Is Australia the next Islamic state?

[oldr_n_wsr]

Islamist Group Hizb ut-Tahrir in Australia Calls For Army To Replace Government With 'Islamic Caliphate'

By Reissa Su on January 20 2015 1:39 PM

A radical Islamist group is calling for a Muslim army to impose Sharia law in Australia. Hizb ut-Tahrir announced that it is raising an army of followers in public at a community centre in Lakemba, western Sydney.

An estimated 250 people, including women and children, attended the public rally organised by the extremist group. Bilal Merhi, one of the group's members, told the crowd gathered at the centre that the Islamic Caliphate ruled by Sharia Law must take the place of Australia's democratic government, Seven News reported.

The Hizb ut-Tahrir told those in attendance to "come forward" to join an army "ready to defend the honour of Allah and his Messenger." Merhi also declared that Australians exploit the freedom of speech to mock Islam.

The radical Islamist organisation had previously called the Charlie Hebdo killings in Paris the "cure" in an event discussing the desire of the West to confront the "Islamist threat." Earlier reports in October had indicated that police investigated Merhi in connection with videos showing children as young as six years old being taught to chant extremist slogans.

Meanwhile, Attorney General George Brandis said people who were found to be encouraging terrorism or engaging in its advocacy will be arrested and taken off the streets. Terrorism experts believe Hizb ut-Tahrir may be crossing a fine legal line if the group continues with its activities. Professor Greg Barton, executive director of the Global Terrorism Research Centre at the Monash University said the group may see a degree of legal opposition and prosecution, leading to some key people being charged.

The terror alert level for possible attacks on police has been raised to "high" after new intelligence obtained by authorities. According to a statement released by the Australian Federal Police, the threat level for members of the police force has been changed in line with the rest of the country's terror alert.

The statement said the assessment was based on intelligence information and discussions with partners, SMH reported. Despite the active and combined efforts of state and federal police to disrupt the activities of terror networks, the dangers prompting the high terror alert last September 2014 still remains. The Australian Federal Police reminds the public of the recent terror attacks in France, Canada and the siege in Martin Place.

Don't think this kind of talk is covered by free speech laws. Sounds like treason or an invasion from within.
Gob, any thoughts or insights on these islamo-fascists?

[Guinevere]

OFFS.

Talk is cheap. And protected.

Go back and review the thread where Sue explained in great detail why we are not (nor should we be) thought police. "Terror Plot Foiled Down Under." You posted in the thread, so it's not before your time.

[Lord Jim]

Talk is cheap. And protected.

Don't know what the statutes are in Australia, (if they're like the UK and most of the rest of Europe, they're more restrictive than in the US) but it looks to me that this kind of blatant appeal for the violent overthrow of the government is clearly not "protected" under US law:

18 U.S. Code § 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government


Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or

Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or

Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385

[Big RR]

That abut says it all Guin. Maybe next we can discuss the threat of becoming a state ruled by Charles Manson 50 odd years ago.

Jim--if that statute were enforced to ban this sort of speech in the US, I doubt it would withstand Constitutional scrutiny. ETA: Which is why there have been very few prosecutions for sedition without violent acts in modern times.

[Lord Jim]

I doubt it would withstand Constitutional scrutiny.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but the law obviously says what it says.

[Guinevere]

No Jim -- the law says what the *courts* say is says. Your interpretation is not consistent with the case law.

Read the annotations to the code, it is clear words alone are not enough. As in the earlier discussions, there must be active and purposeful intent to undertake a specific criminal act in furtherance of those words. Or there has to be a "clear and present danger" of bringing about the end result.

Lots and lots of cases on the subject.

[Big RR]

Otherwise Jim, how would you ever have constitutional oversight over the laws passed by the legislature? Congress may well pass a law that could be exercised in an unconstitutional manner, but the courts will reign that in.

[Guinevere]

Otherwise Jim, how would you ever have constitutional oversight over the laws passed by the legislature? Congress may well pass a law that could be exercised in an unconstitutional manner, but the courts will reign that in.

Some judges reign, for sure

[Big RR]

Gee, and the spell check didn't even recognize it.

[Sue U]

The governing principle in American law is that you are free to say whatever you want -- and even advocate violence -- unless the speech is both 1) directed to inciting imminent lawless action and 2) likely to produce such action. See Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 US 444 (1969). The statute says what it says, but it can only be applied if this test is met.

FYI, "clear and present danger" was the test used before Brandenburg. And even before Brandenburg, the kind of "advocacy" that was subject to prosecution was held not to be the "dictionary definition of advocacy," but instead was considered a term of art that meant something much more substantial and calculated to actually incite people to lawlessness; see Yates v. U.S., 354 U.S. 298 (1957) (The words “advocate” and “teach” as used in this section should not be considered to have been used by Congress "in their ordinary dictionary meaning when such words had already been construed as terms of art carrying a special and limited connotation").

[Guinevere]

Thanks Sue -- I was skimming quickly and looking to pull out only the SCOTUS cases. I don't recall seeing Brandenburg in the annotations I perused but I remember it now, from Con Law.

[Econoline]

Gee, and the spell check didn't even recognize it.

The reign/rein 'splain is plainly on the wane.

Also...

An estimated 250 people, including women and children, attended the public rally...

BE AFWAID! BE VEWWY VEWWY AFWAID!

[Gob]

Good news that. The morer these idiots parade their idiocy, the more public and political will there will be to crush them.

[Sue U]

Thanks Sue -- I was skimming quickly and looking to pull out only the SCOTUS cases. I don't recall seeing Brandenburg in the annotations I perused but I remember it now, from Con Law.

I had a First Amendment seminar in law school, and as a study guide I prepared a notebook of the key points from the significant cases under the speech, free exercise and establishment clauses. It has been a very handy reference tool over the years, particularly when I did some First Amendment cases for ACLU-NJ; I still have it on the bookshelf here in my office.

[Sue U]

Good news that. The morer these idiots parade their idiocy, the more public and political will there will be to crush them.

That's pretty much the whole point of free speech and "the marketplace of ideas" concept.

[Lord Jim]

Gee Sue, two short posts one minute apart...

Are you channeling your inner wes?

[BoSoxGal]

Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

[rubato]

Is Australia the next Islamic state?

Only if there is a Reformed branch of Islam which is more lenient on the alcohol question, and nudity.


yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

Funny, rube!

Good news that. The morer these idiots parade their idiocy, the more public and political will there will be to crush them.

Shorely shome mishtake? "The morer these idiots parade their idiocy, the morer public and political will there will be to crusher them" ?

[Sue U]

Almost got it, Meade. But for full subject-verb agreement, I believe the correct construction is "The morer these idiots parader their idiocy, the morer public and political will there will be to crusher them."