Thought crime or curiosity?

Anti-terrorism efforts frequently tread on the fine line between busting real crime and chasing guys who are curious but would never put their lives or careers in danger. The recent case of five UK students whose terrorism convictions were thrown out by the Court of Appeal is a prime example.

They visited terror-related sites, downloaded and shared material and in a letter to his parents one of them appeared determined to undergo terrorist training. None of them had explosives nor was there any proof of criminal intent. Where do we draw the line?

Clearly these students are a potential threat to the UK and the general public and must be watched 24/7 from now on. But (il)legitimate human curiosity cannot be prosecuted, lest we institute an index of forbidden opinions and statements, setting our countries back five hundred years.

My humble opinion on this issue is that visiting and downloading terror-related material must be sufficient reason to place someone on a watch list, including phone tappings and surveillance. As for the sharing, we have to tread carefully. Although the distribution of such material is very dangerous, should sharing such material be a crime in every way I would be in the same pot with those wackos if I ever reported something publicly to my fellow Blogging Tories.

In this case one should advocate for application of concealment law, or any name such legislation goes by. Sharing and distribution of potentially threatening material should be a crime if it is not reported to the police or the relevant authority at the same time. We have a right to dispose of what we own in any way we please, but we also have a duty to denounce what can threaten the peace of our country.

These guys might have knowingly spread incitement to criminal behavior and hidden it from the police. If this is so, they should be prosecuted for concealment, as should everyone who doesn't report terror literature being spread in their neighborhood. Regarding other charges that may be laid against the individuals concerned I would stand by their right to read what they like, make their own decisions and face the consequences.

In this story, however, some aspects deserve mention as a beacon of common sense and civic duty. Firstly the speaker for the Muslim Parliament of Great Britain (God where has Britain gone) auspicates that this case warns other Muslim youth against entertaining themselves with extremist material. Secondly, parents of one defendant alerted the police when their son left an unambiguous letter declaring his intent to become a terrorist.

Good and moderate Muslims exist in our society, they are good citizens and their priceless contribution to ensuring the safety of our societies (and those close to them) has to be acknowledged and emphasized.