| Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites. |
| Rinty |
Aamer Anwar case - verdict to be given on 1 JulyAamer Anwar case - verdict to be given on 1 JulyJudgement in the contempt of court case against Aamer Anwar will be given at 10am Tuesday 1 July in Edinburgh High Court Please come along to show your support for Aamer Anwar http://www.sacc.org.uk/aameranwar/index.php |
||
| Alasdair |
Re: Aamer Anwar case - verdict to be given on 1 July
I wish i could ... the whole thing stinks. |
||
| Red Justice |
I will be there Rinty
Aamer is the best Scottish Human Rights lawyer for Scotland. The establishment need to waken up and smell the coffee I am quietly confident about this, the original complaint against him was a nonsense. |
||
| Rinty |
Aye, there is little chance of anything coming from this, it was a bit of show trial based on the embarrassment of the courts over the Siddique case. There is no doubt that the 8 year sentence was a result of the whipped up frenzy of paranoia re young asians and supposed 'radicalisation'. What the establishment didnt like about aamer's comments on behalf of the Siddique family is that they rang true. | ||
| Amber |
Aamer Anwar is a criminal lawyer. He is characterised as a human rights lawyer by a section of the far left. His day to day work is defending the usual wee scrotes that fill up our courts. |
||
| Red Justice |
Sorry Amber did notice you were there, thought I was reading about the work of Aamer Anwar from the pages of The Herald 
|
||
| Red Justice |
Latest statement from SACC as posted on facebook see below.
It was short notice about the case have had to borrow some money to get down on Tuesday. RJ Scotland Against Criminalising Communites Thursday 26 June 2008 Aamer Anwar case - verdict to be announced on Tuesday 1-July-2008 Judgement in the "contempt of court" case against Glasgow-based human rights lawyer - Aamer Anwar will be given at Edinburgh High Court on Tuesday 1 July, 2008. *The court session will begin at 10am. Supporters of Aamer Anwar (of 'Defend Aamer Anwar' campaign) will be gathering outside the court from around 9.30am. The proceedings against Aamer Anwar followed statements he made last September after his client, Mohammed Atif Siddique, was convicted of "terrorism offences". The case was heard by three judges at Edinburgh High Court on Tuesday 29-April. The case is seen by many in Scotland's Muslim community as a litmus test of their freedom to speak out on issues connected with the "war on terror". It is set to make legal history on at least three counts: + It is the first time that charges of this sort have been brought against a lawyer in the UK. + It is the first time that a "third-party intervention" has been put before a Scottish court (though such interventions have been made in cases of major public interest south of the border). Lawyers from London-based human rights organisation Liberty were allowed by the court to present their view that Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, guaranteeing freedom of expression, is applicable to Aamer Anwar's case. + Finally, and most importantly, the case is one that will clarify the relationship between Scottish law and the European Convention on Human Rights. It is certain to become a key reference point in Scottish and European law. Scotland Against Criminalising Communities More information:- contact@sacc.org.uk More about Scotland Against Criminalising Communities, visit: www.sacc.org.uk |
||
| Rinty |
See you there Red, this is a vital case and although the decision is almost a foregone conclusion, it would be good to see a big support for Aamer and against this hostile action. | ||
| Amber |
Few true supporters of justice would be troubled by serious sanctions against Anwar, a criminal - rather than human rights - lawyer. | ||
| Rinty |
Amber, the list of supporters and the intervention of Liberty suggest that you are wrong. I cannot see how being a criminal lawyer would mean he would deserve less support than a human rights lawyer. You said it earlier, and I still don't understand what point you are making.
The scotish media and the scottish legal establishment see aamer as a human rights lawyer and describe him as such as his cases can be high profile in that field, while some lesser know criminal cases won't be seen in the press. I have a mate who is an entertainment lawyer, he is known as such to most people who know him and will be seen alongside some high profile celebrities on TV occassionally. However, like other lawyers, his day to day business is more mundane and less media-friendly cases. He is called a 'music business' lawyer but he is just the same as any other business lawyer. Of course political and human rights lawyers often are defending what are criminal cases, as it takes a breach of criminal law to end up in court. 'Human rights lawyer' might not be the perfect description for what aamer does ( I would say political lawyer or even socialist lawyer probably) but I think you are missing the point here. Can you give us any evidence for your statement that few "true" supporters of justice would be troubled by "serious" sanctions against aamer laywer? |
||
| Amber |
Can you give any evidence to the contrary? Note: please don't include the idiotic ramblings of the politically infantile. Can you give me a list of human rights cases conducted by anwar? Can you heck. |
||
| Rinty |
I really am struggling to understand what you are getting at. You seem to be arguing about the usual press description of aamer as a 'human rights' lawyer. As I said, I didnt give him that title and see him more as a political lawyer. As for evidence to the contrary to your assertion that 'true' supporters of justice wouldnt object to aamer being found guilty. I have offered the impressive list of "human rights lawyers" and others who have supported the campaign, joining organisation like The Firm magazine, Liberty and others. I have already offered the evidence in contrary to your claim. Now can you offer the evidence to support your claim? I wouldnt be able to list aamer's cases but if you are looking at cases brought solely under human rights legislation then I would imagine it would be few, there are very few in Scotland. That is why I dont think that 'human rights lawyer' is the best descrition for him. He handles a lot of political cases and cases around immigration and asylum as well as a wide variety of criminal cases. The legal establishment and the press tend to lump all of this together as 'human rights' when describing aamer. Of course many of his cases will use human rights legislation as they are widely used in criminal and civil cases in Scotland. But I still don't see your point. Should we not back him simply because the press call him a human rights lawyer, or are you saying that we shouldn't back criminal lawyers, or is there something else, some other reason why we shouldnt back him? |
||
| Rinty |
Not guilty | ||
| Red Justice |
I think it is a victory for free speech Rinty despite the judges comments. He got found not guilty and that is what counts.
Aamer emerged from court this morning and gave a statement to waiting media also he thanked his supporters above all Stop The War. See SACC statement below - Press Release from Scotland Against Criminalising Communities Tuesday 1 July 2008 Campaigners welcome judgement in Anwar case Lord Carloway accused of "misusing" contempt law SACC welcomes the judgement given by three judges at Edinburgh High Court today that human rights lawyer Aamer Anwar did not commit contempt of court in statements he made last September following the conviction for "terrorism" of his client Mohammed Atif Siddique. Nothing contained in the judgment, and nothing said when the case was discussed in court on 29 April, suggests that there was ever any serious basis for supposing that Aamer Anwar's statements constituted contempt of court. It is deeply worrying that Lord Carloway – the judge in the Siddique case - should have chosen to initiate these unprecedented legal proceedings on such flimsy grounds. Lord Carloway seems, at best, to have been misusing the law of contempt to create an opportunity for the court to express its views on Aamer Anwar's statements. At worst, his actions look like a politically motivated attempt to silence a courageous lawyer. We are disappointed that, while rejecting the contempt of court allegations, the court today used the opportunity to comment critically on Aamer Anwar's statements. SACC fully supports the statements that Aamer Anwar made last September on the steps of Glasgow High Court, in the media, and in his press release. The judges today described these statements as "angry and petulant." It would surprise no one if the guilty verdict in the Siddique case – which came as a surprise to many who had followed the case – left Aamer Anwar and his client feeling angry. But the only petulance that anyone has shown in this protracted saga came from Lord Carloway, who chose to use the might of the contempt of court law to hit back at statements that he happened not to like. The judges also referred, apparently in criticism, to "a range of political comments concerning the position of Muslims in our society" included in Aamer Anwar's statement. It is surely beyond dispute that this is an issue of critical importance for our society, that it was essential background to the Siddique case, and that it played a key role in the jury's interpretation of the actions of Mohammed Atif Siddique. We think it bodes ill for the future of Scottish justice that the judges should treat this matter in such a dismissive way. We believe that the right of lawyers to speak in the sort of terms used by Aamer Anwar is an essential protection both for individuals who find themselves accused of crime and for society at large. In the Siddique case, the interpretations that the police and the security services placed upon the guilty verdict were reported immediately and widely by the press. Lord Carloway's own interpretations, issued at the later sentencing hearing, were reported just as widely. Since then, much of the public discussion of anti-terrorism policy has included references to Mohammed Atif Siddique's supposed acts of terrorism. In these circumstances, it is of vital public interest that people should be told of alternative interpretations of the case. Lawyers south of the border have long been in the habit for making forceful statements outside the court. We hope their more timorous cousins in Scotland will be encouraged by the outcome of this case to do the same, despite the huffing and puffing of the judges over the content of Aamer Anwar's statements. And we hope that this is a trend that the Law Society of Scotland will support. We wish Mohammed Atif Siddique well in his appeal against his conviction. Notes For the Summary of the Opinion of the Court, 1 July 2008, http://www.sacc.org.uk/index.php?...task=view&id=583&catid=33 For the statement issued by Aamer Anwar after the conviction of Mohammed Atif Siddique, 17 September 2007, see http://www.sacc.org.uk/index.php?...task=view&id=527&catid=33 |
||
| Dave Coull |
Like the SACC statement says, there was never any serious basis for supposing remarks by Aamer Anwar constituted contempt of court, and the decision to initiate legal proceedings against him on such flimsy grounds is part of a wider attack on civil liberties. And although Aamer Anwar was accused of "petulance", like the SACC statement also says, the only "petulance" shown in this case was by those who initiated those proceedings because they didn't like the views he expressed. The "not guilty" verdict on Aamer Anwar is welcome, but we can't rely on courts and lawyers to defend free speech, in the end the only way to defend free speech is through the widespread exercise of free speech. | ||
| Red Justice |
I don't think this situation would of happened in English Law. It was a flimsy complaint by a judge to attempt the comtempt of court proceedings against Aamer. I think the disppointing comments from the judges today are designed to allow the Scottish judicial system save face. | ||
| shamefulsocialistpowermad |
he is a twit. a twit with his fat cheeks swilling the trough of 'human rights' law. a disgrace of a man and rightly called angry and petulant. good to see the gypsy parties out supporting him, they are welcome bedfellows and deserve each other.
personally i would have jailed the silly ned. |
||