A reasoned commentary from the BBC, which opens with:Nicely sums up the case:Can someone be convicted of disseminating books which are arguably so extreme in nature they've played a role in encouraging terrorism and political violence?
That was the question in the trial - and subsequent appeal - of a Birmingham bookseller who in 2011 was convicted of selling jihadist literature, the first substantial case of its kind.The Court of Appeal decision is linked, although it is far from clear to a layman, but the BBC helps:In short, the prosecution said Faraz was distributing material that was designed to prime people for terrorism, even if he was not involved in it himself.
Ahmed Faraz's defence was that none of the publications encouraged terrorism; they were simply publications that encouraged intelligent discussions on religious and political theory - and that he also had a legitimate academic interest in some of the material.Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20940716the Court of Appeal said that it was probable that some people who had read the books were already militant Islamists who might have been further encouraged. But they said that was not proof that any of the books had indeed encouraged acts of terrorism.
Lord Justice Pitchford said: "The danger is that the jury would condemn the publication purely by reason of its association with known terrorists. The temptation to move to the conclusion that terrorists would not be in possession of a publication unless it encouraged them to acts to terrorism is a powerful one; but such a conclusion would, of course, be speculative, unfair and prejudicial."
Bookmarks