I find it morally corrupt that people living in cozy Europe are financing groups that bring so much misery to innocent civilians in the second and third world. I wonder how anyone would feel about people in Europe or in the second and third world financing Al Qaeda. Disgusted? Yes, that’s because this organisation is committed in attacking us in Europe, with 7/7 bombings, etc. It doesn’t look like we would support that “freedom of speech” when our lives are in jeopardy, or would we?

But yet, we feel like it is an outrageous violation of freedom of speech when we stop people from financing terrorist organisations far from our sight? How lovely.

“This is seriously outrageous….As soon as you outlaw expressions of support for one side or other in an armed struggle, you have destroyed the fundamental premise of political freedom….The fact that I am broadly dubious about both PFLP and Farc from a political perspective is utterly beside the point.”

But then who is surprised that ‘free speech’ usually only goes one way?”

Let me get this straight, Sunny. You believe that preventing people from supporting groups that use violent tactics, kidnappings and killings to achieve their means is a serious violation of freedom of speech? I must say I am getting increasingly disappointed by your comments.

*shifty*

If that was legal, it would also be legal for, say, United Fruit to openly hire someone to kill Chavez, BP to fund a seperatist movement in Iran, a reformed East India company to hire mercenaries to conquer Burma.

What is supposed to be remotely morally controversial about the idea that the murder of foreigners should not be legal?

However, as they seem to have sent a cheque for less than £100 and promptly informed the Justice Ministry it seems to have been less a case of funding terrorists and more one of ‘Arrest me, go on, I dare you.’ It’s a perfectly legitimate tactic, but prosecution services are probably all too familiar with it and are not obliged to play.

The T-shirt johnnies seem not to have been too politically motivated but more concerned that getting a tangible connection to scary people with guns would boost their street cred. Writing a cheque is a nice safe way of doing that. Of course I could be doing them an injustice based on sketchy information, they could turn out to be deeply committed and thoughtful political activists who just appear to be smug tossers.

I agree that this is really about who defines terrorism, and that debate is a good thing for freedom of speech, if the decision makers have to get up in open court and make their criteria plain.

But the actual shirt case is not about FoS, as (AFAIK) there is nothing to stop anybody making, selling or wearing the garments. Just not allowed to send money to groups currently defined by a democratic government as terrorist.

On your point about the IRA and the ANC, morally you could argue either way, but legally it depends on the status of those organisations status at the time.

However, according to the Copenhagen Post another group also publicly decided to send funds to Farc. But because they were made up of members of the Danish resistance during WW2, they aren’t being prosecuted.

http://www.cphpost.dk/get/104412.html

On reflection, it seems that the issue isn’t so much FoS, but that other old debate about who gets to define who a terrorist is.

I don’t know much about the Danish Constitution, but I do find it remarkable that their courts will actually get to make this decision. In England, there is no way that the court’s have jurisdiction to deal with something which seems like a foreign policy issue.

I am always happy when idiots who think it cool to support thugs like the PFLP are screwed though!

Sunny, what has this actually got to do with freedom of speech? It’s not that these people were giving an expression of support by selling their t-shirts, it’s that they were giving money to people who have been decided by the government of the country they reside in to be responsible for actively and deliberately commit atrocities against civilians and acts of terrorism. Ergo, they’ve broken the law.

Now I’m more than happy for those people to lobby the government of Denmark to change the law even though I feel that FARC and PFLP are both disgusting organisations with disgusting tactics. Then, they can sell all the t-shirts they want. That’s political freedom and no-one is claiming that they can’t do this I take it?

Until that happens, these young provocateurs have got all they deserve. If I found out that someone had been sending money in a similar way to C18, PIRA or Kach, I would feel exactly the same way.

The fact that a country can designate a group in a far and distant land as objectionable should not mean we all agree with it.

It gets worse. The US is thinking of designating a section of an army in another country as terrorist. And of course in turn that country designates the CIA as terrorists.

Pathetic.

And as for Denmark, are they serious about their politics? Sounds like the whole country has become a bit like the Monday Club and Young Conservatives rolled into one.