web analytics


By ATWadmin On June 19th, 2008

Another day another debacle.

The first woman to be found guilty under the Terrorism Act has her conviction quashed.

Yes, in another instance of judicial lunacy an airport  worker who wrote poems about beheadings and dubbed herself a ‘lyrical terrorist’ had her conviction for terrorist crimes dismissed. Samina Malik was the first woman to be convicted under the Terrorism Act after she was found guilty of collecting information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism. The 24-year-old’s successful appeal is another severe blow to the government’s anti-terror legislation. Earlier this year five Muslims had their convictions quashed after the Appeal Court ruled that possessing Islamist videos and downloading jihadi propaganda did not constitute terrorist offences.

Malik’s case was one reviewed after that hearing. She wrote extremist poems praising Osama Bin Laden on the back of till receipts while working at W H Smith at Heathrow Airport, and possessed a number of documents related to terrorism including the al Qaida Manual, the Terrorist’s Handbook and the Mujahideen Poisons Handbook. This is deemed as not constituting an intent to terrorise, apparently. 

The Crown Prosecution Service meekly conceded the conviction was unsafe and last night said it would not seek a retrial. Pathetic.

Our political and judicial elite seem unable, or unwilling, to confront those Islamists who dream of killing us. I guess it will take more carnage on the streets before the political WILL to do something asserts itself. Under Labour, it never will.  I feel sorry for those who will die at the hands of militant Islamists emboldened by the idea that Britain will not fight back but rather will submit – if enough of us die.

21 Responses to “LYRICALLY INNOCENT….”

  1. Melanie Phillips does an excellent demolition job on this shameful judgement here

  2. What an odd ruling.

  3. Judges, in your country and ours, can no longer be trusted to uphold the law. They make it up as they see fit. Think of this as you think of the US Supreme Court decision on the Guantanemo Bay terrorists.

    Very troubling, and will ultimately lead to deaths of innocents.

  4. Is it really so odd ? There is a difference between a fantasy life constructed by a disturbed individual and genuine criminal behaviour and conspiracy.

  5. Colm: I think so. I would agree that the individual is perhaps disturbed, although apparently that was a defense she and her legal representatives choose not to pursue. She was not some pathetic college nerd engaged in juvenile internet fantasies of terrorism. She was an airport worker (who will guard the guards themselves) with the obvious implications. Her creepy collection of texts was of the kind that would seem to have violated the statute.

    Now she’ll probably sue for back pay and win.

  6. I’d think that any suicide bomber or other terrorist has a pretty active fantasy life. She’s no more disturbed than the rest of them.

    She’s collected information about how to commit terrorist acts and has expressed full support for Mujahideen, and managed to find herself a job…at the AIRPORT for Christs sake!

    I don’t think that someone who does these things should be presumed innocent. Your laws and ours need to change as respects terrorism–in my personal Supreme Courtt, she is guilty of of an intention to commit terrorism, and will be sent to Guantanemo Bay for a 75 year sentence.

    These people will use your English law to kill you and your families, and between now and then will make an ass out of you and every one of your legal procedures.They will tie you up in them from here until Kingdom Come. Yeah, put her under surveillance until you find her doing the dance of the seven hijabs until she reveals a suicide belt in the Duty Free at Heathrow. Even then, she will proclaim her innocence and some here will believe her. Shame.

  7. I’m not saying she deserves to have that job. Clearly not. It’s obvious she shouldn’t be working at an airport. I am just wondering if her activities really constitute a criminal offence , however distasteful. If she had no connection with terrorists and really was just a loner fantasist then it is correct that she was acquitted.

  8. Phantom –

    So when is the First Amendment to be taken outside and shot? If American civilisation cannot withstand the odd crank or fantasist, then it’s in a pretty weak state. Come to think of it, no doubt pamphlets and the like were distributed and hidden or displayed by colonists back before our little 1775 to-do. Many woul have been seditious, looking to overturn the established order and, no doubt, some would have advocated revolutionary violence.

    No, I’m not sitting here wearing ethnic peace sandals or the like, but if you react like your hair’s on fire each time someone does something stupid, your own freedoms will soon be gone too.

    My beef here is with the legal process on display here. This batty young muslim was (it seems) convicted fairly under law, then along come a few Appeal Court judges who say "wrong decision – quashed." If she shouldn;t have been convicted, she shouldn’t have been charged in the first damned place. If due process hasn’t been followed, then fine; overturn and release or re-try. But if the Court of Appeal can simply declare that the wrong verdict is reached, well thne you’re risking a bunch of commie scum becoming judges.


  9. Pete

    You say the odd crank or fantasist.

    I don’t think its the odd one here, and certainly not there.

    If extremely muscular measures are not taken against those who support Muslim terror –not just the few that you catch doing something– you will win all the civil liberties arguments, but will lose the right of your people to live

  10. Phantom –

    If extremely muscular measures are not taken against those who support Muslim terror …

    Fine. If that support is material, nail them. But if you want ‘muscular measures’ for nothing more than juvenile fantasies on paper (if you mean that too) then you simply must admit that you don’t agree with free speech.

    If we’re looking at just words, I prefer my enemies open and exposed.

  11. Pete

    She was not just writing fantasies on paper. She was collecting terror manuals and "how to poison" handbooks, as well as other data of a practical help to a would be terrorist.

    I think she crossed the line from "speech" or "thought" to "intent to commit acts of terror" and working to that end.

    Even free speech, esp in wartime, is not absolute, and Lord Haw Haw will attest to that.

    And, as we learn from Peter’s linked article, she had given information about security procedures at Heathrow to someone who has been convicted on terrorist offenses–this, amazingly led to no charges.

  12. Our government was damned after 9/11 for not "connecting the dots." The was nothing illegal about wanteing to learn to fly a jet, but not to take it off or land it. Moussoui (sp) was just a crank, one supposes, but not a crank in a vaccuum.

    The old adage is that your liberty to swing your arms with a fist stops at my nose. Now it’s your freedom to be around aircraft stops at our buildings.

  13. I think our Muslim friends, esp from overseas, can only be astonished at the intellectual weaknesses of our legal systems. It is like a gift from heaven to them.

  14. Phantom -actually the bad one’s fear it, not having a decent legal system in their countries. However, we certainly could improve on it as this case shows.

  15. Yes, and I certainly do not think that I have all the answers. But what I do strongly believe is that the nature of the Islamic Terrorist threat is so very different from the previous threats that we need to take a very hard-eyed look at the laws and the legal systems and the judges that rule on the basis of whim rather than the law.

    And not discount the possibility of changing some things to suit the changed situation.

    I will always listen closely to the views of people I respect, including Pete and Mahons.. But I just question whether the body of law etc that suited Britain and continental Europe and America in 1950 is suitable for the situation we are now in.

  16. On yesterday’s post about the professional muslim whinger who wears a head-scark and sued when she didn’t get a job in a hairdressers, Reg wrote:

    "A bit of a silly decision given it is a hairdressers she was applying for a job in; but hardly evidence of a dastardly plot by Marxist judges."
    Thursday, June 19, 2008 at 04:22PM | Reg

    Here is more evidence that the judges are now completely Gramscian: they are working towards the destruction of our law system by bringing it into disrepute with naturally law-abiding people. This is now a daily occurence, idiocies such as this.

    Reg, are you there?

  17. In the US, it is I believe illegal to possess "child porn" photos. ( Same in the UK? ) This is not seen by any but the most insane extremists to be an infringement of the right of free speech.

    The theory, I take it, is that if you possess those images, you are part of the system that causes great harm to children and that you should be punished. I think that makes sense.

    Why should it not be similarly be illegal to possess material that shows one how to commit terrorist acts including how to poison groups of people? I see that as prima facie evidence of intent to commit terrorist acts.

  18. http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=3664960863576873594&q=common+purpose&ei=Rn9aSL_jJqi8igKzi4D4Dg

    This explains why things are just not quite right.

  19. Phantom

    That is a strong point but not a strictly comparible situation. If you posess child porn, then the crime of sexual abuse of children has already been commited to enable you to have those images/videos. Posession of terrorist propoganda or information on terror methods does not require a violent act to be involved before or after.

    Perhaps the difficulty lies in the wordings of the law, and the specific intentions and levels of involvement this girl had did not merit convictions under the specific laws she was charged with.

  20. Perhaps hateful literature can be protected — I remember hearing someone saying (here?) that the world would have been better off had Hitler gone on a speaking tour of America with his theories, so that everyone could have seen how evil his intentions really were.

    I see no possible merit for anyone having literature that disseminates technology for poisoning people, or say, the best techniques for setting off bombs with mobile phones etc (Other than military, or maybe those in the antidote or counterterrorism business )

    Some of this technology is just not that hard to learn. I see no merit to making it any easier, for there to be "an open marketplace of ideas" as to how to kill people more efficiently.

  21. Phantom

    I do concede that it is very dodgy to say the least when someone posesses or wishes to know such knowledge, but then surely there are all sorts of techniques and facts we can read about and find out about but wouldn’t be prosecuted for until something happened or we were involved in a definite conspiracy. For example reading about the most lethal points of the body to stab someone or methods of poisoning. Such knowledge itself cannot be criminal but could only be used to prove involvement in a later crime or attempted crime.