A candidate in the European elections was arrested on suspicion of racial harrassment after quoting a passage about Islam, written by Winston Churchill, during a campaign speech.
Paul Weston, chairman of the party Liberty GB, made the address on the steps of Winchester Guildhall, in Hampshire on Saturday.
A member of the public took offence at the quote, taken from Churchill’s The River War and called police.
A Perthshire plumber who shouted “there ain’t no black in the Union Jack” and “vote BNP” at another man has been fined £800.
2/11/2014 by Shahram Hadian
If you still think that freedom of speech is alive and well in North America, think again. I wanted to share with you something shocking that recently happened at the Canadian and WA State border.
My friend and radio co-host, Tom Wallace recently had his teaching materials and videos confiscated on the charges of them being “hate propaganda.” Read more about this story at Tom’s blog.
Tom’s pastor, who was carrying the materials across the border, was detained by the Canadian authorities for over 4 hours and threatened with arrest if he came across the border with the same materials again. Tom’s ministry, Fortress of Faith, is now under investigation and the Canadian government (Committee on Human Rights) is taking 30 days to further determine if the materials are indeed “hate propaganda.”
Listen online to our radio show, where Tom & I discuss the details of what happened at the Canadian border, and what this means for us as Americans and as Christians. (Click on the show titled “UN Resolution 16/18).
HARTFORD, CT (WFSB) –
A University of Connecticut law student accused of allegedly making anti-Semitic, racist and homophobic comments to university officials appeared in court Wednesday.
Anya Bargh, 32, was arrested last week.
Police said the arrest stems from anti-Semitic emails she sent to the Student Bar Association. In response to suggestions for a new dean, authorities said Bargh wrote, “Let’s celebrate diversity by having the next dean not be Jewish.”
New studies show that unbridled hateful speech can cause emotional harm. Is it time for the United States to follow other democracies and impose limits on what Neo-Nazis and other haters say?
Over the past several weeks, free speech has gotten costlier—at least in France and Israel.
In France, Dieudonne M’Bala M’Bala, an anti-Semitic stand-up comic infamous for popularizing the quenelle, an inverted Nazi salute, was banned from performing in two cities. M’Bala M’Bala has been repeatedly fined for hate speech, and this was not the first time his act was perceived as a threat to public order.
Meanwhile, Israel’s parliament is soon to pass a bill outlawing the word Nazi for non-educational purposes. Indeed, any slur against another that invokes the Third Reich could land the speaker in jail for six months with a fine of $29,000. The Israelis are concerned about both the rise of anti-Semitism globally, and the trivialization of the Holocaust—even locally.
To Americans, these actions in France and Israel seem positively undemocratic. The First Amendment would never prohibit the quenelle, regardless of its symbolic meaning. And any lover of “Seinfeld” would regard banning the “Soup Nazi” episode as scandalously un-American. After all, in 1977 a federal court upheld the right of neo-Nazis to goose-step right through the town of Skokie, Illinois, which had a disproportionately large number of Holocaust survivors as residents. And more recently, the Supreme Court upheld the right of a church group opposed to gays serving in the military to picket the funeral of a dead marine with signs that read, “God Hates Fags.”
While what is happening in France and Israel is wholly foreign to Americans, perhaps it’s time to consider whether these and other countries may be right. Perhaps America’s fixation on free speech has gone too far.
Last week Liberty GB radio host, Tim Burton, was charged by West Midlands Police with racially aggravated harassment, after his post on Twitter described a prominent individual as “a mendacious grievance-mongering taqiyya-artist”.
The delicate flower who needs defending from such criticism is none other than Mr Fiyaz Mughal OBE, founder of the Tell Mama organisation, who in June 2013 was revealed as a deceiver by Telegraph journalist Andrew Gilligan:
The Mail reports on the ridiculous witch-hunt being waged against a rising anti-immigration politician, which seems to largely be driven by her ex-husband whom she divorced because he started wearing women’s clothing and cheating on her. Fair enough, I reckon. But now he’s carrying out a desperate vendetta against her to try to ruin her political career, no doubt encouraged (paid?) by the Liberal media.
Mr Ayling – who admits being a transvestite – alleges that when he was moving his furniture out of the matrimonial home, his former wife shouted at him: ‘You’re a bad tranny I’ve seen your website.’
A Lincolnshire Police spokesman said: ‘On July 13, a 54-year-old female and a 51-year-old male, both living at the same address, were voluntarily interviewed in relation to section 4 of the public order act, hate crime.’ Police are understood to be analysing an audio recording of the incident.
Below is the text of Section 4 of the Public Order Act, my emphasis. As you can see, a section 4 requires there to be an intention to cause the victim to believe there that immediate violence will be used. A 50 year-old ex-wife shouting an insult at her ex-husband as he moves his belonging out of the house belies not such intention. Also, if they were both inside the house, it is not an offence. As he was moving his belongings, he may have been in the driveway.
4 Fear or provocation of violence.
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or
(b)distributes or displays to another person any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another by any person, or to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person or another, or whereby that person is likely to believe that such violence will be used or it is likely that such violence will be provoked.
(2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is distributed or displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling.
(3)A constable may arrest without warrant anyone he reasonably suspects is committing an offence under this section.
(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both.