« BBC and Religion. | Main | Cameron on the NHS. »
February 08, 2006
Omar Khayam.
Sorry, can’t remember where I saw this comment on Omar Khayam, the drug dealer out on licence who dressed up as a suicide bomber.
A protester who dressed up as a suicide bomber at a Muslim demonstration against the cartoons satirising the Prophet Mohammed was returned to prison yesterday.
Omar Khayam, 22, is a convicted drug dealer who was jailed for six years in 2002 for trafficking heroin and cocaine. He was released on licence last year after serving half his sentence.
Now I realise that being on licence means that some of his rights are reduced. But why is he back in jail? Wasn’t he simply exercising his untrammelled right to free speech?
Or have I missed something?
Just as background I tend to be rather fundamentalist myself on this free speech thing. First Amendment and all that (not that we have this in the UK but the law should be the same even though we don’t have such a written constitution). Incitement to violence isn’t OK, you can’t shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre and then there’s the Larry Flynt line. "If the First Amendment protects a scumbag like me then it’ll protect you."
So is Khayam back in jail because someone thought this a good idea or has he specifically breached the terms of his release on licence?
February 8, 2006 in Current Affairs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c2d3e53ef00d8345bcfd769e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Omar Khayam.:
» Martyrs, martyrs everywhere from Bloggerheads
BBC - Abu Hamza jailed for seven years: Controversial Muslim cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri has been jailed for seven years after being found guilty of inciting murder and race hate. Abu Hamza, 47, who preached at Finsbury Park Mosque, London,... [Read More]
Tracked on Feb 8, 2006 11:05:03 AM
» Martyrs, martyrs everywhere from Bloggerheads
BBC - Abu Hamza jailed for seven years: Controversial Muslim cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri has been jailed for seven years after being found guilty of inciting murder and race hate. Abu Hamza, 47, who preached at Finsbury Park Mosque, London,... [Read More]
Tracked on Feb 8, 2006 11:07:24 AM
» Free Omar Khayam from Stumbling and Mumbling
Even idiots have a right to liberty. We should, therefore, regret that Omar Khayam has been returned to prison.His protest did not constitute a criminal offense - and he hasn't (yet) been charged with one. Sure, dressing as a suicide [Read More]
Tracked on Feb 8, 2006 3:41:37 PM
Comments
Only six years for dealing in hard drugs- and released after serving just three?
What sort of message is that sending out to those who peddle in death?
Posted by: Neil Clark | Feb 8, 2006 12:37:43 PM
Tim,
He can play dress up as a suicide bomber in the privacy of his own home if he wishes. That's protected free speech. However, the specific articles of clothing were worn at a demonstration at which placards inciting acts of murder were on display.
The costume he was wearing is synonymous with the perpetration of murder; the acts of murder perpetrated by the wearers of such costumes are synonymous with the religious and political sentiment displayed on the placards; the costume was being worn in a city in which many people have been already been murdered by the same technique which the item of clothing he was wearing is designed to perform.
A suicide belt is like a hard hat or a snorkel - it serves only one purpose. It is not an item of clothing that the man on the Clapham omnibus, or the man on the bus on Tavistock Square, would consider wearing to the beach.
Its wearing may be a political statement - however, such a statement is not merely a statement of political principle, but is also, given the nature of the clothing and its limited utility, a statement of intent.
Specifically, intent to commit murder, because a sucide belt is a murder weapon.
If the cops didn't haul him back for the incitement to murder, then a secondary, weaker case could be made for them doing so on account of his simple possession of the belt under the 'lawful authority or reasonable excuse' test of the good old, ever-reliable Prevention of Crime Act 1953; that is, if Blair hasn't sent that trusty old warhorse to the knackers yet.
There is no way that Khayam's actions constitute protected speech. He was inciting murder, he was accrying an offensive weapon, he broke the terms of his licence and now he's back where he belongs.
Posted by: MK | Feb 8, 2006 12:43:17 PM
Whatever the strict interpreation of the law may be there were plenty of other individuals on that march also breaking the law who have not been arrested.
Maybe I'm just a nasty minded cynic, but I detect a whiff of political expediency here. Mr Khayam is a classic example of low hanging fruit; his preious criminal record is hardly likely to endear him to his fellow congregants and by arresting him on a parole violation he can be banged up swiftly and without te embarasment of a trial, thus satisfying the baying hounds of the press.
One does have to admire the irony of a man named after a 12th Century Persian poet famous for his verses in praise of wine and women getting nailed for being a pseudo-Islamic fundamentalist.
Who ever said God doesn't have a sense of humour?
RM
Posted by: The Remittance Man | Feb 8, 2006 1:19:22 PM
answers to questions:
[What sort of message is that sending out to those who peddle in death? ]
that it's a very serious offence, with an extremely long sentence even for small-time dealers who have not committed any crimes of violence against people.
[A suicide belt is like a hard hat or a snorkel - it serves only one purpose.]
Don't be silly. A "suicide vest" is just a "bodywarmer with pockets" until someone puts the explosives into the pockets. The specific thing that "Omar Khayyam" (can't the police be bothered inventing proper nicknames for their provocateurs?) was wearing looked very much like a Millets' fishing vest to me.
I'm more of an authoritarian than Tim when it comes to big demonstrations in cities during volatile situations; the very fact that the police felt unable to finger any collars for fear of a riot suggests that there were probably public order offences being committed. But the correct thing to do is therefore to try people for public order offences; Tim is dead on that it is a complete abuse of the "release under licence" system to use it to prevent what the bloke in question quite likely thought at the time was legitimate and protected political expression.
I bet they start handing out a few ASBOs soon to Muslims, forbidding them to go on demonstrations or hold placards. It would certainly be possible to do so under the relevant law.
Posted by: dsquared | Feb 8, 2006 2:42:36 PM
I like the comments from his "Friends" on BBC radio that they didn't see why he had to apologise - after all he was only expressing himself and it was only a picture in the newspaper after all. My irony alert went into overdrive
Posted by: Mark T | Feb 8, 2006 2:46:48 PM
DSquared,
What type of speech Khayam thought he might have been engaging in does not excuse him from its consequences.
What he was wearing might have looked like a Millets fishing vest to you, but it looked like a suicide vest to me. Your argument that ' A "suicide vest" is just a "bodywarmer with pockets" until someone puts the explosives into the pockets', I'm afraid just doesn't hold water. These things are matters of fact and degree. In order for that interpretation of events to stand up, you would have to be able to demonstrate that it is wholly unreasonable to conclude that the garment Khayam was wearing was meant to resemble a suicide belt and that he meant it to resemble a suicide belt.
He was wearing it while part of a demonstration inciting murder.
And just as a blade does not have to be wielded in order for it to be an offensive weapon, although a suicide belt is packed with explosives for its ultimate purpose, a similar type of garment does not have to be packed with explosives in order for it to depict a sucide belt.
Remittance Man,
Khayam may be low hanging fruit - but he has nobody to blame for that but himself. Hopefully the others will get their legal just desserts in due course.
Posted by: MK | Feb 8, 2006 4:05:05 PM
can't the police be bothered inventing proper nicknames for their provocateurs?
Oh, please. Have you got any evidence, any suspicion of evidence, anything at all to make you think that this guy was anything other than he appeared to be? This is pitiful.
Posted by: ajay | Feb 8, 2006 4:21:03 PM
[you would have to be able to demonstrate ]
No I wouldn't; all I was arguing against was your own claim that "a suicide vest has no uses other than a murder weapon", which is wrong.
[Have you got any evidence, any suspicion of evidence, anything at all to make you think that this guy was anything other than he appeared to be? This is pitiful]
We call it a "joke" where I come from.
Posted by: dsquared | Feb 8, 2006 5:34:30 PM
DSquared,
Sorry, but you would.
Posted by: MK | Feb 8, 2006 6:04:52 PM
MK,
I sincerly hope some of the other people do get busted for their naughtiness.
My comment was meant to convey that while Omar probably deserves everything he gets the massive publicity given to his case does smack a bit too much of the "news management" we have come to expect from both the government and/or the police. It certainly drove the more general clamour about the police's softly-softly approach to the demos from the front pages. If that wasn't spin doctoring, I'll bet there are several spin doctors who wish they had thought of it.
The whole thing was made even more perverse when we saw his local MP (slim labour majority) pitching up at the lad's public confession to show support. To this cynic it appeared very much like a case of someone trying to have their cake and eat it?
Anyway, that's just my opinion. Make of it what you will.
RM
Posted by: The Remittance Man | Feb 8, 2006 7:13:19 PM
Remittance Man,
Please don't think I disagree with you at all.
If Khayam had not existed, Blair would have had to invent him.
And I'll bet his MP feels like a bit of a diddy right now - LOL!
Posted by: MK | Feb 8, 2006 8:28:24 PM
MK,
Looks like we agree then, except I think even the MP appearance might have been stage managed. Imagine the scene in the No 10 press office:
Jubilation that the guy whose blood the Sun is demanding has been identified as a convicted drug dealer out on parole. (Even my tinfoil hat isn't big enough to let me believe that those pictures were planted by the NuLabour supporting Murdoch press).
Devastation when it is realised that he lives in a marginal Labour constituency with a smallish but electorally significant Muslim population.
Jubilation when someone realises that the police and probation service can be blamed for "just doing their duty" and NuLabour can be seen as suitably sympathetic if the MP pitches up to show support and then hang around "just to make sure my constituent's rights aren't abused" as long as the cameras are present.
This is going to be THE case study for every class in "News Management and Political Disaster Control" worldwide.
If I weren't in favour of at least some sort of rule of law I'd say Mr Khayam deserves to be shot simply for handing the regime such an easy get out from this whole calamity.
RM
Posted by: The Remittance Man | Feb 9, 2006 6:02:27 AM
Does no one see the irony here? If said drug dealer had committed his crime in a number of 'Islamic' countries, he would now be minus his head or executed in some other fashion.
So he dresses up as an Islamic 'Suicide bomber' to support their cause. ROFL.
Regards
Bill
Posted by: Parkingattendant | Feb 9, 2006 7:31:46 AM
Does no one see the irony here? He was on a march for people who opposed free speech and found things offensive, and we found his exercise of free speech offensive and chucked him in jail.
And what's up with how you find ten thousand spoons when you just need a knife?
(apparently Alanis Morisette has been aware from the moment she wrote the line, that rain on your wedding day is really more "unfortunate" than "ironic", and she is now rather tired of people telling her so).
Posted by: dsquared | Feb 9, 2006 8:31:11 AM
DSquared,
We didn't chuck him in jail because his speech was offensive.
We chucked him in jail because he was a convicted drug dealer released on licence who broke the terms of that licence by inciting murder.
Posted by: MK | Feb 9, 2006 8:59:07 AM
Well no. He wasn't "Inciting Murder". That is a separate offence. What we apparently did, is say that his liberty while on licence was at our whim to revoke thanks to a very loosely worded condition of "good behaviour", and that we would exercise that power in order to punish him for speech we didn't like.
The guy has been put (back) in jail for something that is not an offence. That's wrong.
Posted by: dsquared | Feb 9, 2006 10:58:12 AM
DSquared,
At the risk of becoming repetitive, by his actions in wearing that clothing at that time in that place in that company, he was inciting murder.
Well, yes, his liberty is at our whim to revoke -he would have been able to avoid the consequences of having that particular status had he elected not to possess crack with the intention to supply.
Posted by: MK | Feb 9, 2006 11:18:05 AM
[At the risk of becoming repetitive, by his actions in wearing that clothing at that time in that place in that company, he was inciting murder. ]
At the risk of becoming repetitive no he wasn't, which is why he wasn't charged with incitement to murder.
Posted by: dsquared | Feb 9, 2006 11:53:57 AM
And he didn't have to be to be have his licence revoked!!!
AARRGGHH!!!!
Posted by: MK | Feb 9, 2006 12:04:34 PM
DD: "The guy has been put (back) in jail for something that is not an offence. That's wrong."
you don't have to commit an offence to be (re)imprisoned if you are under licence. Read the law. (paroleboard.gov.uk)
There are basically three reasons: breach of licence conditions; breach of trust (which need not include breach of licence); or the decision that leaving him at large means an unacceptable risk of a further offence. Incidentally, most prisoners recalled from release are recalled because of an arrest or charge, not a conviction; so guilt is clearly not a requirement for recall.
Basically, MK is right and you are wrong. Prisoners on licence are free at the whim of the authorities. Going out on licence is a privilege, not a right. I can conceive of cases in which a prisoner on licence might have his freedom of movement, or speech, or association curtailed as a condition of licence, and so, I'm sure, can you.
Posted by: ajay | Feb 9, 2006 4:55:18 PM
