Six British Men Arrested After Quran Burning

[Rat]

I am rather reminded of this exchange from Fark (possibly nsfw). That was also caused by a premature reaction to a mostly fictional story about our Orwellian government trampling on our rights.

 

[WildCat]

Now this is freedom...

Late Tuesday afternoon, the woman returned home from grocery shopping and noticed all the windows broken, according to police. The woman saw the 12-year-old and a 13-year-old friend running away.

The woman called police and was putting away her groceries when the boys showed up again, authorities said. The woman walked out onto the porch and the boys began shouting obscenities and throwing bricks at her, authorities said.

The woman then pulled out a gun and opened fire, police said.

The neighbor said the woman told her she only meant to scare off the boys, who she said were hurling bricks at her small home. The retired widow fired when one of the bricks struck her in the thigh, said the neighbor, who has known the woman for 28 years.

The boy was treated and released. He and the 13-year-old were later charged with aggravated assault but the woman was released by police, who agreed she was acting in self-defense.

Chew on that your foreigners!

 

[Architect]

You're welcome to it.

 

[Rolfe]

Freedom? Sounds like bloody anarchy to me.

How very unlike the home life of our own dear queen....

Rolfe.

 

[Rufo]

Now this is freedom...

Chew on that your foreigners!

This seems entirely unrelated to the topic at hand. The right to free expression and the right to defend yourself are two separate issues.

That's is a sad story, if anything. She's lucky she didn't kill the kid.

 

[WildCat]

This seems entirely unrelated to the topic at hand. The right to free expression and the right to defend yourself are two separate issues.

Tell that to the people in this thread who related it to the right to buy alcohol at 16 or whatever the age is there.

 

[Rufo]

Tell that to the people in this thread who related it to the right to buy alcohol at 16 or whatever the age is there.

I think that post was in response to you saying that the law was bizarre. The poster intended to point out that there are frequently exceptions to important rights, such as the right to be regarded as an adult responsible for their own actions after attaining the age of majority.

I guess I just didn't see the point you were trying to make with this example.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Aha! We're uncivilised for taking steps to protect our ethnic and religious minorities from incitement to cause violence. Very good.

So far, nobody has presented any evidence that even vaguely supports the claim that what the men mentioned in the OP did would rationally constitute “…incitement to cause violence.”.

What they did was to express, in an ill-mannered way, a degree of contempt and disrespect for a particular religion. This is not something that, in any civilized society, would ever result in someone being subject to arrest and criminal prosecution.

It is well worth noting, I think, that on this very forum, much worse expressions of disrespect and contempt for religion in general, and for specific religions, are routinely made. If there is any justification for what is being done to these men in the UK for burning a Koran, then there are a great many participants here who are at least equally guilty of the same crimes, and at least equally deserving of being prosecuted as criminals.

It is fortunate that the JREF is based in the United States, and not in the UK or anywhere else in Europe. Otherwise, if the outcome of the case that is the topic of this thread is anything other than a complete dismissal of all charges, a profuse apology to the defendants along with just compensation for all the legal expenses, lost time, and other harm done to them by this case, and an admission of horrendous and inexcusable wrongdoing on the part of the relevant law-enforcement agencies; then under the precedents that would otherwise be set by this case, the JREF itself, and several participants in this forum, would be have to be targets of similar prosecution.

 

[Fishstick]

Yes, nobody ever hosts any kind of controversial content in Europe.

 

[DC]

So far, nobody has presented any evidence that even vaguely supports the claim that what the men mentioned in the OP did would rationally constitute “…incitement to cause violence.”.

What they did was to express, in an ill-mannered way, a degree of contempt and disrespect for a particular religion. This is not something that, in any civilized society, would ever result in someone being subject to arrest and criminal prosecution.

It is well worth noting, I think, that on this very forum, much worse expressions of disrespect and contempt for religion in general, and for specific religions, are routinely made. If there is any justification for what is being done to these men in the UK for burning a Koran, then there are a great many participants here who are at least equally guilty of the same crimes, and at least equally deserving of being prosecuted as criminals.

It is fortunate that the JREF is based in the United States, and not in the UK or anywhere else in Europe. Otherwise, if the outcome of the case that is the topic of this thread is anything other than a complete dismissal of all charges, a profuse apology to the defendants along with just compensation for all the legal expenses, lost time, and other harm done to them by this case, and an admission of horrendous and inexcusable wrongdoing on the part of the relevant law-enforcement agencies; then under the precedents that would otherwise be set by this case, the JREF itself, and several participants in this forum, would be have to be targets of similar prosecution.

any civilized society ?

can you be any more arrogant? You have freedoms some of us dont have, we on the other hand have freedoms you dont have.

 

[Architect]

So far, nobody has presented any evidence that even vaguely supports the claim that what the men mentioned in the OP did would rationally constitute “…incitement to cause violence.”.

What they did was to express, in an ill-mannered way, a degree of contempt and disrespect for a particular religion. This is not something that, in any civilized society, would ever result in someone being subject to arrest and criminal prosecution.

There are two issues here. Firstly whether legislation to protect minorities from incitement is appropriate; in Europe we consider this to be the case, likewise there are libel (or defamation) laws to protect individuals from unsubstantiated accusations. I note that you have failed to address this point in any meaningful way, instead resorting to rhetoric.

The second point is whether the perpetrators of this incident have indeed reached the level required by law. A number of us from the UK here have said that it's borderline, but you have chosen to ignore these comments. A jury will now decide, assuming that the Crown Prosecution Service decide to take it forward to trial.

It is well worth noting, I think, that on this very forum, much worse expressions of disrespect and contempt for religion in general, and for specific religions, are routinely made. If there is any justification for what is being done to these men in the UK for burning a Koran, then there are a great many participants here who are at least equally guilty of the same crimes, and at least equally deserving of being prosecuted as criminals.

It would be difficult for a rational person to argue that postings here are sufficiently direct or public to fall foul of UK law. What do you base your rather bold statement on? Do you have any particular cases in mind?

It is fortunate that the JREF is based in the United States, and not in the UK or anywhere else in Europe. Otherwise, if the outcome of the case that is the topic of this thread is anything other than a complete dismissal of all charges, a profuse apology to the defendants along with just compensation for all the legal expenses, lost time, and other harm done to them by this case, and an admission of horrendous and inexcusable wrongdoing on the part of the relevant law-enforcement agencies; then under the precedents that would otherwise be set by this case, the JREF itself, and several participants in this forum, would be have to be targets of similar prosecution.

So many targets in there, so little time.

Well, in the UK we will normally cover the legal expenses of the accused through the state-funded Legal Aid system. This is a mechanism designed to ensure that people have access to appropriate qualified legal advice - of their choosing, within reason.

I further note that if the arrest is found to be wrongful, then English law does permit the arrested individuals to sue the Police for compensation. Legal Aid will cover such action where there is a realistic chance of success. I have to advise you, however, that the circumstances are such that - at the least - a Breach of the Peace charge would have been warranted and hence any such claim will probably fail.

Finally, allow me a wry smile at the empty rhetoric as we slide back into "horrendous and inexcusable". Whilst arrest and prosecution mechanisms can be abused in any country, including your own, this is not anything like as clear cut as you would to pretend. I suggest you consider the usual rejoinder about eyes and motes.

 

[Architect]

any civilized society ?

can you be any more arrogant? You have freedoms some of us dont have, we on the other hand have freedoms you dont have.

Must dash; I'm away for a check-up with my UHC-funded doctor. Later I may go for my free eyesight checks and book a visit to the dentist, the cost of which will be substantially subsidised. Oh this oppression, it's terrible.

 

[DC]

Must dash; I'm away for a check-up with my UHC-funded doctor. Later I may go for my free eyesight checks and book a visit to the dentist, the cost of which will be substantially subsidised. Oh this oppression, it's terrible.

in their weird world, that is a sign of a UNFREE society, you force others to pay for your doctor. Communist

 

[Architect]

I think I've told this story before, but one Xmas day I was rushed to hospital with a suspected blood clot. In the afternoon my sister-in-law, from Houston, very kindly came to visit. She looked sniffily around the ward (4 beds, emergency admissions assessments, close monitoring from nurses, etc.) and proclaimed that she wouldn't be happy paying to share. My response that it was all free was meet with incredulity, at which point my father (who has worked with Americans over many a year) said in Gaelic "better not tell her about maternity leave and sick pay, son".



Incidentally, before someone points it out, I'm well aware that the NHS is only "free" at the point of delivery and the costs are met from the general tax burden. But the point is that everyone has a right to adequate health care, regardless of finances or previous medical history, so yaa boo sucks to the US system(s).

 

[Bob Blaylock]

There are two issues here. Firstly whether legislation to protect minorities from incitement is appropriate; in Europe we consider this to be the case, likewise there are libel (or defamation) laws to protect individuals from unsubstantiated accusations. I note that you have failed to address this point in any meaningful way, instead resorting to rhetoric.

The second point is whether the perpetrators of this incident have indeed reached the level required by law. A number of us from the UK here have said that it's borderline…

There is nothing “borderline” about it. The men in question hold a very unfavorable view of Islam, and they expressed this opinion in a manner which did not harm nor threaten anyone, did not incite nor attempt to incite anyone into violent or criminal behavior, did not slander or libel anyone, and did not, in any conceivable way, violate any other person's rights.

It may have been ill-mannered, but it was an entirely legitimate expression of their opinion, and in any civilized nation, their right to express this opinion in this matter would not be questioned.

It would be difficult for a rational person to argue that postings here are sufficiently direct or public to fall foul of UK law. What do you base your rather bold statement on? Do you have any particular cases in mind?

This forum is open to the public, is it not? Content poster here can be read by almost anyone willing to take the minimal effort to sign up for a free account. This forum is certainly not any less public than the venue in which the defendants in this case chose to express themselves.

It's unclear what you mean by “direct”. Many of the things posted in this forum are certainly much more literal, direct insults against various religions, than the symbolic act of burning a religious book.

If these men are prosecuted, then the only reason that the JREF and many of its members wouldn't be subject to similar prosecution under the precedent thus set would be that the JREF is based in the U.S., and not subject to the legal jurisdiction of the UK.

 

[DC]

there is no Capitali punishment " in any civilized nation" but there is in the USA.

 

[DC]

Bob come back once your country is civilized.

 

[DC]

Drinking alcohol in public places is not outlawed in any civilized country.

 

[Architect]

There is nothing “borderline” about it. The men in question hold a very unfavorable view of Islam, and they expressed this opinion in a manner which did not harm nor threaten anyone, did not incite nor attempt to incite anyone into violent or criminal behavior, did not slander or libel anyone, and did not, in any conceivable way, violate any other person's rights.

I see that once again you sidestep the whole "protection of minorities" issue.

It may have been ill-mannered, but it was an entirely legitimate expression of their opinion, and in any civilized nation, their right to express this opinion in this matter would not be questioned.

Have you seen the video? To what extent have you availaed yourself of the circumstances of the burning and the manner in which it was subsequently promoted?

This forum is open to the public, is it not? Content poster here can be read by almost anyone willing to take the minimal effort to sign up for a free account. This forum is certainly not any less public than the venue in which the defendants in this case chose to express themselves.

It's unclear what you mean by “direct”. Many of the things posted in this forum are certainly much more literal, direct insults against various religions, than the symbolic act of burning a religious book.

You seem not to have read my previous posts regarding how the law is applied. Feel free to come back with a comment or quote once you've done so.

If these men are prosecuted, then the only reason that the JREF and many of its members wouldn't be subject to similar prosecution under the precedent thus set would be that the JREF is based in the U.S., and not subject to the legal jurisdiction of the UK.

Evidence that sites such as JREF are prosecuted or even threated with same?

 

[Rufo]

So far, nobody has presented any evidence that even vaguely supports the claim that what the men mentioned in the OP did would rationally constitute “…incitement to cause violence.”.

What they did was to express, in an ill-mannered way, a degree of contempt and disrespect for a particular religion. This is not something that, in any civilized society, would ever result in someone being subject to arrest and criminal prosecution.

Many people are arrested for crimes they did not commit. This happens all around the world, including in the US. The subsequent trial should clear them of any faulty accusations.

You talk about this law as if the men in the OP are examples of people breaking it when they have not been convicted, or even charged. In fact, no one has been convicted of breaking it so far. This entire reasoning makes about as much sense as claiming that if I express my contempt for a person in an ill-mannered way in the US, and I am accused of defamation and have to be cleared of such accusations in court, that means the US does not recognize my right to express my contempt. It's the final outcome that counts, not arrests.

If you want to criticize the law, criticize the actual law, which, again, states the following:

29J
Protection of freedom of expression
Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.