Talk:The Anarchist Cookbook

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:41, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that William Powell, author of The Anarchist Cookbook, founded the nonprofit Next Frontier: Inclusion as atonement for writing the book? Source: Washington Post
  • ALT1:... that The Anarchist Cookbook received two film adaptations: a romantic comedy, The Anarchist Cookbook, and a documentary, American Anarchist? Source: Proquest Source: [1]

• Comment: This nomination was incorrectly posted on the article talk page on 18 July 2021

Improved to Good Article status by Etriusus (talk). Self-nominated at 05:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC).

• New enough Good Article. No QPQ needed; fewer than five credits. Both hooks are interesting. ALT0 is good. @Etriusus: What is the source for ALT1? The source (I viewed it does not mention the romcom. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie: Fixed. Etriusus (talk) 03:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

ALT1 also approved on the combo of both. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie: Thank you for the review. A quick question, as this is my first DYK. Do I need to move the DYK from the prep space to the queue space or is this the job of an administrator/3rd party? The DYK instruction page is somewhat vague on this. Etriusus (talk) 02:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Etriusus, there are volunteers who will move the hook into a prep space (and then admins who approve it into a queue). You don't have to do anything. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Legality in the UK

I'm not entirely sure what there is to discuss here or what the controversy is. In the UK, it is an offence contrary to section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to possess, without reasonable excuse, information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism. Cases which have resulted in acquittal (such as R v Walker) were due to the defendant's proving, pursuant to section 58 (3) (3A), that he had a reasonable excuse for his possession.

Parliament has made it, prima facie, a crime to possess The Anarchist Cookbook because of its potential utility to a terrorist. R v Bel was a case of nothing more than simple possession and Bel was convicted on a single indictment after the jury rejected his defence of reasonable excuse by way of academic research. There are many other such cases, as a simple Google search can verify. I cited such cases as well as the relevant legislation in my original edit.

The House of Lords has made clear that the circumstances in which the information is possessed is irrelevant unless it amount to a defence under subsection (3):

49. Section 58(1) focuses on the nature of the information which the defendant collects, records or possesses, rather than on the circumstances in which he does so. The description of the information is given in general terms: information will meet that description, irrespective of who might commit or prepare an act of terrorism and so be likely to find the information useful. It could be a third party or it could indeed be the defendant himself. So the offence is apt to catch someone who gathers the information and stores it with a view to passing it on to someone else who is preparing an act of terrorism. But, equally, it will cover someone who does these things with the intention of using the information himself to prepare an act of terrorism. Or else, the accused may have gathered and stored the information without having any clear idea of what he intends to do with it. None of this matters, since the legislation makes it an offence simply to collect, record or possess information of this kind. Parliament must have proceeded on the view that, in fighting something as dangerous and insidious as acts of terrorism, the law was justified in intervening to prevent these steps being taken, even if events were at an early stage or if the defendant’s actual intention could not be established. At the same time, Parliament enacted section 58(3), which introduced the necessary element of balance by giving the accused a defence if, with the benefit of section 118, he proves that he had a reasonable excuse for doing what he did.

— R v G, R v J [2009] UKHL 13 on appeal from the Court of Appeal Criminal Division), https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldjudgmt/jd090304/rgrj.pdf

Further and similarly,

58. [...] section 58 focuses on the nature of the information which the defendant collects, records or possesses in a document or record. Subject to the defence in section 58(3), the circumstances in which the defendant did these things are irrelevant. So, unless it amounts to a reasonable excuse under subsection (3), his purpose in doing them is irrelevant. In particular, there is nothing in the terms of section 58(1) that requires the Crown to show that the defendant had a terrorist purpose for doing what he did.

— R v G, R v J [2009] UKHL 13 on appeal from the Court of Appeal Criminal Division, https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldjudgmt/jd090304/rgrj.pdf

If someone with a legal background would like to explain what was incorrect about my edit, then I would be very interested to hear it. Otherwise, I will gladly provide further citations if that is deemed necessary. I await a response.

Festus Muldoon (talk) 04:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that you are stating that the book in question is illegal, without any sources that explicitly state that. In one of your early edits [2] you claimed, in the lead no less, that "The book is illegal to possess in the United Kingdom." And you repeated the claim "The book *is* illegal to possess in the UK" in an edit summary. This is not correct. Apparently the use for which it is possessed comes into play. This would appear to be similar to Canadian law concerning certain items which may be used as weapons. For example, it is legal to possess, and even to carry in public, a large knife or an axe in Canada, but it is illegal to do so for the purpose of committing an offence . It would not be correct to state that possession of a knife or axe is illegal there.

As for your refs, Ref 1 is the legal statute, and does not mention "The Anarchist Cookbook". Ref 2 shows that in a case in which someone was tried simply for possessing "The Anarchist Cookbook", the case failed. Ref 3 covers a case with a conviction for possession of material for "a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism" but the detailed list of the material in question does not include mention of "The Anarchist Cookbook". Ref 4 does seem to be case with a conviction for possession of the book.

I didn't remove completely your mentions of the cases from the article body, but I object to your blunt statement that the book is illegal in the UK, and I do not believe your interpretation of the UK situation should replace the lead statement "Its legality has been questioned in several jurisdictions." (as you did in your first attempt), or even be added to the lead statement (as you did in your final attempt).Meters (talk) 05:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

You're confusing section 57 with section 58. Did you read the full judgment in R v G, R v J [2009] UKHL 13? The judgment looks at (amongst other things) the distinction between s57 and s58. Possession of an article for "a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism" is an offence contrary to s57. S58 does not require that any purpose be proved - it criminalises simple possession. Read paragraph 75 of the judgment:

75. By contrast, as we have already explained, the offence under section 58(1) does not depend on the defendant having a terrorist purpose. It depends, rather, on the nature of the information which the accused collects, records or possesses. The defendant cannot change the nature of the information, but is not to be convicted if he shows that he had a reasonable excuse for collecting, recording or possessing it.

— R v G, R v J [2009] UKHL 13 on appeal from the Court of Appeal Criminal Division, https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldjudgmt/jd090304/rgrj.pdf

and read paragraph 58 which I quoted above.

The law is unambiguous here: it is illegal to possess The Anarchist Cookbook in the UK without reasonable excuse. The Courts in the UK have repeatedly found that The Anarchist Cookbook falls foul of S58. Defendant BJ was charged and convicted under S58 for possession of The Anarchist Cookbook: see https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-60051861

Regarding ref 2: as is made clear in that press release, the defendant JW was acquitted on the basis that he had a reasonable excuse for his possession. He was not acquitted on the basis that The Anarchist Cookbook does not contain information useful to terrorism.

So, I submit that it is justified to state in the article that The Anarchist Cookbook is illegal to possess in the UK, as long as the statement is qualified by "without reasonable excuse". That reflects the law as it is in the UK. This can then be contrasted with the legal position in the United States which is quite different because of the first amendment of the US Constitution.

I think it is important that this information be available to the public without ambiguity because it is a very poorly understood area of law and the potential consequences of falling foul of it are extremely serious (up to 15 years' imprisonment). Festus Muldoon (talk) 04:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:SYNTHESIS

References

"Notable incidents of alleged possession"

The Anarchist Cookbook § Notable incidents of alleged possession

This section reads to me as trivia. Is it really "notable incidents" or is it every press mention of the book in relation to a case? If there is a point to be made here, it should be made by a reliable, secondary source rather than a rather indiscriminate list of mentions. czar 13:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)