Discussion
I've read this story on multiple sources and can't find anything that I would call hateful
http://www.itv.com/news/granada/2016-08-05/in-the-...
But according to Breitbart police refused to even release what was posted
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/08/08/uk-man-...
Are they allowed to withold this? If so it seems like an incredibly sinister law, where people can be convicted of a hate crime yet the state does not have to explain to the public what exactly was said that was deemed hateful.
http://www.itv.com/news/granada/2016-08-05/in-the-...
But according to Breitbart police refused to even release what was posted
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/08/08/uk-man-...
Are they allowed to withold this? If so it seems like an incredibly sinister law, where people can be convicted of a hate crime yet the state does not have to explain to the public what exactly was said that was deemed hateful.
Trabi
Breitbart didn't make it up. It's on other sites too.
Fred
No jail, he "only" got community service, and presumably a criminal record.
He posted it on a presumably public Facebook page. The police could have deleted it or banned him from their page.
A criminal prosecution seems a bit strong unless he was directly exhorting people to go and torch a mosque or something. But if we can't even know what he was prosecuted for saying then it doesn't seem like justice to me.
As for his mother in law and sister in law being Muslim, that suggests his wife is ex-Muslim or a practicing Muslim who married him despite him not being a Muslim. Either of which is quite frowned on by many Muslims. Which does make you wonder if he's made some enemies otherwise.
However, I know some people think I'm always "banging on about Muslims" etc, but that's not really the point here.
A simple legal question: Is it possible to find out what he posted?
Breitbart didn't make it up. It's on other sites too.
Fred
No jail, he "only" got community service, and presumably a criminal record.
He posted it on a presumably public Facebook page. The police could have deleted it or banned him from their page.
A criminal prosecution seems a bit strong unless he was directly exhorting people to go and torch a mosque or something. But if we can't even know what he was prosecuted for saying then it doesn't seem like justice to me.
As for his mother in law and sister in law being Muslim, that suggests his wife is ex-Muslim or a practicing Muslim who married him despite him not being a Muslim. Either of which is quite frowned on by many Muslims. Which does make you wonder if he's made some enemies otherwise.
However, I know some people think I'm always "banging on about Muslims" etc, but that's not really the point here.
A simple legal question: Is it possible to find out what he posted?
Can't see any more of it on Katy Hopkins page on the Mail. Any link?
Some Gump, I'm not making him a poster boy. It's about free speech and a principle of justice that we should at least be able to find out the nature of what he said that was criminal. Or do we just take the police's word for it that he said bad stuff?
It's a really nasty piece of legislation to start with IMO, and this sounds like a bad use of it.
Some Gump, I'm not making him a poster boy. It's about free speech and a principle of justice that we should at least be able to find out the nature of what he said that was criminal. Or do we just take the police's word for it that he said bad stuff?
It's a really nasty piece of legislation to start with IMO, and this sounds like a bad use of it.
Some Gump said:
If the legislation is clearly written, then you know what he said: Something in the "verboten" category...
It's clearly enough written but quite broad and open to interpretation(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
(b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent.
From here
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/sectio...
What constitutes grossly offensive?
Calling someone a 
is more likely to fall under indecent or abusive I would think.
It's not too hard to imagine that "grossly offensive to Muslims" in this case might be something like pointing out the parts of Islam which some argue condone rape and sexual abuse, or suggesting that such behaviour is endemic in some Muslim communities. This would also explain the reluctance to even repeat it. Had he simply called someone a then it would be easy enough to say hewas abusive and indecent.
NB I don't think this is the thread to discuss whether or not this is the case. Plenty of other threads cover these things.
The point I am interested in is how we decide something is so grossly offensive that it cannot even be repeated, and whether or not this is compatible with a free society. It certainly doesn't seem it to me.
is more likely to fall under indecent or abusive I would think.It's not too hard to imagine that "grossly offensive to Muslims" in this case might be something like pointing out the parts of Islam which some argue condone rape and sexual abuse, or suggesting that such behaviour is endemic in some Muslim communities. This would also explain the reluctance to even repeat it. Had he simply called someone a
then it would be easy enough to say hewas abusive and indecent. NB I don't think this is the thread to discuss whether or not this is the case. Plenty of other threads cover these things.
The point I am interested in is how we decide something is so grossly offensive that it cannot even be repeated, and whether or not this is compatible with a free society. It certainly doesn't seem it to me.
Grossly offensive to who? Anyone? I'm grossly offended by weather forecasts, pre-empting the actions of God.
I believe the whole point of free speech is that it isn't subject to the whims of current trends.
And yes, I am absolutist about free speech, including for Anjem Choudary.
Incitement should be very clearly "go and kill X."
Indecency should also be easy enough - "X is a fking " in an inappropriate forum.
Regarding the racial hatred element, I understand this wasn't actually the offence but the judge's summary that he was "‘running the risk of stirring up racial hatred in the present climate’, was ‘very serious’ describing it as ‘conduct capable of playing into the hands of the enemies of this country’."
This is very open ended. Did he attack all brown people? All Asians? Or perhaps again he just pointed out certain aspects of Islam which some people would rather were not discussed.
ETA - The judge's comments seem to fit best with the notion that Islam is a race therefore criticism of it is linked with racism, and with the idea that criticism of Islam (if that is what he posted) was somehow "helping the enemies of this country" - which could mean likely to radicalise Muslims.
If that is the case then I think it is an awful, political trial.
I believe the whole point of free speech is that it isn't subject to the whims of current trends.
And yes, I am absolutist about free speech, including for Anjem Choudary.
Incitement should be very clearly "go and kill X."
Indecency should also be easy enough - "X is a f
king " in an inappropriate forum.Regarding the racial hatred element, I understand this wasn't actually the offence but the judge's summary that he was "‘running the risk of stirring up racial hatred in the present climate’, was ‘very serious’ describing it as ‘conduct capable of playing into the hands of the enemies of this country’."
This is very open ended. Did he attack all brown people? All Asians? Or perhaps again he just pointed out certain aspects of Islam which some people would rather were not discussed.
ETA - The judge's comments seem to fit best with the notion that Islam is a race therefore criticism of it is linked with racism, and with the idea that criticism of Islam (if that is what he posted) was somehow "helping the enemies of this country" - which could mean likely to radicalise Muslims.
If that is the case then I think it is an awful, political trial.
Edited by AJS- on Friday 12th August 13:01
desolate said:
If he did that then I doubt very much it would lead to a conviction.
And if it did it would be very very wrong.
As his solicitor didn't seem too dismayed with the outcome, I very much doubt it was that.
He plead guilty, so I assume his solicitor was more interested in mitigation than defence.And if it did it would be very very wrong.
As his solicitor didn't seem too dismayed with the outcome, I very much doubt it was that.
Northern Munkee said:
Talking of hate crime.
It came up on the latest Spectator podcast https://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-spectator/...
Orwellian, Kafka-esque, etc, etc 2 guys with a real bee in their bonnets about it. Interesting listen/read particularly the post Brexit spike.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/08/what-happened-w...
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/08/the-real-hate-c...
Seems to cover it pretty well.It came up on the latest Spectator podcast https://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-spectator/...
Orwellian, Kafka-esque, etc, etc 2 guys with a real bee in their bonnets about it. Interesting listen/read particularly the post Brexit spike.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/08/what-happened-w...
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/08/the-real-hate-c...
If Stephen Bennett's case is indicative of what happens when someone who doesn't have the time, resources and bottle to fight such a case ends up accused of a hate crime, this seems like a very bad thing for a democracy.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff