Think there was an ulterior motive behind the charges against Ubaydullah Hussain – Dagbladet.no

Think there was an ulterior motive behind the charges against Ubaydullah Hussain – Dagbladet.no

(Dagbladet): Ubaydullah Hussain was today acquitted of incitement to terror.

– I agree with the result, and the judgment is a thorough review of the law in this area. The pointer just that there must something more before one can interpret something as a call to terror. That you can not put things into utterances, but must adhere quite strictly to what is said, says Wessel-Aas Dagbladet.

– It is possible to take some account of the context-specific expression is said in – but when you consider who is indicted here we see that it is not used against him. He has been active before and he is sentenced for threats. But the court adhere to the case – whether it offends people, says Wessel-Aas.

He describes the verdict as important.

– This is an important judgment as protective of good about legality principle – in a case where it is quite obvious that you are talking about a type with good reason is no hero in the population.

amendment

If you compare it with the maximum sentence for a variety of other types of crime, the relationship Hussain was accused of a relatively “mild” crime. But the matter involved – and immediately after the acquittal asked leading Justice politicians that they had to discuss an amendment.

– 20 years ago or 10 years ago, there is no doubt that there was another debate on such issues. It is no wonder, there are some tensions in the day that was not as prominent at the time, says Wessel-Aas.

– There is a terrorist threat, it is larger cultural tensions in society – and not least, the general population had their own publishing platforms. For 20 years the types that Hussain had very few public platforms unless the media drew him forward, as it had been fliers and assembly halls with megaphone.

String determination

Wessel-Aas do not mean that the laws should be tightened further.

– I personally have no problem understanding that people are concerned. But I think there have not been making that we need further legislative changes, says Wessel-Aas. He cites the peculiar wording of Penal Code § 147 – which is the paragraph Hussain was charged with having violated.

– This is a new provision that goes beyond the general penalty provisions. It is worth noting that the prosecutor and defense counsel agreed that the relationship was not punishable under the §140, concerning incitement to criminal acts. The provision that was tested in this case the call to terror affecting more than this. If one were to consider a further lovskjerping will be talking about punishing to show sympathy with anything. When one is pretty far over the freedom of opinion.

Baked Appeal

Wessel-Aas suspect that the matter has been taken to court with an ulterior motive.

– If left this decision to give people in general a better idea of ​​what the criminal law. Meanwhile, it can smell a bit of that this matter is raised by the prosecution’s side a bit to push the provision, knowing that you have an uphill. One might have thought that if you lose, you have a further argument for why we need a new statutory provision. I think it’s a bit unfortunate use of the prosecution, if one uses an indictment against an individual as part of a political process, says Wessel-Aas.

However, he adds:

– The fact that something is not a crime does not mean that it is utterances you necessarily want. The judgment can be used in other extremist groups, and can cause you get an increased number of such statements. It is the back of the coin

Dagbladet has sought Attorney Carl Fredrik Fari – no luck.