Wannabee standup comic and first-class psycho jerk
Firebrand who praised July 7 bombers arrested | International News | News | Telegraph
A Muslim radical who praised the July 7 bombers and barracked the Home Secretary at a public meeting was arrested yesterday – the first person held under new legislation to outlaw the glorification of terrorism.
Terror arrest: Abu Izzadeen heckling John Reid last September
Abu Izzadeen heckling John Reid last SeptemberAbu Izzadeen, 31, a convert to Islam, was alleged to have encouraged terrorism. He was detained under Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 in connection with a speech he gave in Birmingham last year, shortly before the anniversary of the July 7 bombings.
For some reason the Telegraph never mentions that this is actually a Jamaican convert named Trevor Brooks. They do point out his crazy diatribes, thus:
He allegedly contrasted the supposed bravery of Khan’s suicide to the behaviour of the “kuffar” (non Muslims), who were characterised as debauched binge-drinkers who vomited and urinated in the street.
He was also alleged to have mocked a South Korean man beheaded in Iraq and a traumatised woman who escaped the Twin Towers in September 2001.
The speech was peppered with jokes, prompting laughter from his audience. At one point he allegedly announced that the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre “changed many people’s lives”. After a pause, he added: “Especially those inside.”
Har. Apparently the joke is on him. Creep.
creep is far too mild a term. but what about that most vaunted of western virtues, freedom of speech, even freedom of highly, highly offensive and obnoxious speech?
The guy is such a creep that I actually feel sorry for him. He needs mental help more than prison time.
Mental problem? Lucy, I don’ thin’ so. I don’t doubt for one attosecond that he knows exactly what he’s doing.
Think Al Sharpton with an accent; a 100% amoral self-promoter who’s found a schtick that pays.
I think IDing those who find him amusing and seeking grounds to deport them would be a nice next step…
This ass should go to New York and perform his stand up…I would predict it would be the end of this “problem”.
So now do we stop all the nuts from talking? Like Socrates? Like Jesus?
Oh, and Gandhi?
3. “Think Al Sharpton with an accent”
If you’re trying to imply that Mr. Sharpton does not have a mental condition I’m really confused.
It’s equated to yelling “fire” in the theater. This is not a Jesus or Socrates type guy. Give me a break.
Lauren — it’s pretty hard to deport someone from the UK with Dominion status.
“This is not a Jesus or Socrates type guy.” Well, yeah. Jesus was telling the Jews that he was God and making God-pronouncements. Socrates was telling the kids of Athens not to accept authority and to think for themselves. Both were seen by The Authorities in the same light as ours see The Terrorists.
My point is that it’s not reliable to differentiate dangerous from necessary from inside the cultural milieu. The Europeans already have those wacky laws against holocaust denying. If the government is allowed to dictate what we can say, where will it stop? Do we go after the Earth Firsters? The Peta people? Do we pass laws to make it illegal to disagree with government findings on global warming?
@8
I’m sorry, but I’m a lot less concerned with some nutjob saying things I don’t agree with, than the government legally arresting him for expressing his views, no matter how distasteful I find them.
Yelling fire in a theater is one thing. But it’s a pretty big stretch to say that by merely speaking favorably of terrorism is somehow worthy of incarceration.
What’s next? Why not make encouraging of all crimes illegal? Should cheech and chong be locked up because they encourage people to smoke weed?
I bet his prison name is going to be Susan.
@pedro
I may be one of those “mental handicapped” people, but I didn’t see #5 refer to jesus as a communist. I think it was pretty clear that he was refering to the dissonant nature of all many great thinkers.
and you compleatly missed the point of #10. He wasn’t saying jesus was a terrorist, and he’s not saying that this guy will one day be thought of as a jesus like figure.
He was drawing the comparison in order to point out that this law would have probably resulted in the incarceration of jesus or socrates. Not that this guy should be thought of as jesus.
He was saying that laws banning dissonant speech are dangerous because it’s impossible to just get the “bad” guys. If you lock up this guy you might as well lock up jesus.
now I don’t usually result to name calling, but I think you might want to look in the mirror if you want to find a “mental handicapped” person
There used to be a concept of “fightin’ words,” akin to the concept of shouting “Fire!” in a theater. Fightin’ words were considered sufficient to excuse a normally reasonable person who got set off when someone called his dog a skunk, to borrow a phrase from Davy Crockett.
Sometimes I think the concept of fightin’ words should be resurrected so we could leave the government out of it and leave it to the surrounding culture to take care of those who show reckless disregard for acceptable behavior.
Wait – that’d be mob rule. We need to leave all violence to the police… wait, that’s not working out very well either. Dang.
this is not yelling fire in a crowded theater – show me the stampede that was triggered by his words. this is prosecuting someone for saying exceedingly offensive things, and every example of this forfeits the western moral high ground on personal freedoms and exposes us as hypocrites.
“Sorry Muslims. Things YOU find offensive, like cartoons of the Prophet, are protected by free speech. Things WE find offensive, well, them’s fightin’ words!”
How does freedom of speech apply here? didny this happen in the UK? Isnt that a different country? Do our laws apply there?
???
So if he is comparable to Jesus or Socrates, should we crucify him? or just poison him. Either way wasting money on interring him is not the answer. If he’s so unhappy with the west send him to syria. See how much he likes life there.
freedom of speech is a universal right:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19.
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
Aah, how I find myself pining wistfully for days of yore, when such an individual might find himself involved in a fatal single-car accident on a desolate stretch of road…
John, why do you praise anti-terrorist activities in Britain, then rail against them when done here?
He does nothing of the kind.
Your question falsely suggests a contradiction, as I’m sure you know, by confounding American and British actions – which are different – with the use of the purposely vague term ‘anti-terrorist activities’, thereby implying falsely that the respective countries actions are identical.
The lion’s share of what the Bush admin is doing is trashing our Constitutional rights and our freedoms, and at a very high price in both dollars and wasted human effort, with very little to show for it. What the Brits are (finally getting around to) doing, for the most part, is comparatively both focused and effective. They’re obviously learning – and the Decider, in keeping with his lifelong estrangement from knowledge and intelligence, isn’t.
Hence, your crafty attempt to frame John C in a contradictory stance is a total failure. So sorry.
But I’m sure he’ll straighten you out himself, in his own fashion…