A Judge with some common sense at last!!!

View previous topic View next topic Go down

A Judge with some common sense at last!!!

Post  EarthsAngel on Thu Feb 17, 2011 1:29 pm

FIVE Muslim fanatics who claimed they have a human right to brand British soldiers "baby killers" lost their case yesterday.

In a victory for common sense, senior judges threw out appeals by the five, who ranted at troops who were on parade after they had returned from Afghanistan.The High Court judges said the focus on minority rights “should not result in overlooking the rights of the majority” when it comes to freedom of speech.

The five were appealing against convictions of public order offences, claiming they were entitled to protest under the European Convention on Human Rights.

But their case was laughed out of court when the judges ruled their rants, calling soldiers “rapists, murderers and baby killers” went well beyond “legitimate expressions of protest”. The decision was welcomed by politicians and campaigners. It comes amid growing unease at the European Convention, and Strasbourg judges riding roughshod over British laws.

Tory MP and security expert Patrick Mercer, said: “I think it’s an extraordinary piece of common sense, that those who break our laws should be charged, tried and convicted without any fear or favour.
ì
Islamic extremists are citing Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights
î

“I hope that the sentences take full account of the hatred and fear that these people were trying to whip up in a law-abiding town.”

The case centred on a demonstration against the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as the 2nd Battalion the Royal Anglian Regiment, known as the Poachers, made its way through Luton on March 10, 2009.

The five were all convicted of public order offences by Luton magistrates in January last year.

Jalal Ahmed, 22, Munim Abdul, 29, Yousaf Bashir, 30, Shajjadar Choudhury, 32, and Ziaur Rahman, 33, all from Luton, were found guilty of using threatening, abusive or insulting words likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress.

SEARCH UK NEWS for:


They received two-year conditional discharges and were each ordered to pay £500 costs.

In their appeal at the High Court in London, they argued they were legitimately exercising their Article 10 rights to freedom of expression, and to protest, under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Rejecting their appeal, Lord Justice Gross said: “There was all the difference in the world between expressing the view that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were illegal or immoral, and that British forces should not be engaged in them, and the abusive and insulting chants of the appellants.”

In a ruling which will provide guidance for future similar cases, the judge said: “To attend a parade of this nature and to shout that this country’s soldiers were ‘murderers’, ‘baby killers’, ‘rapists all of you’ who would or should ‘burn in hell’ gave rise to a very clear threat to public order.”

The judge said the five men were fortunate – “most probably attributable to skilful policing”– that there was no serious violence.

Lord Justice Gross said the right to freedom of expression was important, and sometimes protesters were to be protected. But it was not an unqualified right and “the justification for invoking the criminal law is the threat to public order”.

In striking “the right balance when determining whether speech is ‘threatening, abusive or insulting’, the focus on minority rights should not result in overlooking the rights of the majority”, he said.

Mr Justice Davis agreed, and added that the right to exercise freedom of expression “necessarily carries with it duties and responsibilities”.

He said families of soldiers and well-wishers at the parade were upset and offended, meaning trouble arose. Mr Justice Davis said: “These were not just generalised statements of views, vigorously expressed, on the morality of the war but were personally abusive and potentially defamatory of those soldiers.

“That the soldiers themselves were broad shouldered enough not to care one jot does not matter.”

Douglas Murray, of the think-tank, the Centre for Social Cohesion, said: “One of the remarkable things about this case is the fact that we have medieval Islamic extremists citing Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

“These are not people who are quibbling about the details of the Convention on Human Rights.

“These are people who want to institute sharia law around the world.

“They believe in the most barbaric, medieval laws but are appealing to the European Court on Human Rights. It’s enough to make a cat laugh.

“I’m delighted that the High Court has thrown out this appeal, and I hope the rest of Britain laughs in their faces.”


Read more: http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/229546Muslim-ranters-are-out-of-order#ixzz1EFW1fZNu

FIVE Muslim fanatics who claimed they have a human right to brand British soldiers "baby killers" lost their case yesterday.

In a victory for common sense, senior judges threw out appeals by the five, who ranted at troops who were on parade after they had returned from Afghanistan.The High Court judges said the focus on minority rights “should not result in overlooking the rights of the majority” when it comes to freedom of speech.

The five were appealing against convictions of public order offences, claiming they were entitled to protest under the European Convention on Human Rights.

But their case was laughed out of court when the judges ruled their rants, calling soldiers “rapists, murderers and baby killers” went well beyond “legitimate expressions of protest”. The decision was welcomed by politicians and campaigners. It comes amid growing unease at the European Convention, and Strasbourg judges riding roughshod over British laws.

Tory MP and security expert Patrick Mercer, said: “I think it’s an extraordinary piece of common sense, that those who break our laws should be charged, tried and convicted without any fear or favour.
ì
Islamic extremists are citing Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights
î

“I hope that the sentences take full account of the hatred and fear that these people were trying to whip up in a law-abiding town.”

The case centred on a demonstration against the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as the 2nd Battalion the Royal Anglian Regiment, known as the Poachers, made its way through Luton on March 10, 2009.

The five were all convicted of public order offences by Luton magistrates in January last year.

Jalal Ahmed, 22, Munim Abdul, 29, Yousaf Bashir, 30, Shajjadar Choudhury, 32, and Ziaur Rahman, 33, all from Luton, were found guilty of using threatening, abusive or insulting words likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress.

SEARCH UK NEWS for:


They received two-year conditional discharges and were each ordered to pay £500 costs.

In their appeal at the High Court in London, they argued they were legitimately exercising their Article 10 rights to freedom of expression, and to protest, under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Rejecting their appeal, Lord Justice Gross said: “There was all the difference in the world between expressing the view that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were illegal or immoral, and that British forces should not be engaged in them, and the abusive and insulting chants of the appellants.”

In a ruling which will provide guidance for future similar cases, the judge said: “To attend a parade of this nature and to shout that this country’s soldiers were ‘murderers’, ‘baby killers’, ‘rapists all of you’ who would or should ‘burn in hell’ gave rise to a very clear threat to public order.”

The judge said the five men were fortunate – “most probably attributable to skilful policing”– that there was no serious violence.

Lord Justice Gross said the right to freedom of expression was important, and sometimes protesters were to be protected. But it was not an unqualified right and “the justification for invoking the criminal law is the threat to public order”.

In striking “the right balance when determining whether speech is ‘threatening, abusive or insulting’, the focus on minority rights should not result in overlooking the rights of the majority”, he said.

Mr Justice Davis agreed, and added that the right to exercise freedom of expression “necessarily carries with it duties and responsibilities”.

He said families of soldiers and well-wishers at the parade were upset and offended, meaning trouble arose. Mr Justice Davis said: “These were not just generalised statements of views, vigorously expressed, on the morality of the war but were personally abusive and potentially defamatory of those soldiers.

“That the soldiers themselves were broad shouldered enough not to care one jot does not matter.”

Douglas Murray, of the think-tank, the Centre for Social Cohesion, said: “One of the remarkable things about this case is the fact that we have medieval Islamic extremists citing Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

“These are not people who are quibbling about the details of the Convention on Human Rights.

“These are people who want to institute sharia law around the world.

“They believe in the most barbaric, medieval laws but are appealing to the European Court on Human Rights. It’s enough to make a cat laugh.

“I’m delighted that the High Court has thrown out this appeal, and I hope the rest of Britain laughs in their faces.”


Read more: http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/229546Muslim-ranters-are-out-of-order#ixzz1EFW1fZNu


_________________
Put a Bible in the wind and the rain and it will perish; my Bible IS the wind and the rain

avatar
EarthsAngel
Admin
Admin

Posts : 1685
Join date : 2010-01-25
Location : District 9

Back to top Go down

Re: A Judge with some common sense at last!!!

Post  DarkLord on Mon Mar 14, 2011 6:08 am

And quite right too. But you have to wonder, had they not called them "Baby Killers" what could've been done? Calling any soldier who has been involved in conflict a "Murderer" would actually be factual...... The "rapist" bit is easier to dismiss.... but as I think about it, the "Baby Killer" bit may not be far off the mark as I'm sure a lot of babies did die due to the conflict, not that I'm saying those particular soldiers had anything to do with such actions, but it's all possible in war.....

However, I do think that's a little bit more than cheeky. Having a go at soldiers on the very land they are protecting?? scratch Come come now. Rude much or what Cool
avatar
DarkLord

Posts : 193
Join date : 2010-07-06

Back to top Go down

Re: A Judge with some common sense at last!!!

Post  El Guapo on Tue Mar 15, 2011 12:14 pm

Civilian casualties are an inevitability of war. But also of terror acts. Using the term baby killer is just emotional manipulation designed to cause unrest. And to what end? So a few fights can break out? so these idiots can have their fifteen minutes of fame on News at Ten?

Look at the example of the poppy burning fanatic. It's so much that the paltry fine of 50 quid was an insult but more to do with the fact that such a stupid sum after such a high profile case has made the culprit probably a local hero amongst his peers.

If you're going to convict somebody in such a high publicity case as an example you have to go the whole hog and throw the damn book at him or whats the point? All this idiot JUdge has done has convinced 1000's of other wannabe Jihadists to do the same thing.

_________________
If Carlsberg made men...

avatar
El Guapo
Admin
Admin

Posts : 2176
Join date : 2010-01-25
Age : 41
Location : Seated in front of PC

Back to top Go down

Re: A Judge with some common sense at last!!!

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum