Griffin + Collett cleared
- Thread starter agricola
- Start date
IMHO the case shouldn't have got off the ground. All it has done is given Griffen and his odious associates the chance to crow about their being 'defenders of free speech' and to carry on playing the victim card - which seems to be their speciality.
I'm sure a lot worse has been said behind closed doors. Griffen thought that what he had to say was behind closed doors to an audience of the converted or those who wanted existing prejudices confirmed. The only reason what he had to say got out into the public domain was through the secret filming by an undercover reporter.
Interesting that comparisons have been made with the Muslim lad charged after the demo outside the Danish embassy. A key difference was that what he had to say was out on the streets and theoretically in view and hearing distance of the general public. Sure from the TV footage I saw, those in the immediate vicinity were most definitely the converted. But there were passers by who would likely have been offended or alarmed at the character of the demo, so rightly or wrongly (depends on your point of view), the authorities felt they had to bring charges.
I'm sure a lot worse has been said behind closed doors. Griffen thought that what he had to say was behind closed doors to an audience of the converted or those who wanted existing prejudices confirmed. The only reason what he had to say got out into the public domain was through the secret filming by an undercover reporter.
Interesting that comparisons have been made with the Muslim lad charged after the demo outside the Danish embassy. A key difference was that what he had to say was out on the streets and theoretically in view and hearing distance of the general public. Sure from the TV footage I saw, those in the immediate vicinity were most definitely the converted. But there were passers by who would likely have been offended or alarmed at the character of the demo, so rightly or wrongly (depends on your point of view), the authorities felt they had to bring charges.
Imposing ever tighter laws to prevent "hate speech" just plays into the hands of the BNP et al.
It allows them to portray themselves as the "voice of freedom" being arrested for saying what they see as "the truth" and to portray mainstream parties as having some sort of agenda to suppress their odious opinions.
Apart from a few (crap) local councillors in a handful of towns, they are never going to get anywhere. The best defence against these people is to let them say their shit in public. That way people can see it for what it is.
Giles..
It allows them to portray themselves as the "voice of freedom" being arrested for saying what they see as "the truth" and to portray mainstream parties as having some sort of agenda to suppress their odious opinions.
Apart from a few (crap) local councillors in a handful of towns, they are never going to get anywhere. The best defence against these people is to let them say their shit in public. That way people can see it for what it is.
Giles..
How?Cobbles said:
All they do is make a judgement on the basis of the law as it stands (be it Statute or precedent) and decide whether there is sufficient admissible evidence on which a properly directed jury would be more likely than not to convict.
They don't decide guilt.
And they carry out this function in every other area of criminal law as well. Why should this one be any different?
And before anyone gets carried away, neither decision actually sets any significant precedent in law (despite lots of comment to this effect in the media) - they may have some persuasive power but neither CPS nor Courts in any future case are actually bound by them.
It wasn't, so far as I have been able to establish - it was the far more difficult, and more serious offence (7yrs) of Inciting racial hatred under s.18 Public Order Act 1986 (as opposed to the far lesser offence you quote which is under s.5 (Fine only, even if racially aggravated) or even it's bigger brother where there is intent to cause harassment alarm or distress, under s.4 (6mths, 2yrs if racially aggravated).Azrael said:
I think they would definitely have been convicted of these offences on the basis of what I have seen (which was certainly offensive) if it had been in public (which, of course, it wasn't).
So the CPS had a difficult decision - the prosecution are procedurally required to "pick their horse" - i.e. choose the basis on which they are prosecuting and that would mean they had to choose one of the two approaches. If it arises again, they may choose the other!
The other option - to conclude that the expression of such views in the semi-public environment of a political meeting (i.e. beyond friends and relatives in a totally private setting) is an acceptable manifestation of free speech does not appear to be a palatable choice for society as a whole though there are a far wider range of views than on many issues.
I think this may have been what Peter Tatchell was trying to express on the News yesterday when he was blaming the police / CPS for the failure to prosecute the case properly.
(ETA: Sadly these legal niceties, and the procedural difficulties involved in any criminal prosecution, will NOT be discussed (or even mentioned) in the mainstream media, leaving the public with a totally false perception of what the situation actually is, risking further alienation of a community already under severe pressure from all angles ...
)God, that imcompetent ridiculous and pompous man: how has he got as high as he has, (advisor to Livingston) the way he suggested they were guilty because of past actions/history was the mark of a totalitarian, it was frightening and makes you wonder if he would apply it to other groups.
JoePolitix
Gone
detective-boy said:
Possibly, although I think the defence’s main trump was that the were able to successfully argue that since the comments of the accused were predominantly against Muslims and immigrants, neither of whom were a racial group, they could not be considered as inciting racial hatred.
Yet when one looks at the remarks of the fascists its clear that their hate filled diatribe was little different from the old Nazi vitriol against Jews:
http://in.news.yahoo.com/060118/139/622c0.html
Yet a loop hole in the race hate legislation in this country means that faiths like Islam are deemed by the law to be multi-ethnic and therefore no protection is offered to its adherents from incitement to hatred. The Racial and Religious Hatred Bill was introduced to put a stop to this inequity but the Lords watered it down to the point of it being rendered completely ineffective - hence the outcome of this court case.
detective-boy said:(ETA: Sadly these legal niceties, and the procedural difficulties involved in any criminal prosecution, will NOT be discussed (or even mentioned) in the mainstream media, leaving the public with a totally false perception of what the situation actually is, risking further alienation of a community already under severe pressure from all angles ...
Absolutely.
I completely agree with you - if that is all they were accused of. But when someone talks about "those asian gangs" do this and that, he is talking about 'non-whites' in a negative way. Of course, one could argue that this should only be illegal if the assertions are false.Azrael said:
If they really want to start procecuting people for expressing hatred against a religion, then followers of many other faiths will also start contacting the police about the abuse they receive. Besides, many footballsupporters consider their lifestyle to be a religion.
JoePolitix
Gone
TAE said:
Except that's utter bullshit. Griffin and Collett called British Muslims rapists and said they were encouraged by the Koran to do this. They said, amongst other things: "These 18, 19, and 25-year-old Asian Muslims are seducing and raping white girls in this town right now. It's part of their plan for conquering countries. It's how they do it."
Edit: ( I see you've edited your post now so which may make this reply look a bit confusing)
And now we have the ridicules sight of senior Government people saying “we need to change the law”, so it is clear they have learnt nothing from this case.
Why change the law to deal with a political question? The only way to deal with people like the BNP is directly and face to face, their arguments don’t stand up to full scrutiny in the main, but I’m not sure if that is the case with the Muslim religion as it is being used today
I look around the world today and see many atrocities committed in the name of Islam and defended by some Muslims just as the Crusades are still defended by some Catholics.
These comments were made in a private meeting for members of the BNP and should never have ended up in Court and if the Government are really going to change the law so people can’t say things in private we are all doomed to end up in Court someday.
Thinking about it I guess it is just the next step in total state control that has arrived in the UK and seems to be going forward with little opposition, so maybe they will change the law, they are trying to stop consenting adults acting freely with others consent for sexual pleasure so why not make it illegal for people to speak freely in private as well.
Why change the law to deal with a political question? The only way to deal with people like the BNP is directly and face to face, their arguments don’t stand up to full scrutiny in the main, but I’m not sure if that is the case with the Muslim religion as it is being used today
I look around the world today and see many atrocities committed in the name of Islam and defended by some Muslims just as the Crusades are still defended by some Catholics.
These comments were made in a private meeting for members of the BNP and should never have ended up in Court and if the Government are really going to change the law so people can’t say things in private we are all doomed to end up in Court someday.
Thinking about it I guess it is just the next step in total state control that has arrived in the UK and seems to be going forward with little opposition, so maybe they will change the law, they are trying to stop consenting adults acting freely with others consent for sexual pleasure so why not make it illegal for people to speak freely in private as well.
1. the actual charges themselves were very unlikely to stick- trying to say that an attack on religion is neccesarily an attack on an ethnic minority was very hard to prove. griffin in particualrly fough a tactically brilliant defence- quoting extensively from the koran
2. to actually get a jury in leeds to convict in anoter thing. due to lethargy by leeds anti fascists and socialists- the bnp have been able to build from polling 3.8% in 2002 in a single ward there- to getting a councillor in, a few near misses and a 17.5% average vote at the council elections where they stood in leeds in 2006. statistically- there was likely to be a sympathiser or two in the jury
3. again- the dangers of the left trusting the searchlight agenda and searchlight scams like this one. we cannot trust the state, its asesets, collaburators and grasses to do the job for us in stopping the bnp.
4. this will probably result in even more recruitment and organisation at a greater rate than their already huge rate of growth (11 new groups formed last month). expect a huge electoral challenge in may 2007 off this (with griffin standing for the welsh assembly, i suspect)
5. the scariest thing. the jury probably aquitted them because of the widespread hostile mood among ordinary people against muslims
6. the response from uaf/swp etc has been the usual nonsense. they have learned not a single lesson fron the euronationalist slant of the bnp since 1999, and are becoming increasingly irrelevant
all in all, an depressing but forseeabel outcome. when will the left adopt the tactics which they know will stop the bnp?
May 2007 is coming..........
2. to actually get a jury in leeds to convict in anoter thing. due to lethargy by leeds anti fascists and socialists- the bnp have been able to build from polling 3.8% in 2002 in a single ward there- to getting a councillor in, a few near misses and a 17.5% average vote at the council elections where they stood in leeds in 2006. statistically- there was likely to be a sympathiser or two in the jury
3. again- the dangers of the left trusting the searchlight agenda and searchlight scams like this one. we cannot trust the state, its asesets, collaburators and grasses to do the job for us in stopping the bnp.
4. this will probably result in even more recruitment and organisation at a greater rate than their already huge rate of growth (11 new groups formed last month). expect a huge electoral challenge in may 2007 off this (with griffin standing for the welsh assembly, i suspect)
5. the scariest thing. the jury probably aquitted them because of the widespread hostile mood among ordinary people against muslims
6. the response from uaf/swp etc has been the usual nonsense. they have learned not a single lesson fron the euronationalist slant of the bnp since 1999, and are becoming increasingly irrelevant
all in all, an depressing but forseeabel outcome. when will the left adopt the tactics which they know will stop the bnp?
May 2007 is coming..........
Kaka Tim
Half Arsed and Slapdash till I Die
Giles said:
But this doesn't work - not everyone lives in nice, middle class, reasonable world. In white working class social housing estates their is a lot of resentment towards government about a shortage of social housing, inferior services and a sense that they are being ignored at the expense of minority ethnic groups. Where these estates are near areas with large south asian populations this is breeding mutual suspicion and hostility. This a providing a fertile recruting ground for the BNP and their inflamatory distortions and lies around immigration, asylum and islam are poisoning communities. Their capture of council seats is not an irrelevance - it increases their utterly malign influence and adds to social discord, it also makes racist, xenophobic and biggotted language and behaviour increasingly acceptable to larger numbers of people. this in turn is aided by a government and media who are always trying to look ever more 'tough' on immigration, 'terrorism' and asylum.
However, using the state to clamp down on them is utterly counter productive - as has been explitily demonstrated by this farcical trial. Griffin was all over the news yesterday sounding confident and articulate, easily batting off the feeble attempts by media interviewers to nail him as a racist. Of course hes a fucking racist! Do you think the people voting for him dont know that? He made similar mincemeat of Paxman immediately after the BBC aired their bollocks documentary. Griffin is not a nazi clown like Tyndal (founder of the BNP) , hes smart and he understands how much of the country understands issues of race and mulitculturalism far better than middle class liberals in the media (or on urban).
The most effective way to silence the far right is for the communities themselves to aggresively disrupt their activites and for urgent action to be taken to address the alienation, deprivation, disenpowerment, segregation and isolation of the poorest part of the country - and the provison of far more social housing is crucial.
(I should add that I feel i do know what Im talking about - I've been working in social housing, refugee housing and community development in Leeds for the past 6 years. I live and work in big social housing estates and have seen a marked increase in hostility from the settled population towards new arrivals.)
JoePolitix
Gone
JimPage said:
I think the truth of the matter is probably much simpler: the jury didn't convict these neo-nazis because they didn't believe that under the present law that they had committed any crime. And there is an eliment of truth to that, which is why the law is in need of reform in this area.
I agree with the above and unless and until the Government address what is seen by many as fact the BNP and others will find plenty of people willing to vote for them.Kaka Tim said:
I’m an immigrant and I have never had any problems in my local area, but my local area (Mitcham) is a BNP stronghold, as I said in many posts just prior to the last elections, many of the local people I met in pubs said they were going to vote for the BNP as none of the main stream parties were addressing issues that they felt were important and having a massive effect on their day to day lives, things like 14 children out of a class of 32 don’t have English as a first language and this is having a detrimental effect on their children (or is perceived as having such) also families being split up because children can’t be housed near their families while many of the local council properties are being rented to “immigrants and the like”.
I don’t think any of the people I have regular contact with that I know voted BNP are racists and have never shown any racist attitude towards me, but the BNP say things like “British people first” strikes a cord with many people and not just working-class and poor people, I was at a dinner last week with some very middle-class and professional people many of whom made the same points about immigration as I hear in my local pubs, they just use bigger words but what they say amounts to the same thing.
JoePolitix
Gone
Epicurus said:
Yes.
JHE
.
Epicurus said:
I think that's a very fair account. The opinions I come across round here (Essex borders/outer NE London) are very similar. Plus people feel that they are 'not allowed' to express their objections. They think they'll get into trouble if they speak out too publicly or at work.
Many many of these people, though, will simply not vote for anyone.
As this was a decision by a jury, and because discussion by the jury of what happened in the jury room is illegal, we will never know for sure. I would be doubtful if it was entirely on this basis (there was enough reference to non-whites to widen the target group into races at least in part) unless the jury misunderstood their directions (I'm sure it wouldn't be the first time!).JoePolitix said:
Had the law been widened to include religious hatred as well as racial hatred then, as you say, conviction would have been far more likely. But, hey, the need for Rowan Atknson to make crap and tasteless jokes survived instead ... (not that it would have actually been unlawful if the change had been made
)If you are talking about the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 then I'm not sure it has been brought into effect yet.TAE said:
Sadly I fear you may be right ...JimPage said:
You could have added "and the media" after "ordinary people", too.
JoePolitix
Gone
What if the Nazis had said...
Who would still be defending their right to "free speech"?
Who would still be defending their right to "free speech"?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
DB - question - in what way do you think it is appropriate to legislate against criticising belief systems? Race is one thing - we can't choose that. But why should we not be allowed to say what we like about religions? What makes their beliefs worthy of such a privileged status?
e2a: How is saying 'I hate Islam' or 'I hate Christianity' any different from saying 'I hate capitalism' or 'I hate socialism'?
e2a: How is saying 'I hate Islam' or 'I hate Christianity' any different from saying 'I hate capitalism' or 'I hate socialism'?
JHE
.
detective-boy said:
I'm not sure either, but according to a BBC article (11/11/06) that law has recently come into effect:
Legislation banning the use of threatening words to incite religious hatred came into force earlier this week.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6137722.stmEven if it had been passed and come into effect before the Griffin/Collett speeches (which it hadn't), that law would only be relevant if the words etc used were threatening. As far as I know, none of the speeches by Griffin or his sidekick included threats against anyone.
I don't.littlebabyjesus said:
I think in all this type of legislation, no matter what the target - race, gender, sexuality, religion ... whatever - we need to differentiate between dislike/disapproval/etc. (and expression of that dislike/disapproval/etc.) and encouragement of others to that view or, even worse, to active attacks (physical, certainly, but probably also verbal) on the target group or their property.
I think the issue of expression of personal views also needs to be treated differently in private (where people have a choice whether or not to be exposed to views they may find offensive) and in public (where they have the right to go about their business wthout being subjected to people saying, doing and displaying things they find offensive).
Neither of these areas is easy - where does expression of personal views and justification of them become encouragement of others to take on those views? where does "offensive" start and finish?
But it is neither right nor possible in my view to simply outlaw the holding of views.
In the article of 11.11.06 you linked to, I cannot find the quote you used. It reads:JHE said:
Passing legislation does not mean it is actually available to be used. It is often the case that implementation of some or all of an Act is delayed to a specific future date or simply subject to a commencement order (a Statutory Instrument, signed by a Minister, not requiring full Parliamentary approval) at some time in the future. Lots of stuff is NEVER brought into force! I can find no trace of a commencement order as yet (though they are notoriously difficult to find and keep track of, so I may be wrong).
You would, however, be right in saying it will be significantly weaker than the equivalent race hatred law (s.18 Public Order Act). The latter includes threatening abusive or insulting words or behaviour. Only "threatening" will suffice in a religious case. And the latter also includes a situation where racial hatred was likely to be stirred up, as well as where that was intended. The religious version only includes the intended.
Similar threads
