• You may find search is unavailable for a little while. Trying to fix a problem.
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories

UK extremism on trial

Darat

Lackey
Staff member
Darat
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
118,729
Location
South East, UK
Thought I'd bring this to Members' attention in case they've missed it.

We have two trials at the moment that are getting some publicity, both of which involve "extremists".

The first involves the leader of the BNP (a political party with its roots in the old National Front groups of the seventies) Nick Griffin and the head of publicity for the BNP Mark Collett.

Their trial is being described as a "race hate trial":

See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/6105946.stm and http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/6121548.stm for some more details.

The other court case is - the trial of Mizanur Rahman an extremist who demonstrated outside the Danish embassy earlier in the year. See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6113874.stm

There is a lot of irony in these cases both happening at the same time since both are facing charges arising from the same, new legislation (I'm assuming it is under the new laws). With this being new legislation it should also be interesting to see how it will be interpreted by the courts.

After seeing (some) of the evidence in both cases my personal opinion is that in both cases the intention was to stir up hatred directed at their "enemy race" so I understand how it falls within the new act. But I'm still not convinced that the legislation was required.
 
Darat said:
But I'm still not convinced that the legislation was required.
Click to expand...


I don't know. I think there are two questions. First, is what they said something that they should be punished for? And if they should be, what existing legislation would we have used?

I'm inclined to think "Yes" and maybe incitement to violence?
 
Darat said:
it will be interpreted by the courts.

After seeing (some) of the evidence in both cases my personal opinion is that in both cases the intention was to stir up hatred directed at their "enemy race" so I understand how it falls within the new act. But I'm still not convinced that the legislation was required.
Click to expand...

The new act dealt with religious hatred, not racial hatred, these cases are racial, not religious. Incitement to racial hatred has been a crime since 1976, and an arrestable offense since 1994. I cant see how the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 really applies.
Also the main charges against Mizanur Rahman are that he incited Murder, not racial hatred.
 
brodski said:
The new act dealt with religious hatred, not racial hatred, these cases are racial, not religious. Incitement to racial hatred has been a crime since 1976, and an arrestable offense since 1994. I cant see how the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 really applies.
Also the main charges against Mizanur Rahman are that he incited Murder, not racial hatred.
Click to expand...

But attacks against Muslims weren't considered racial as per the '76 act were they? That was one of the reasons given as to why the new legislation was required wasn't it?
 
Darat said:
But attacks against Muslims weren't considered racial as per the '76 act were they? That was one of the reasons given as to why the new legislation was required wasn't it?
Click to expand...

Yeas, but Nick Griffin is being prosecuted for stirring up hatred against "Asians" and "Asylum seekers" (read his quotes on the BBC website), the first is a racial group, and as all asylum seekers are (by definition) immigrants then they are protected by the 76 act too.
 
brodski said:
Yeas, but Nick Griffin is being prosecuted for stirring up hatred against "Asians" and "Asylum seekers" (read his quotes on the BBC website), the first is a racial group, and as all asylum seekers are (by definition) immigrants then they are protected by the 76 act too.
Click to expand...

Any idea where we can find the exact charges against him? I've read a couple more reports now and I'm even more confused as to exactly what he is being charged with.
 
Darat said:
Any idea where we can find the exact charges against him? I've read a couple more reports now and I'm even more confused as to exactly what he is being charged with.
Click to expand...

I don't know, but (according to wikipedia) these are charges which date from 2004. At his 2005 trial the Jury where unable to reach a verdict on two charges, this case is his retrial. If these charges date from 2004 there is no way they could be under the 2006 act.
 
brodski said:
I don't know, but (according to wikipedia) these are charges which date from 2004. At his 2005 trial the Jury where unable to reach a verdict on two charges, this case is his retrial. If these charges date from 2004 there is no way they could be under the 2006 act.
Click to expand...

You mean the government hasn't yet got the retrospective crime bill thr' the House yet? I'd have thought they'd have scrapped that alongside the double jeopardy rule! ;)
 
brodski said:
Yeas, but Nick Griffin is being prosecuted for stirring up hatred against "Asians" and "Asylum seekers" (read his quotes on the BBC website), the first is a racial group, and as all asylum seekers are (by definition) immigrants then they are protected by the 76 act too.
Click to expand...

does this mean the entire journalistic staff of the Daily Mail can be put on trial?

please? :)
 
I doubt any good will come from these trials. Which ever the way the verdict falls the same motives remain and will be stirred up again by those so inclined.
 
Darat said:
If there was justice in the world there wouldn't be a Daily Mail!
Click to expand...

But who would we rely on to tell us how gypsy Abu Hamza is pushing up the house prices using genetically modified food and identity cards? Or something...
 
Jon_in_london said:
Personally I dont find the curtailling of a free press anything to smile about.
Click to expand...


As far as I know the Daily Mail has never been free - they are a profit driven media company (with some diversification) ;)

Wishing for a revoltingly biased and nasty rag to disappear is not an attack on "a free press".
 
Ian Osborne said:
But who would we rely on to tell us how gypsy Abu Hamza is pushing up the house prices using genetically modified food and identity cards? Or something...
Click to expand...

There's always the Daily Express - I'm sure they will keep us informed about how how gypsy Abu Hamza pushing up the house prices using genetically modified food and identity cards was part of the plot to kill Lady Di.
 
Darat said:
.....revoltingly biased and nasty rag to disappear is not an attack on "a free press".
Click to expand...

Thats is your opinion.

You are entitled to your opinion. As are the readers of the Daily Mail (of whom I am NOT one). I could make a case that any newspaper of media source is biased and revolting. I celebrate the fact that the daily mail is in circulation in much the same way I celebrate the fact that Galloway is an MP.

I quite like the concept of free speach. Knobs to those qui mal y pense.
 
Jon_in_london said:
Thats is your opinion.

You are entitled to your opinion. As are the readers of the Daily Mail (of whom I am NOT one). I could make a case that any newspaper of media source is biased and revolting. I celebrate the fact that the daily mail is in circulation in much the same way I celebrate the fact that Galloway is an MP.

I quite like the concept of free speach. Knobs to those qui mal y pense.
Click to expand...

What has the concept of "free speech" got to do with wishing a revoltingly biased and nasty rag wasn't around?

ETA: - And I also do not celebrate that George Galloway is an MP I think it is terrible that he is an MP.
 
Jon_in_london said:
Can I ask why? At least he has the balls to speak his mind.
Click to expand...

When you have his mind I would say that it would be better not to speak it!

Slightly more seriously - I've been doing a lot of driving on a Saturday recently and been listening to the absolute rubbish that he spews on his radio show - his inability to construct a logical and rational argument combined with his ability to contradict himself (oh and just make things up) demonstrates to me that he should not be in a position to represent anyone but himself.
 
Darat said:
I've been doing a lot of driving on a Saturday recently and been listening to the absolute rubbish that he spews on his radio show - his inability to construct a logical and rational argument combined with his ability to contradict himself (oh and just make things up) demonstrates to me that he should not be in a position to represent anyone but himself.
Click to expand...

He should be President!

Of an obscure former polytechnic's Student Union...
 
Darat said:
When you have his mind I would say that it would be better not to speak it!

Slightly more seriously - I've been doing a lot of driving on a Saturday recently and been listening to the absolute rubbish that he spews on his radio show - his inability to construct a logical and rational argument combined with his ability to contradict himself (oh and just make things up) demonstrates to me that he should not be in a position to represent anyone but himself.
Click to expand...

And how does differ from the current crop of three-line-whipped robots?
 
Darat said:
I'm still not convinced that the legislation was required.
Click to expand...
I don't think either of the cited cases are being brought under the 2006 act. So it is not "required legislation" for these cases. Whether it is required in general is another matter.
As far as I know the Daily Mail has never been free - they are a profit driven media company (with some diversification)
Click to expand...
"Free Press" means that this particular newspaper (and others) are free to publish the content that they want within the law . . .
Jon_in_London said:
Personally I dont find the curtailling of a free press anything to smile about.
Click to expand...
. . . but wanting the Daily Mail to die out is nothing of the sort, unless one wants it forcibly removed from circulation.
I celebrate the fact that Galloway is an MP.
Click to expand...
I celebrate the fact that he is not my MP. A mile or so East and I would not be so lucky
 
acuity said:
I don't think either of the cited cases are being brought under the 2006 act. So it is not "required legislation" for these cases. Whether it is required in general is another matter.

...snip...
Click to expand...


Have you access to the exact charges so we can clear this up?


acuity said:
"Free Press" means that this particular newspaper (and others) are free to publish the content that they want within the law . .

...snip...
Click to expand...

It was meant as a joke - that's why I added the smilie...


PS. Welcome to the Forum
 
I would have used one but you don't let "new blood" do this . . . :=D

No I haven't—except that the first is inciting racial hatred and the second is incitement to murder.
 
acuity said:
I would have used one but you don't let "new blood" do this . . . :=D
Click to expand...

If you don't use the enhanced editor you should be able to use them before 15 posts.
acuity said:
No I haven't—except that the first is inciting racial hatred and the second is incitement to murder.
Click to expand...

That is one of the charges Rahman is apparently facing but not the only one.


Anyone know how to find out the exact charges they both face?
 
So, Nick Griffin doesn't hate muslims, but he does apparently watch too many Mel Gibson films:

Nick Griffin said:
they can take our taxes but they cannot take our hearts, they cannot take our tongues and they cannot take our freedom.
Click to expand...

 
Last edited:
I never in my wildest dreams thought somebody would paraphrase THAT comment from THAT movie!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom