Glorifying terrorism an extraditable offence

A Belfast court has ruled that the charge against convicted ETA killer José Ignacio (Iñaki) de Juana Chaos, of glorifying terrorism following his release from a Spanish prison, does constitute an extraditable offence. According to the BBC report, “A two-day hearing, when his lawyers will attempt to stop the extradition, will take place in May.”

, , , , , ,

  • RG Cuan

    Has anybody read what Iñaki de Juana Chaos actually wrote in the letters in which he ‘glorified terrorism’?

    Judge for yourselves:

    http://www.indymedia.ie/article/80263

  • ArchiePurple

    ‘Glorifying terrorism an extraditable offence, says Judge…

    That means we can now extradite our Irish Republicans to the Free State !!!!!

  • Expenses

    Jim Allister should be jailed as he is deliberately trying to stoke up tension. He should be jailed under anti terror legislation.

  • RG Cuan

    Totally agree Expenses.

    Allister was on Radio Ulster this evening and a lot of what he said was certainly incitement. I can’t understand why a fundamentalist like him gets any coverage at all.

  • picador

    RG Cuan,

    The ‘glorification of terrorism’ charge relates not to the two letters but to a speech allegedly read on de Juana Chaos’s behalf at a rally to mark his release from prison after a long hunger strike to secure his freedom. The speaker is alleged to have said ‘advance the ball’ on de Juana Chaos’s behalf, which was a saying associated with a dead ETA leader who was also a football player and is alleged to be code for continue the armed struggle. As can be seen the charge is patently ludicrous.

    For authoring the two letters cited above (which I also translated on a previous thread) de Juana Chaos was found guilty of making threats and sentenced to twelve years in prison (later reduced to three on appeal). This came as he seeking a release to which he was entitled after serving eighteen years in prison for ETA activities. Read the letters for yourselves – the man did not get a fair trial then and he will not get a fair trial now.

  • picador

    Incitement to what?

  • Earnan

    Maybe all those people who march and shout for Hamas should be locked up too

  • RG Cuan

    You’re right Picador, forgot about that speech. It looks like the authorities will to anything to charge him again.

    Regarding Allister, he has incited hatred and sectarianism in many interviews i’ve heard. His severe views on nationalists, and on the general progression of our overall society, have no place in today’s world.

  • ArchiePurple

    So it is no ‘incitement to hatred’ to point out that Sinn Fein/IRA are a shower of hypocritcal bastards…..Miriam O’Callaghan of RTE should also be locked up as she put that hard question to the hard Provo Maskey, which he as usual didn’t answer.

    The Dissidents are just their mirror image…killers, murderers, bombers, lunatics. Just missing the suit and the big salaries.

  • Dr Raymond Cocteau

    Under the joy joy European Union, pretty soon, an arrest warrant issued anywhere in Europe will be enforcable anywhere in the Union. No trial/hearing required. Just ship them out.

  • NCM

    I’m sorry, what exactly are the elements of this offense?

  • Wilde Rover

    Does that mean we can extradite Yanks for celebrating the 4th of July now?

    They can get terribly loud.

  • NCM

    Wilde Rover, that’s why we’ve got the 2nd Amendment… to keep the Queen out of our houses.

  • Essentialist

    @ NCM

    The Terrorism Act PART 1
    OFFENCES
    Encouragement etc. of terrorism
    1 Encouragement of terrorism
    (1) This section applies to a statement that is likely to be understood by some or all
    of the members of the public to whom it is published as a direct or indirect
    encouragement or other inducement to them to the commission, preparation or
    instigation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences.
    (2) A person commits an offence if—
    (a) he publishes a statement to which this section applies or causes another
    to publish such a statement; and
    (b) at the time he publishes it or causes it to be published, he—
    (i) intends members of the public to be directly or indirectly
    encouraged or otherwise induced by the statement to commit,
    prepare or instigate acts of terrorism or Convention offences; or
    B
    Terrorism Act 2006 (c. 11)
    Part 1 — Offences
    2
    (ii) is reckless as to whether members of the public will be directly
    or indirectly encouraged or otherwise induced by the statement
    to commit, prepare or instigate such acts or offences.
    (3) For the purposes of this section, the statements that are likely to be understood
    by members of the public as indirectly encouraging the commission or
    preparation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences include every
    statement which—
    (a) glorifies the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the
    future or generally) of such acts or offences; and
    (b) is a statement from which those members of the public could
    reasonably be expected to infer that what is being glorified is being
    glorified as conduct that should be emulated by them in existing
    circumstances.
    (4) For the purposes of this section the questions how a statement is likely to be
    understood and what members of the public could reasonably be expected to
    infer from it must be determined having regard both—
    (a) to the contents of the statement as a whole; and
    (b) to the circumstances and manner of its publication.
    (5) It is irrelevant for the purposes of subsections (1) to (3)—
    (a) whether anything mentioned in those subsections relates to the
    commission, preparation or instigation of one or more particular acts of
    terrorism or Convention offences, of acts of terrorism or Convention
    offences of a particular description or of acts of terrorism or Convention
    offences generally; and,
    (b) whether any person is in fact encouraged or induced by the statement
    to commit, prepare or instigate any such act or offence.
    (6) In proceedings for an offence under this section against a person in whose case
    it is not proved that he intended the statement directly or indirectly to
    encourage or otherwise induce the commission, preparation or instigation of
    acts of terrorism or Convention offences, it is a defence for him to show—
    (a) that the statement neither expressed his views nor had his endorsement
    (whether by virtue of section 3 or otherwise); and
    (b) that it was clear, in all the circumstances of the statement’s publication,
    that it did not express his views and (apart from the possibility of his
    having been given and failed to comply with a notice under subsection
    (3) of that section) did not have his endorsement.
    (7) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—
    (a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding
    7 years or to a fine, or to both;
    (b) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a
    term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory
    maximum, or to both;
    (c) on summary conviction in Scotland or Northern Ireland, to
    imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not
    exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both.
    (8) In relation to an offence committed before the commencement of section 154(1)
    of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44), the reference in subsection (7)(b) to 12
    months is to be read as a reference to 6 months.
    Terrorism Act 2006 (c. 11)
    Part 1 — Offences
    Section 1 – Encouragement of terrorism
    20. Section 1 creates an offence of encouragement of acts of terrorism or Convention offences. The offence has been introduced to implement the requirements of Article 5 of the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism (“the Convention”). This requires State parties to have an offence of ‘public provocation to commit a terrorist offence’. This new offence supplements the existing common law offence of incitement to commit an offence. the Terrorism Act 2000 (c.11) (“the TACT”).

    Definitions to follow

  • Essentialist

    Definitions

    Definitions
    16. The Act relies on a number of definitions that appear in the TACT. The definition of terrorism appears in section 1 of the TACT. The definition covers the use or threat of action that meets the three elements set out in section 1(1). The first of the elements is that the action must fall into section 1(2). An action falls in section 1(2) if it involves serious violence against a person or serious damage to property; it endangers a person’s life (but this does not include the life of the person committing the action); it creates a serious risk to the health and safety of the public or a section of the public; or it is designed to seriously interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system. The second element is that the use or threat is either designed to influence the government or is designed to intimidate the public or a section of the public. Section 34 of the Act amends this element to include cases where the use or threat is designed to influence an international governmental organisation. The second element does not have to be satisfied if the use or threat falling into subsection (2) involves the use of firearms or explosives (section 1(3)). Explosives and firearms are defined in section 121 of the TACT. The third element is that the threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.

  • Brian Walker

    This part of the 2006 Terrorism Act is generally derided as politically motivated and unnecessary and was passed only with difficulty.The problem focuses on what “glorifying terrorism” means. The debate is well covered here
    http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=199806&sectioncode=26

    The potential for chaos is illustrated in this Guardian briefing:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/feb/15/qanda.terrorism
    “When the bill was first proposed, there were fears the offence of glorification risked criminalising such figures as the Irish taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, when he commemorated the 1916 Easter Rising.”

    I guess the law’s provenance is irrelevant to the question of extradition, but it leaves a bad smell, whatever one thinks of the particular case.

  • ArchiePurple

    ‘….risked criminalising such figures as the Irish taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, when he commemorated the 1916 Easter Rising.”

    INCORRECT BRIAN:

    Bertie is more likely to be criminalised for the same offences that got Al Capone locked up, don’t you think?

  • NCM

    Christ, that statute is so unwieldy I’d recommend it be taken out and shot. Now, did I just violate the statute by instigating abstract violence against the statute itself or is there an affirmative defense for that too?

  • Irish-Basque

    Ridiculous that someone could get 3 years in prison for:
    1.- writing a letter he denies he wrote
    2.- a letter that even the Spanish police say they don’t have.
    3.- two words which are used in the every day conversation in Basque language and which in a more political context don’t necessarily mean keep on with the armed struggle but with the general political, social, cultural, grass roots…struggle for independence and socialism in the Basque Country.

    As someone was pointing out the Spanish authorities will try anything to send him back to jail despite he served his time according to Spanish laws.

    It says a lot about the “Spanish democracy”. Did I say Turkish?!

  • Earnan

    I got drunk saturday night and sang “Broad Black Brimmer”. There may be an arrest warrant out for me.

  • There may be an arrest warrant out for me.

    Only for breaching the laws of good taste, duckie.

    Seriously, though, I’m sure I’m not a big fan of Mr. Chaos or his ideology, but I’m damned if I can see an awful amount in the Spanish government’s case.

  • Gregory

    “Maybe all those people who march and shout for Hamas should be locked up too”

    Gaza is Guantanamo, but bigger.