Home » One more thing about religion and law

Comments

One more thing about religion and law — 12 Comments

  1. I’m fairly positive that FGM is way, way underreported.

    Just another reason why Islam is fundamentally incompatible with Western civilization. A complete mystery to me why Dems embrace Islam other than their crass identity politics and desire for votes.

  2. Fascinating. I was certain that suttee was a Parsi custom, rather than Hindu. But now, Hindu it is, according to Wiki. But I’ll wager tanything that I got that idea from Around the World in 80 Days. In the book, at least, I thought Aouda was Parsi. Well, live and learn

  3. Interesting that Napier threatened the priests not just with death by hanging but the loss of their property as well. Reminds me of Machiavelli’s advice in “The Prince” that a ruler who found it necessary to execute his opponents should be cautious about confiscating their property as well. Since, as he pointed out with sublime cynicism, men are much more willing to forgive the loss of a father than that of an inheritance.

  4. Could preaching violent jihad be a seditious conspiracy?

    From Wiki:
    “For a seditious conspiracy charge to be effected, a crime need only be planned, it need not be actually attempted. According to Andres Torres and Jose E. Velazquez, the accusation of seditious conspiracy is of political nature and was used almost exclusively against Puerto Rican independentistas in the twentieth century.[1] However, the act was also used in the twentieth century against communists and radicals (United Freedom Front,[2] the Provisional IRA in Massachusetts), neo-Nazis,[3] and Islamic terrorists including Omar Abdel-Rahman.[4] This is irrespective of the state sedition laws, used to persecute hundreds of communists, socialists and labor leaders.[5]”

    Use it to get rid of the inciters/recruiters for jihad. Go after radical imams in U.S mosques and on line recruitment activities.

  5. J.J.:

    I think we need to be very careful about using sedition laws. But yes, I see no reason why preaching jihad couldn’t be attacked that way, at least in theory. Imans who do this in our country should be treated more harshly, although the left would no doubt object.

    The problem with using seditious conspiracy laws against imans preaching jihadi terrorism is that the laws don’t deal with advocating terrorism; they deal with advocating the overthrow of the government. See this:

    If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

    The proper recourse is probably not the sedition laws but some of the anti-terrorism laws.

  6. I guess we are still debating the earlier interesting post, but I think there are a number of laws (aside from sedition) that can be used to prosecute cases that don’t entail explicit actions.

    Conspiracy to commit (e.g. murder), Aiding and abetting, and RICO can all be used in “creative” ways. Mere knowledge and failure to report can be prosecuted. RICO sounds like it would be precluded in a “lone wolf” scenario, but what if that wolf rented a large murder weapon truck using money provided by a radicalized mosque? Even if the funds were provided for living expenses, but the imam was advocating “death to infidels,” might that not qualify for RICO prosecution on both ends of the money transfer?

  7. On the topic of this post, I am heartened to see that transport out of the U.S. for purposes of FGM is now a crime. Thanks for the details, as always.

    I’d like to add, that to us, all of these atrocities are just FGM. But to muslims there are two entirely different forms of FGM. I saw a quasi documentary and Q&A with the filmmaker about FGM in Egypt in the early 2000’s. According to her, there was/is a law in Egypt banning the stitching of labia shut and it enjoys 90+% support in the public. However, clitoridectomies were still very widespread. I don’t recall if the latter was illegal or not, but if it was, the law was largely ignored.

  8. Neo, thanks for the insight. You’ve studied the law. I’m just a knuckle dragger looking for solutions. 🙂

  9. LTEC:

    Those are special exceptions for very special situations. The general rule is as I stated.

  10. What excuse is used by feminists who feed hormone blockers to children? Should be good for anyone mutilating children.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>