in the 1930s considered the Soviet Union to
be a [me society aimed at human weal, and damn all evidence to the
contrary. Sixty years later, the same inability persists.
Yasser Arafat is considered a leader and
someone for our diplomats to consult, not an inadequate and
corrupt thug on the make. The Chinese government is seen as a
potential business partner, not as a foe ultimately bent on our
humiliation and destruction. Fundamentalist zealots are a
regrettable but sometimes legitimate outgrowth of deprivation.
We found no end of excuses to avoid swift and decisive action
against a host of murderous, corrupt or dangerous actors in the
last few decades -some of whom could have easily been prompted
into moderating their behavior.
In our Western societies, political and diplomatic careers attract
those schooled in political science, law, and administrative
principles. They soon become involved in process and network
with others like them. Intelligence, shaped by contemporary
rationalism, and general impulses of progression and goodwill
decides their worldview. When they travel, they tend to meet
other people much like themselves, or who at least convincingly
act like them. Thus arises the modem liberal conceit that all
intelligent people are rational (as the liberal understands rationalism)
and can be
dealt with accordingly. Alas there are plenty of intelligent people
who have no truck with our kind of rationalism -and many of them are
evil indeed.
Kinda think they’re all related through the Mohammed line, lot of Al’s and El’s too. Just call him Al and welcome to Canada, the land of the free for some. Land of Trudeau Equality, some more equal than others.It’s called a Just Society, a Pierre Buzzword he had no idea what it entailed,sucked in a lot of people though.
“The country has suffered an Act of War. Where is the Law that deals with that?”
Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005
Terrorism Act 2006
“The Law is once again proven an ass, happens all the time.”
Yes. Lets get rid of laws.
“There are laws against sedition and treason. They should be employed.”
He has not been proven guilty of either. Otherwise he would be in jail. He is under surveillance so that they can catch him when he trips up. I am not saying he is not guilty – he probably is. But until that is proven “beyond a reasonable doubt”, he is not guilty. When they have enough evidence they will put him away.
But then again, this is not about the “beyond a reasonable doubt” clause.
I like the way Kate tries to mislead us into thinking that the British Media is deliberately trying to avoid giving out his identity. Fact is the judge banned it. Lat thing you need is a bunch of vigilantes interfering with surveillance ops. But that would be beyond the intellectual grasp of Mr. Jawa.
“But until that is proven “beyond a reasonable doubt”, he is not guilty.”
jaba; Yes and when the atomic suitcase sized weapon goes off in Christchurch, will all reasonable doubt be removed?
The Justice System cannot deal with this. That’s why they have Guantanamo.
I would be interested to find out how someone today could be prosecuted for sedition or treason. When was the last time that someone in Canada was prosecuted for it.
One would think it treasonous for an officer of the CF to refuse to toast the Queen. I am pretty sure at one point it was…
The terrorists hate us because of our freedoms. Our freedom is predicated on the rule of law. Lets find ways around the Law and undermine it to get to the terrorists. Who wins? The terrorists.
There were 2 acts in 2005 and 2006 that set the bar for what was illegal and what was not. Those bars were set with an eye on the prevailing political and security climate. The lawmakers set this bar in keeping with democratic traditions and the rule of law – not just with terrorism on their mind.
If you want to root out terrorism, then authoritarian governments and police states are even better than Guantanamo Bay. The goal here is not just to defeat terrorism, but to do so without compromising principles and traditions that are the foundation of the state. These are not inconsequential. Declare martial law, put a Stalin in place and massacre dissidents. That would take care of all the terrorists, even enviro-ones. But it is not compatible with the fundamentals underlying the state.
The compatibility of Guantanamo with the US Constituion is a contentious issue these days. Whther it will survive another administration is also questionable, which suggests that many do feel that it is undermining the principles of the state.
The United States had one hell of a terrorist attack, that trumps any worry about places like Gitmo and for the long haul. We lost Canadian citizens in that exercise of madness and hate as well. We have to band together in civility in our Western Democracies or the world will not be fit to live in.
Terrorists from the places that teach and brainwash through force in the name of Islam will not be controlled in a decade of effort. It will take more time and it’s time we stopped talking about human rights for the Islamic robots who are held in Gitmo. Those beings are better treated than they were where they came from.
If we don’t put down our Leftist fools through our voting rights in this civil society we will be taken over by the worst the world has to offer.
In plain words smarten the hell up.
“I would be interested to find out how someone today could be prosecuted for sedition or treason.”
Bleach their skins white and rename them Smith.
I’m suprised that the Socialist Street Urchins running the Labour Government hasn’t given this MOHAMMED AL GHABRA scumbag a Peerage,or a top slot in some government agency like the Human Rights Commission!
Liz J, while I truly believe in everything you have said here, we have to (sadly) consider the mindless masses of voters in Canada and the U.S. (to mention just two).
The U.S. had it’s most unprecedented attack on it’s own soil in a couple of hundred years – yet GWB is considered by half of the nation as a Bad Guy (never mind outside the country).
Of course, these are the same people who believed a certain ex-President (and husband of a current Democratic (potential) leader) who swore in front of the U.S. nation that he ‘did not have sex with that woman’. Shortly thereafter it was revealed as the bald faced lie that it was.
So what did the mindless masses do? Why they re-elected him of course!
Very, very few people that I speak to – people that are intelligent in many ways – actually know of (or agree with) the potential of Islamic aggression.
I fear the suitcase nuke will, without doubt, come before the ‘awakening’ – if there ever is one in North America.
“The United States had one hell of a terrorist attack, that trumps any worry about places like Gitmo and for the long haul.”
So we should get rid of democratic and constitutional principles the moment the terrorist attacks, even though the terrorists apparently hate us for our freedoms?
I get the point. National security trumps all. But does it trump the very principles the democratic state is founded on. Would it not be easier to just call in the army, round up every arab and leftie and shoot them for the crimes they are apparently committing?
Terrorism does not trump gitmo. If gitmo is a incompatible with democracy, it has to be overhauled.
This argument is an awful lot like that taken by the waterboarding crowd. Ironically enough, the biggest critics of enhanced interrogation is the US Military. They know that if others see them flouting the rules of what is acceptable and what isn’t with regard to treating the enemy, then American servicemen who get captured will suffer. And that is something people on the outside of military can dismiss, but for those of us inside it, it is a huge deal.
We also know what we are fighting for. And that is democracy. Undermining it in the name of security is not smart. Even the British, during WWII were mild in their approach to fascists on the island. It is, sadly, a lesson lost on most.
..jaba the hutt:
Without National Security, what have we got? What protects our democracy? Certainly not tea and sympathy, just doesn’t work that way against the scourge of civilization, Islamist extremists/terrorists who hate our way of life and all we stand for, they want to harm us, that’s their only mission in life.
They came to us, not the other way around.
As for your silly statement ” would it not be easier to just call in the army and round up every arab and lefty and shoot them for the crimes they are apparently committing?” Get real.
My suggestion, and the White House is always just so eager to hear my suggestions, for when they finally close Guantanamo Bay detention camp, is to open it directly into Cuba. Voila! Liberté.
Kate, your naming the name that cannot be named made me laugh, and this was the first good laugh I’ve had this weekend. It’s why I enjoy visiting here.
Gunney I agree with you in principal, but unfortunately the British judiciary is prone to interpret the law as they see fit. Many of them are leftards of the worst kind. The problem here is the British government inspired by Bliar’s hideous wife introduced a Human Rights Act. This was to bring us in line with EU law. What this means is we are no longer able to deport trash like this to their home country. Even more galling is the way that they use tax payer money to pay for their legal fees. I have worked in the British government and been involved in removing people who made bogus asylum claims. It takes years and costs tens of thousands of pounds per person, all because of bad laws, judicial activists and bleeding heart liberals.
Ultimately if we don’t “take out the trash” we will have to find another way of dealing with these varmints. If things continue the way they are I predict increasingly radical governments to come to power in Britain. The past ten years the socialists have morphed into control freaks that Stalin would be proud of. They have cameras on every lamppost nearly, they want fingerprints and retina scans on id cards for everyone. They have cameras to check your cars registration against a central database. They even have a database for your television tax. Try not paying that and see where you get. Governments in the future may well use this to become fiercely repressive and could make Guantanamo bay look like Butlins.
Yes perhaps shooting them would be a bit harsh. But we could just detain them indefinitely without recourse to the judicial system. Oh wait, that is Guantanamo. Besides, you know as well as I do that a police state or martial law is far more effective at getting rid of terrorists.
“Without National Security, what have we got? What protects our democracy?”
Without democracy, our individual security is compromised. It is a paradox. The state becomes a threat as soon as it is not answerable to the people. Stalin, anyone?
“Islamist extremists/terrorists who hate our way of life and all we stand for, they want to harm us, that’s their only mission in life.”
They hate us for what we stand for – Democracy, Freedom etc. SO, in order to combat them, lets dismantle the institutions that underlie the state. The problem with a lot of anti-terror legislation is that suspects are not allowed recourse to the legal system – in fact they are not allowed to challenge government claims about them.
THAT IS THE PROBLEM HERE. If you actually read the piece in the Times, you would have noticed the following:
“Lawyers for G argued successfully that it was a breach of his fundamental rights that the allegations made against him could not be challenged in the courts. The judge agreed. In his ruling, he said: “This cannot be in the interests of justice or indeed of ensuring that the right people are made subject to these orders.”
They tried to charge him. They didn’t have evidence. So they resorted to allegations, which he cannot challenge. This is problematic in any democratic counry that is based on the rule of law. It is not a “leftard” or activist intepretation. It is a logical intepretation. Part of the democratic rule of law is the right to defend oneself from allegations. A right that you will have if you accidentally get charged with some misdemeanour or crime. Imagine if you didn’t and were just presumed guilty, with these allegations hanging over you for the rest of your life.
“They came to us, not the other way around.”
If you say so.
This gag order is suicidal madness. Who says Satan isn’t “the prince of the world” and “father of lies,” wanting nothing more than our total destruction?
When otherwise sensible people–at least until political correctness cancer began its rampage–would be manning the ramparts at the sight of a marauding, invading enemy in the hundreds of thousands, what do the laydown, surrender monkeys do?
‘Tie their hands behind their backs, put blindfolds on, lay down their arms, push their women and children to the front of the crowd, and before doing all four, knock down the protecting wall surrounding their community.
Suicidal madness.
It is our Judeo-Christian spirituality–you know, something of gravitas to stand for, to strengthen and uphold us–that has given us the convictions and courage in the past to repel the kind of enemy we’re dealing with here. Without this great shield and buckler, we’re falling like flies.
Call religious faith–I’m talking Christianity here, not Islamofascism–a crutch if you insist. Sometimes people need crutches, and if a crutch is standing between your standing or falling, I’d advise you use it.
But we seem too stupid, too blind, too willfully ignorant to know what we need. Thus great civilizations fall–not with a bang but a whimper. Hollow men, indeed.
The Islamic Republik of Britain.
“It is our Judeo-Christian spirituality–you know, something of gravitas to stand for, to strengthen and uphold us–that has given us the convictions and courage in the past to repel the kind of enemy we’re dealing with here. Without this great shield and buckler, we’re falling like flies.”
It is their Islamic spirituality blah blah blah courage in the past to repel the kind of enemy they’re dealing with.
I think we should send all the Christian Fundamentalists and Islamic fundamentalist to the Sahara desert and let them fight to the death. The world will be a better place for it. Especially if they all kill each other, leaving none.