Do you support the prosecution of Nick Griffin?

[JHE]

I'll check.

 

[JHE]

Cartoons protester found guilty

A man who called for the murder of British troops has been found guilty of stirring up racial hatred at a rally.

Mizanur Rahman, 23, was arrested following a protest outside the UK's Danish Embassy over cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad.

The cartoons had been published by newspapers in Denmark and other European countries.

The Old Bailey jury was unable to reach a verdict on a separate charge of soliciting murder.
​

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6133516.stm


It would have made more sense the other way round...

 

[TopCat]

If that is all he is accused of, I agree with you. Have ClassWar not said exactly the same thing?

No they have not ever said anything like that.

 

[kyser_soze]

They certainly said something along the evil and vicious line cos there was a really long thread about it a few weeks ago...

 

[TopCat]

a) I also think you'd be wrong to describe many/most(??) religions that way. They may in some senses be evil and vicious but that is not ALL they are. They are often a valuable social support and network for their adherents.

I'm pretty certain the Nazi party offered support to their retired members, clubs for their kids, looked after the party old folk etc. As well as invading Russia, the Holocaust etc etc etc.

 

[TopCat]

They certainly said something along the evil and vicious line cos there was a really long thread about it a few weeks ago...

Perhaps you would like to check exactly what was said eh?

 

[dylanredefined]

Well if he was outside a mosque and it turned ugly he would be at fault .Just as if you went outside a church and started taking the piss and it got ugly.
but in private its not as if any expects bnp types to say anything rational.

Did griffths go to cambridge ? how come he cant find any bnp councillors who can actually do the job ?

 

[TopCat]

Well if he was outside a mosque and it turned ugly he would be at fault .Just as if you went outside a church and started taking the piss and it got ugly.

So if I protest say outside a church in Croydon where the Priest is known to be a nonce and the parishoners attack me it's my fault? I think not.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Well if he was outside a mosque and it turned ugly he would be at fault .Just as if you went outside a church and started taking the piss and it got ugly.

People who picket abortion clinics are scum who should be moved along to stop them from harassing vulnerable women in the middle of what is likely to be one of the worst days of their lives. The state has decided that this is legal, so they should take their grievances elsewhere.

I don't think this applies to religious venues. If someone turns up and starts screaming at them to stop indoctrinating children with their filthy lies, it is precisely the vulnerable that they are trying to help. Religious belief should be no more 'protected' than political belief, because what religious leaders say is political. Freedom to practise religion must be accompanied by the freedom to criticise it.

 

[Spion]

You may think this is wrong, but would you make it a CRIMINAL offence to say it?

No

 

[TopCat]

Freedom to practise religion must be accompanied by the freedom to criticise it.

Nail on head.

 

[Spion]

I'm pretty certain the Nazi party offered support to their retired members, clubs for their kids, looked after the party old folk etc. As well as invading Russia, the Holocaust etc etc etc.

So, you're saying all religions are fascist? Don't be so fucking stupid.

 

[TeeJay]

Against which race exactly? How does faith equate to race?

By proxy - in the same way as not all jamaicans are "black".

ie instead of attacking "asians" and "blacks" by name, "muslims" (terrorists) and "jamaicans" (yardies) can be targetted, yet someone can say they are not being 'racist' because they are not targetting a "race".

 

[Louis MacNeice]

So, you're saying all religions are fascist? Don't be so fucking stupid.

I think they were trying to point out that just because an organisation provides some social welfare, that doesn't mean it can't also be 'evil and vicious'; if I've misread it I'm sure they will correct me.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[TeeJay]

...TBH I don't see why I can't stand outside any religious establishment and proclaim that it's an evil and vicious faith that's practiced within...

It would be a public order offence surely?

 

[nonamenopackdrill]

I agree with Teejay.

Someone shoot me now.

 

[TeeJay]

I agree with Teejay.

Someone shoot me now.

Are you actually psychologically incapable of expressing a view without inserting a snide comment at the same time?

 

[audiotech]

An individual (fascist) expressing his freedom to criticise religion has some negative connotations for me.

 

[Kaka Tim]

By proxy - in the same way as not all jamaicans are "black".

ie instead of attacking "asians" and "blacks" by name, "muslims" (terrorists) and "jamaicans" (yardies) can be targetted, yet someone can say they are not being 'racist' because they are not targetting a "race".

I think attacking someone on the basis of their nationality (i.e 'Jamaican') would be classed as a race hate crime under the incitement laws as much as if they were attacked on the basis of their race.

and yes - of course the BNP are using 'muslim' as a cover for 'asian', but making offending religious sensitivity a crime in repsonse would be giving various bunches of religious bigots and nutjobs a licence to censor us.

 

[JimPage]

with BNP support running at an average of 17.5% in the wards they stood in in Leeds (2006 local elections) the chances of a conviction here are slim. You only need 3 of the jury to say "not guilty" and you get a re- trial

i would hope to think the working class can stop the bnp without the help of the state

 

[JHE]

You only need 3 of the jury to say "not guilty" and you get a re- trial

This is a retrial. Do you reckon the CPS would go for another retrial if the jury couldn't produce a verdict? (I doubt they would, TBH, but I can't be sure.)

 

[scott_forester]

Their not prosecuting him for saying he doesn't like Muslims, their prosecuting him for saying it in such a way to incite the people who he was saying it to go out and abuse them.

 

[detective-boy]

This is a retrial. Do you reckon the CPS would go for another retrial if the jury couldn't produce a verdict? (I doubt they would, TBH, but I can't be sure.)

They don't usually (unless the failure was due to something procedural rather than the jury simply failing to agree)

 

[Brockway]

I just wish the fecker would go and live in his own country.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

If he wins, he garners a platform to speak out aganist a state trying to suppress him. If he loses he becomes a free speech martyr.

Either way this trial gives him and the BNP the oxygen of publicity. Frankly I resent them getting oxygen period.

Exactly--which is why I disliked the original shoddy BBC 'Secret Agent' programme so much, as I have already written abouit at length elsewhere.

 

[Azrael]

This is a retrial. Do you reckon the CPS would go for another retrial if the jury couldn't produce a verdict? (I doubt they would, TBH, but I can't be sure.)

If there's nothing in law to stop them (and I don't think there is) then I'd put money on it. The establishment are out for Griffin's blood to prove their anti-racist credentials and you don't have to be a conspira-nut to think they'll get him whatever it takes. (To begin with, the case against him is utterly feeble, even under the terms of the utterly feeble Public Order Act 1986.) If these charges fall through you can bet he won't make it so easy next time: vile as he is, he's got a Cambridge degree in law under his belt.

The one-eyed bootboy is a very useful scapegoat and his persecution cover for extremely dodgy policies.

 

[TeeJay]

I think attacking someone on the basis of their nationality (i.e 'Jamaican') would be classed as a race hate crime under the incitement laws as much as if they were attacked on the basis of their race.

and yes - of course the BNP are using 'muslim' as a cover for 'asian', but making offending religious sensitivity a crime in repsonse would be giving various bunches of religious bigots and nutjobs a licence to censor us.

Sure, but juries are expected to use their judgement and intelligence when deciding on whether someone was tryin to inflame racial hatred, and consider all the available evidence. It isn't simply a question of "did he use word X" - they have to look at the whole situation and context and form a judgement about what was going on and whether it broke the law.

 

[nonamenopackdrill]

Really?

 

[Larry O'Hara]

Just seen a You-Tube thing 'Naziboy' where Russell Brand jives with Mark Collett outside a pub--good stuff! Does more in a few minutes to undermine the BNP than years of SPIJ documentaries like the Secret Agent...

 

[TeeJay]

Really?

Fuck off you useless snide twat.

Come back when you have something to contribute and stop trying to be a shit stirring cunt. If you can't manage that don't bother coming back at all.

(edited to add: ...and consider this a warning, keep up this shit and I will start reporting your posts every fucking time you do it.)