Tag: Sedition

  • Proud Boys leader, awaiting Jan. 6 sedition verdict, assails Justice Department

    Proud Boys leader, awaiting Jan. 6 sedition verdict, assails Justice Department

    [ad_1]

    capitol riot proud boys 56260

    “I’m the next stepping stone,” Tarrio said in the call, which was broadcast to a freewheeling Twitter Space organized by the Gateway Pundit, a far-right media outlet known for promoting conspiracy theories about Jan. 6 and the government.

    Tarrio’s attorneys used their closing arguments in court Tuesday morning to lay blame for the Jan. 6 Capitol attack at the feet of Donald Trump, who they say bore the ultimate responsibility for riling up supporters and aiming them at Congress. Tarrio praised his legal team but declined to elaborate on their contention.

    But his lawyers’ claim stands at odds with many of Tarrio’s far-right supporters who have, with no evidence, characterized Jan. 6 as a government setup fueled by undercover agents, or the result of left-wing agitators.

    Tarrio also used the call to praise congressional Republicans — including House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan by name — for pursuing investigations about the “weaponization” of government. He said Jordan should call some Jan. 6 defendants to testify about their experiences.

    Tarrio’s decision to speak publicly came two weeks after he opted against taking the stand in the trial. He elaborated on that decision in Tuesday’s call, saying he wanted to avoid a grilling from prosecutors about statements he’s made over the years.

    “What’s happening is, in these cross examinations, they’re bringing things in from years past — things from 2015, 2016, 2017 is fair game,” Tarrio said. “It has nothing to do with January 6th. We were afraid they were going to use old statements, muddy up the waters.”

    Prosecutors have charged Tarrio and four allies with acting as the “tip of the spear” of the mob that overran the Capitol, assembling a group of hundreds of Proud Boys to form a “fighting force” on Jan. 6. Those men surged across police barricades and stoked the crowd’s anger at decisive moments in the melee. One of them — Dominic Pezzola — ignited the breach of the Capitol itself when he smashed a Senate window with a riot shield.

    Tarrio wasn’t present on Jan. 6 — he had been ordered to stay away from Washington due to an arrest for a separate charge two days earlier — but prosecutors say he stayed in contact with other Proud Boys leaders from a hotel in Baltimore and later celebrated their role in the attack.

    Tarrio spoke to supporters and journalists for more than an hour Tuesday, calling into the Twitter broadcast from the cell phone of a friend, Bobby Pickles. He claimed he’s treated as a greater security risk in the Alexandria jail than the Lockerbie bomber, who is housed in the same facility, and he lamented being held in his cell for 23 hours a day.

    Although two of Tarrio’s codefendants — Pezzola and Zachary Rehl — took the stand last week, Tarrio opted against testifying. But in Tuesday’s call, he echoed the arguments defense lawyers made about the Proud Boys, describing their often violent or vulgar language in group chats as “locker room” banter.

    “It’s simple fun,” he said.

    Tarrio also insisted that he never opened or saw a document titled “1776 Returns” that prosecutors featured in the case. The document, sent to Tarrio by a girlfriend a week before Jan. 6, outlines a plan to storm government buildings in order to protest the election results. Defense attorneys in the case argued that there was no evidence Tarrio ever opened the document, though an FBI agent called by prosecutors noted that Tarrio’s Google searches at that time referenced “The Winter Palace,” an analogy to the Russian Revolution that was referenced in 1776 Returns. Tarrio also referred to “The Winter Palace” on the night of Jan. 6 in text messages with Proud Boy Jeremy Bertino.

    Tarrio also used the call to emphasize that he believes the jury in his case can be “fair.” Although many of his allies have been sharply critical of the judge in his case, Tim Kelly, Tarrio described any conflicts with him as simple disagreements over legal issues and said he respects the court’s decisions.

    Tarrio also said he and his codefendants “are in a good place.”

    “We’re very positive,” he said. “We haven’t given up on each other.”

    [ad_2]
    #Proud #Boys #leader #awaiting #Jan #sedition #verdict #assails #Justice #Department
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Karnataka polls: Mangaluru SDPI candidate faces sedition, under NIA watch

    Karnataka polls: Mangaluru SDPI candidate faces sedition, under NIA watch

    [ad_1]

    Bengaluru: The candidate of Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI) for Mangaluru constituency, Riyaz Farangipet who has submitted nomination to contest from the Ullal constituency in Mangaluru, faces alleged sedition charges and the National Investigation Agency (NIA) is closely watching his movements.

    The SDPI has fielded a formidable candidate in the form of Riyaz, to wrestle the Mangaluru constituency from Congress, U.T. Khader, former minister and senior Congress leader. The constituency is considered as the bastion of Congress so far.

    Riyaz, the national secretary of SDPI, was accused of hatching a conspiracy to attack Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the Phulwari Sharif Aarea of Bihar on July 12, 2022. The investigations allegedly revealed Riyaz’s links with accused persons. The NIA had filed an FIR against him. He is alleged to have taken part in the meetings with accused persons in planning.

    MS Education Academy

    In 2022, NIA had lodged an FIR against him on charges of sedition. The case is being investigated under IPC Sections 120, 120 (B), 121, 121 (A), 1s3(A), 1s3(B) read with 34.

    Apart from this, there are many cases lodged against him in Belthangady, Mangaluru South, Konaje, Mangaluru North, East police stations in Dakshina Kannada district. He is facing charges of creating enmity between groups, obstructing the duty of policemen.

    Riyaz Farangipet had taken out a massive rally to file nomination for the Mangaluru constituency on Monday. Sources said that the SDPI had aggressively campaigned against Congress candidate Khader, in the wake of hijab controversy and boycott call on Muslim traders.

    Khader had won from this constituency three times since 2008 by defeating BJP candidates. In 2018 Khader defeated Santhosh Kumar Rai Boliyaru from BJP by more than 19,000 votes. BJP had won this constituency constantly for three times between 1994 to 2004.

    Khader, known as a progressive leader, is facing stiff competition from the SDPI this time in the Muslim dominated constituency. It was the only constituency to be won by the Congress in the 2018 elections. All seats of the district were won by BJP.

    [ad_2]
    #Karnataka #polls #Mangaluru #SDPI #candidate #faces #sedition #NIA #watch

    ( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

  • Delhi HC to hear Monday Sharjeel Imam’s bail plea in sedition case

    Delhi HC to hear Monday Sharjeel Imam’s bail plea in sedition case

    [ad_1]

    New Delhi: The Delhi High Court will on Monday hear a plea by JNU student Sharjeel Imam seeking bail in connection with a 2020 riots case involving allegations of sedition.

    The case, which assails a January 24, 2022 order by the trial court dismissing Imam’s bail application in the matter, is listed for hearing before a bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Talwant Singh.

    On January 30, the court had sought to know the stand of the city police as to whether Imam’s plea for bail could be remanded back to the trial court for adjudication as there was no ground mentioned in the lower court’s order rejecting the relief.

    MS Education Academy

    The bench had said since section 124A (sedition) of the Indian Penal Code has been kept in abeyance following the directions of the Supreme Court, it will have to examine the trial court’s bail rejection order while keeping in mind the other sections framed against Imam.

    Last year, the trial court had framed charges against Imam under sections 124A (sedition), 153A (promoting enmity), l53B (imputations prejudicial to national integration), 505 (statements conducing to public mischief) of the IPC and section 13 (punishment for unlawful activities) of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.

    As per the prosecution, Imam had allegedly made speeches at Jamia Millia Islamia on December 13, 2019 and at the Aligarh Muslim University on December 16, 2019, where he allegedly threatened to cut off Assam and the rest of the northeast from India.

    In his petition before the high court, Imam has said the trial court “failed to recognise” that pursuant to the directions of the top court, the basis for dismissal of his earlier bail plea, i.e. the charge of sedition no longer existed and therefore relief must be granted to him.

    On May 11, 2022, the Supreme Court had stayed till further orders the registration of FIRs, probes, and coercive measures for the offence of sedition across the country by the Centre and the states until an appropriate forum of the government re-examines the colonial-era penal law.

    [ad_2]
    #Delhi #hear #Monday #Sharjeel #Imams #bail #plea #sedition #case

    ( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

  • Pakistan court strikes down colonial-era sedition law

    Pakistan court strikes down colonial-era sedition law

    [ad_1]

    Lahore: A high court in Pakistan on Thursday struck down a colonial-era sedition law that criminalised criticism of the federal and provincial governments, terming it inconsistent with the Constitution.

    Justice Shahid Karim of the Lahore High Court (LHC) annulled Section 124-A of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) dealing with sedition, the Dawn newspaper reported.

    Justice Karim pronounced the verdict in response to identical petitions seeking to annul the sedition law, the paper said.

    One of the petitions, filed by a citizen named Haroon Farooq, which was identical to all other pleas urged the court to declare Section 124-A of the PPC as “ultra-vires in terms of Article 8 of the Constitution being inconsistent with and in derogation of fundamental rights provided under Article 9, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 19, 19A of the Constitution”.

    The law states: “Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Federal or Provincial Government established by law shall be punished with imprisonment for life to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.”

    It was argued in the petition that the sedition act was enacted in 1860 which is a sign of British colonial rule, Geo News reported.

    The petition added that this law was used for slaves under which a case can be registered at anyone’s request.

    It was stated in the petition that the Constitution of Pakistan gives every citizen the right to freedom of expression but still, Section 124-A is imposed for making speeches against the rulers.

    According to the petition, the law has been recklessly used in Pakistan as a tool of exploitation to curb the right to free speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution.

    The petition said the law was serving as “a notorious tool for the suppression of dissent, free speech and criticism in free and independent Pakistan”.

    Over the past few years, the petition argued, various politicians, journalists and activists had been booked under Section 124-A.

    [ad_2]
    #Pakistan #court #strikes #colonialera #sedition #law

    ( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

  • Prosecute Sisodia under sedition law: Cong memorandum to L-G

    Prosecute Sisodia under sedition law: Cong memorandum to L-G

    [ad_1]

    New Delhi: Former Congress MP Sandeep Dikshit along with Delhi’s former ministers Mangat Ram Singhal and Kiran Walia on Wednesday gave a memorandum to Lt. Governor’s office to probe former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia in the snooping case under the Sedition Act.

    The memorandum states, “To acquire a capacity to listen to conversations, gather intelligence and information and to ‘spy’ on people and institutions in the National Capital territory that includes Government of India, the Defence establishments, intelligence agencies of the Union Government, etc., is a clear case of sedition.”

    The memorandum alleged that the Government of Delhi, with full knowledge of its Chief Minister, the entire cabinet and in the presence of senior government officials sanctioned and setup a unit that had the capacity and intent to collect information, electronic data, etc., with a capacity to intercept and listen to/ observe/ record data, which is neither allowed to this government constitutionally or in any other way a part of its duties and responsibilities, then it is not just a case of corruption.

    “We believe that this invokes the UAPA, or similar Acts and the CBI and NIA must be directed by yourself to investigate under laws governing sedition and anti-national activities and as evidence of wrongdoing has already been found, the concerned Chief Minister and ministers of Delhi government and officials must be prosecuted under such sedition and anti-national laws as maybe found applicable in this,” it said.

    Subscribe us on The Siasat Daily - Google News

    [ad_2]
    #Prosecute #Sisodia #sedition #law #Cong #memorandum

    ( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

  • Sedition case: HC asks police to inform whether Sharjeel Imam’s bail plea be sent back to trial court

    Sedition case: HC asks police to inform whether Sharjeel Imam’s bail plea be sent back to trial court

    [ad_1]

    New Delhi: The Delhi High Court Monday sought to know the stand of the city police as to whether a plea by JNU student Sharjeel Imam seeking bail in connection with a 2020 riots case involving allegations of sedition be remanded back to the trial court for adjudication.

    The high court said there was no ground mentioned in the trial court’s order rejecting Imam’s bail plea.

    A bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Talwant Singh granted two-week time to the Delhi Police counsel to take instructions whether the trial court’s order rejecting the bail plea be remanded back. It listed the matter for further hearing on February 20.

    The high court was hearing Imam’s plea challenging the trial court’s January 24, 2022 order, dismissing his bail application in the case.

    Meanwhile, his counsel withdrew Imam’s interim bail plea as the court was taking up his appeal challenging the trial court’s order denying him regular bail in the case.

    The bench said since section 124A (sedition) of the Indian Penal Code has been kept in abeyance following the directions of the Supreme Court, it will have to examine the trial court’s bail rejection order while keeping in mind the other sections framed against Imam.

    Last year, the trial court had ordered the framing of charges against Imam under Sections 124A (sedition), 153A (promoting enmity), l53B (Imputations prejudicial to national integration), 505 (Statements conducing to public mischief) of IPC and Section 13 (Punishment for Unlawful Activities) of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.

    “The other thing you (prosecution) will have to answer is what is the ground on which bail has been rejected?” the bench said.

    As Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad said the ground is that charges have been framed against the accused.

    “So what? That is not a ground. Where is the ground? You have to decide we are hearing appeal or fresh bail plea. There is no ground on the bail in the whole bail order. You seek instructions,” the bench said.

    During the hearing, the bench said that Section 2(1)(o) of the UAPA which defines ‘unlawful activity’ is completely different from Section 124A IPC which defines sedition.

    The high court perused the definitions and said that unlawful activity would be an activity which is committed against India, whereas sedition is committed against the “Government established by law in India”.

    “This is the principle difference. Sedition is against the government established by law in India and it has nothing to do with unlawful activity,” the bench said.

    While advancing arguments on the bail plea, Imam’s counsel said charges have already been framed against the accused and it was a case for grant of regular bail.

    He said it is an admitted position that there was no overt act on behalf of Imam and the speech delivered by him rather than calling for violence, calls for non-violence as he says they will not burn down property.

    He stressed the point that Imam has been in custody for three years now.

    Imam had earlier sought interim release until the top court decides the constitutional validity of offence of sedition. The court was also informed that Imam’s plea challenging the framing of charges in the matter is also pending before it.

    As per the prosecution, Imam had allegedly made speeches at Jamia Millia Islamia on December 13, 2019 and at the Aligarh Muslim University on December 16, 2019 where he threatened to cut off Assam and the rest of the Northeast from India.

    In his petition before the high court, Imam has said the trial court “failed to recognise” that pursuant to the directions of the top court, the basis for dismissal of his earlier bail plea, the charge of sedition, no longer existed and therefore relief must be granted to him.

    On May 11, 2022, the Supreme Court had stayed till further orders the registration of FIRs, probes, and coercive measures for the offence of sedition across the country by the Centre and the states until an appropriate forum of the government re-examines the colonial-era penal law.

    [ad_2]
    #Sedition #case #asks #police #inform #Sharjeel #Imams #bail #plea #trial #court

    ( With inputs from www.siasat.com )