April 24, 2013

"Canada terror suspect does not recognize 'criminal code.'"

NY Post headline after Chiheb Esseghaier said: "My comment is the following because all of those conclusions were taken out based on criminal code and all of us know that this criminal code is not a holy book.... We cannot rely on the conclusions taken out from these judgments."

The headline makes Esseghaier sound confused or nutty and the words are garbled, but it's easy to perceive the age-old argument that the accused doesn't recognize the authority of the court because he answers to what is to him a higher authority. It's a great argument when facing an evil authority and a legal code that's insufficiently connected to morality.

29 comments:

lincolntf said...

Well I guess that's that. If it's not sharia-compliant how can they force him to recognize he law? See Nidal Hassan, Gitmo Korans, etc. Someone call the UN, they've got a new poster boy.

Paddy O said...

Jesus did that. But he just stayed silent. Didn't have to make a big deal out of the confrontation.

traditionalguy said...

He claims to be the soldier of the Islamic Empire. So send his case to the UN...or better yet hold him in our Resort in Cuba until the war is over. Then try him and hang him if we win or bow to him if we lose.

Larry J said...

You act in accord with your customs and we'll act in accord with ours. If you want to live under Sharia law, go to a country like Saudi Arabia. We aren't going to change our laws to suit you.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

The Canucks don't have the stones to execute terrorists.

Which is sad, because they seem to have a decent government in the last few years, much better than the reign of King Putt here in the US.

Sorun said...

"...tipped off by an imam worried by the behavior of one of the suspects"

This is where the Religion of Peace has responsibility. There should be more social pressure on the clergy to point out the wackos.

Carl said...

It's not an argument at all. It's a tribal dominance tactic, rooted in our long childhood. If your brother wants to smack you for taking his toy, tell him mom said you could. If mom wants to smack you for lying, tell her dad said you should. If dad wants to smack you for bullshitting mom, tell him the village elders said you could.

It has exactly squat to do with the morality of the operative code, or the evil of your opponent (there is no less and quite possibly more legalism when you are operating under an essentially immoral system, as Solzhenitsyn noted). And the use of primate tactics will be neither enhanced nor suppressed by legal reform, because it's just what tribal hominids instinctively do. You can see it in every 5-year-old.

The interesting aspect of this story is that this fellow is reduced to emotional primate tactics right off the bat. Usually that's what happens after you try actual argument -- you know, facts and logic in support of some conclusion -- and it fails.

What this suggests is that taking your moral direction from radical Islam rots your brain. Or perhaps that if your cognitive functions are deficient, you are more likely to turn to radical Islam as a substitute. Either is plausible.

Alex said...

Hasn't Canada already said that sharia law is equivalent to Canadian law? Maybe even superior?

SMGalbraith said...

"It's a great argument when facing an evil authority and a legal code that's insufficiently connected to morality. "

One of my favorite plays (really, this is no fake intellectualism) is Antigone by Sophocles.

Yeah, nerd alert. But it's a great play on law of man versus law of religion or a "higher" law.

Antigone needed to bury her brother or his soul would roam the world forever in pain. But the King ordered that his body not be buried because he (the brother) tried to overthrow the King.

So what was Antigone supposed to do?

Æthelflæd said...

SMGalbraith - Antigone is the favorite play of my literature loving daughter. It is a fantastic piece to study with high schoolers who tend to be naturally interested in issues of justice.

edutcher said...

This is where the Limeys who built the Empire knew what to do.

And weren't afraid to do it.

ndspinelli said...

He also doesn't recognize homosexuality, but he will be getting introduced to it in prison. His shit will get packed so tight he'll need an enema.

ErnieG said...

"...tipped off by an imam worried by the behavior of one of the suspects"

Kudos to the imam for dropping the dime on this bozo. We haven't seen as much of this behavior as we should. At mosques in this country the word is not to cooperate with the infidel police.

Glen Filthie said...

Well now in all fairness, as a born and bred Canadian myself - I don't recognize that code either, or the beshitted liberal scum that perverted it. Out 'hate laws' are contemptable and literally create a class society and enable liberal censorship.

Bugger the supreme court and their lickspittles judiciary. In better times people like our judges were hung from the lamp posts.

edutcher said...

ndspinelli said...

He also doesn't recognize homosexuality, but he will be getting introduced to it in prison. His shit will get packed so tight he'll need an enema.

Not necessarily. One of Islam's most fertile recruiting grounds are prisons.

And, in the Francosphere, they have somewhere to direct it.

Don't tell Hatman.

Tibore said...

"My comment is the following because all of those conclusions were taken out based on criminal code and all of us know that this criminal code is not a holy book.... We cannot rely on the conclusions taken out from these judgments."

Yeah, good luck with that buddy. Remember, even al-Masīḥ - you know, the guy us Christians call "Jesus" - said "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's". Well, you're about to render some jail time to the state, big boy.

Methadras said...

His higher authority is an evil code that is codified in the workings of a lunatic psychopath that made a religion of death out of it. No one killed him when they had the chance to stop it.

chuck said...

So does the Constitution trump the Federal Courts?

The Drill SGT said...

I assume that:

Larry J said...
You act in accord with your customs and we'll act in accord with ours.

and

edutcher said...
This is where the Limeys who built the Empire knew what to do.



are channeling General Napier:

"Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs."

jimbino said...

That's right: you don't need to accept the laws of a criminal regime. The French & Italian partisans understood that, as did von Stauffenbergs, during WWII.

Die Gedanken sind frei!

BarrySanders20 said...

It's only a great argument if made to the religious authority. (Curious that killing and maiming strangers on a train would be appealing to that religious authority).

It's a really shitty argument if made to the civil authority whose laws you chose not to obey.

So if he's in the custody of the civil authorities, and will be tried in the courts of that civil authority, charged with violating the laws of that civil authority, then "great" is not how I would characterize the argument. He needs a new lawyer if that's a great argument.

Larry J said...

The Drill SGT said...
I assume that:

...

are channeling General Napier:


Indeed, in sentiment if not in the exact same words. The same applies to those "honor killers". In your culture, you kill wifes and daughters who you believe brought dishonor to your family. And in our culture, we execture murderers (sometimes).

Pettifogger said...

I'll bet the legal code recognizes him.

Steven said...

Civil disobedience can be a good strategy for moving the law toward what you think it should be if you can bring attention to a law that the lawmakers are likely to consider unjust.

In this case, I think he'll spend a long prison sentence satisfied that he has not been found guilty under any legal code that he acknowledges.

furious_a said...

"Higher Authority" and "Zombie Death-cult Sustained by Human Sacrifice in furtherance of a Pornographic Afterlife" don't match.

jr565 said...

"SMGalbraith - Antigone is the favorite play of my literature loving daughter. It is a fantastic piece to study with high schoolers who tend to be naturally interested in issues of justice.
For those that haven't read it:
Antigone was a bitch and Creon was in the right. The End.


jr565 said...

SMGalbraith wrote:
Antigone needed to bury her brother or his soul would roam the world forever in pain. But the King ordered that his body not be buried because he (the brother) tried to overthrow the King.

So what was Antigone supposed to do?

Heed the law.

jr565 said...

AT one point Antigone says, if it were her husband or her son she would heed the law because she could always remarry, and always have another kid. But she couldn't remake her brother.
But wouldn't her son and/or husband then have their souls roam the world forever in pain?
Further, Creon actually relents, Antigone remains to the end convinced she is so right with the certainty of a god. And basically rejects her sister and her husband to die as a martyr to her cause. Her hubris is self righteousness.A law unto herself.
Creaon believes in equal applicatoin of the law. His law may be harsh but he actually relents and changes his mind. He can listen to the counsel of others and actually reverse course (which for a monarch is impressive). Not so Antigone.

ed said...

Waterboard him a few times and he'll wise up pretty quickly.