Prof David Miller Professor David Miller, the noted anti-Zionist academic – whose landmark employment tribunal case, after he was dismissed by Bristol University despite its lawyers finding h…
“questioned by police” is s very different implication than being held incommunicado, and you know that. Furthermore, I’m not so sure people fighting for their very right to exist is a terrorist. Certain nations label people terrorists so they can perpetuate terrorism, themselves.
“questioned by police” is s very different implication than being held incommunicado, and you know that.
Do you think it’s wrong for police to question someone for attending the leader of an Iran-backed terrorist group’s funeral?
If not, why not? How do you feel about if it was for an Al-Qaida leader’s funeral? Or if he travelled to Russia to attend the funeral of a killed general? Do you think we should just do away with investigating links to terror groups altogether?
Furthermore, I’m not so sure people fighting for their very right to exist is a terrorist.
…what? Do you even know who Hezbollah are? How is Hezbollah fighting for their right to exist?
Perhaps you need to look up who they are and what they stand for, because I think you must have some wires crossed and are perhaps confusing them with someone else:
Their list of allies includes the likes of Russia, North Korea, Iran…
Hezbollah are not good guys. They are a legit terrorist group. And I don’t even mean terror group in the ‘you can argue they’re freedom fighters’ way, I just mean straight up terrorists.
Certain nations label people terrorists so they can perpetuate terrorism, themselves.
I implore you to look up Hezbollah and tell me that you disagree with the widespread classification of them being a terrorist paramilitary.
E: this community is fucked in the head if there are this many people who are pro Hezbollah. I didn’t realise this was an anti-LGBT, pro-Russia/Iran community. Weird. Most of Lemmy is fairly progressive.
He literally is suspended of a crime. Hezbollah is a proscribed terrorist group. You can’t just pop in and visit them without raising eyebrows of the police, so Miller is rightly being questioned.
Being involved with a proscribed terrorist group, on account of attending the funeral of their leader and putting messages of support on social media. That’s in addition to other smoking guns like being paid by Iranian state media.
I’m not sure why you’re having difficulty understanding this. Hezbollah is a terrorist group.
And suspected by the police. That’s who investigate crime, silly billy. Who were you expecting to be questioning him, Batman?
You will of course have read the article, and got the bit where it said :
Miller was held for three and a half hours under Section 7, which deprives detained people of their right to silence and privacy despite carrying no assumed suspicion
Can you take us through what happened cognitively, at this point ?
Because it means the police didn’t have to suspect him of anything. And there is nothing that says this did suspect him of anything .
We really need you to nail this bit, before we can explain the concept that “guilt by association “ is not a real thing, at least in English law.
It’s the same legal standard that means if your mom sells crack, you aren’t automatically a crack dealer also.
“questioned by police” is s very different implication than being held incommunicado, and you know that. Furthermore, I’m not so sure people fighting for their very right to exist is a terrorist. Certain nations label people terrorists so they can perpetuate terrorism, themselves.
Do you think it’s wrong for police to question someone for attending the leader of an Iran-backed terrorist group’s funeral?
If not, why not? How do you feel about if it was for an Al-Qaida leader’s funeral? Or if he travelled to Russia to attend the funeral of a killed general? Do you think we should just do away with investigating links to terror groups altogether?
…what? Do you even know who Hezbollah are? How is Hezbollah fighting for their right to exist?
Perhaps you need to look up who they are and what they stand for, because I think you must have some wires crossed and are perhaps confusing them with someone else:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah
I mean just look at their ideology, FFS:
Shia Islamism
Jihadism (Shia)
Islamic nationalism
Anti-West
Antisemitism
Anti-homosexuality
Their list of allies includes the likes of Russia, North Korea, Iran…
Hezbollah are not good guys. They are a legit terrorist group. And I don’t even mean terror group in the ‘you can argue they’re freedom fighters’ way, I just mean straight up terrorists.
I implore you to look up Hezbollah and tell me that you disagree with the widespread classification of them being a terrorist paramilitary.
E: this community is fucked in the head if there are this many people who are pro Hezbollah. I didn’t realise this was an anti-LGBT, pro-Russia/Iran community. Weird. Most of Lemmy is fairly progressive.
I mean what is the difference between terrorists and freedom fighters in your opinion? Its not a term serious academics of politics tend to use.
The point being made, is the persecution of Miller, who has committed no crime, was not suspected of any crime, for attending a funeral.
You can flap all you want - whos funeral is was is immaterial. There’s not much nuance to it.
He literally is suspended of a crime. Hezbollah is a proscribed terrorist group. You can’t just pop in and visit them without raising eyebrows of the police, so Miller is rightly being questioned.
What crime is he suspected of and by whom ?
Being involved with a proscribed terrorist group, on account of attending the funeral of their leader and putting messages of support on social media. That’s in addition to other smoking guns like being paid by Iranian state media.
I’m not sure why you’re having difficulty understanding this. Hezbollah is a terrorist group.
And suspected by the police. That’s who investigate crime, silly billy. Who were you expecting to be questioning him, Batman?
You will of course have read the article, and got the bit where it said :
Can you take us through what happened cognitively, at this point ?
Because it means the police didn’t have to suspect him of anything. And there is nothing that says this did suspect him of anything .
We really need you to nail this bit, before we can explain the concept that “guilt by association “ is not a real thing, at least in English law.
It’s the same legal standard that means if your mom sells crack, you aren’t automatically a crack dealer also.
I’m not doing apologia. Thanks for your reply.