A man has been arrested under the anti-religious hatred laws implmented last september in reaction to the terrorist attacks, the man accused is said of reacted to his muslim next door neighbor shouting anti-jewish, american remarks and celebrating september 11th as a ‘great day’ he also called the man accused a ‘Zionist-Pigf**ker’
The man arrested has had to pay compensation and do 200 hours of communisty service for reacting to these racists remarks.
I have been wondering why the hell hasn’t that osama wanna-be been charged as well? (There was enough evidence to back his remarks up aswell)
Papers have reacted to this story questioning if we are even allowed to argue with people of the muslim faith anymore, the paper leading this argument of course is the Daily Mail.
Near as I can tell from your post, you don’t say how this man reacted to his neighbor thus incurring the wrath of the British courts. This would help with our discussing whether it is “hypocrisy” or not. In addition, perhaps a link would help.
Phht. I’ll trust the Daily Mail to give an unbiased version of events the same day I see it in the Socialist Worker.
Perhaps the problem is that there is evidence of the retaliation (say, physical scars) but no evidence of the abuse. Was this gentlemen, say, a known member of the BNP? Without knowing these facts it’s impossible to say if it’s hypocrisy; it’s more likely to be a simple case of the court unable to punish an offence for which there is no evidence.
It’ll have the full story in the daily mail website, a investigation about this was made by a jounalist called Peter Hitchens. It’s in the todays Mail on sunday.
He said he hated all muslims for what had happened on september 11th, and he admitted that he was angry because his one of his friends family members had been killed in the towers and this might of made his remarks over the top.
I’m not denying that this could have happened in a way that looks very bad, since I haven’t seen anything either way. But the Daily Mail and Peter Hitchens in particular are not famous for unbiased reporting, and this kind of thing is fodder in their current campaigning.
If - and I mean if - the Mail isn’t blowing this out of all proportion to what actually happened, then it’s quite possible that the abuser didn’t get arrested because there was no evidence. Physical violence can leave scars; abuse is harder to prove without witnesses. Were there any?
Apologies. I misread the OP; maybe there was no violence, in which case I find it highly suspect that this is an example of biased courts and more that it’s an example of poor journalism taking sides and exaggerating elements of the story. YMMV.
I now the arrested mans name, Mr Scott and the muslim was called mr Hudaib, during the argument, Mr Hudaib picked up a stick and spat on the ground, obviously trying to get a reaction or provoke a response.
or ask him yourself at peterhitchens@mailonsunday.co.uk
I could ask him, but since I doubt his objectivity what would be the point? (note: I’d also doubt the objectivity of left-wing commentators, too)
I honestly don’t know. As I said, it’s hard to call it hypocrisy without the facts being known. It may be a legal technicality or a lack of evidence; there’s not really any way to be sure at this stage.
English Courts, please, not British. This incident took place in England.
Scotland (and indeed Northern Ireland) have there own legal systems which are quite distinct from the English system.
It may not be hypocrisy. Did the authorities know of Mr. Hudaib’s comments before the trial? We don’t know. Even if they did, Mr. Scott has still committed a crime, and the provocative remarks which prompted his actions would have been taken into account in mitigation.
Should Mr. Hudaib have been prosecuted? Possibly - depends on the evidence available to the authorities.
Well this report in the Telegraph claims that the European Union’s watchdog body has accused the British media of promoting Islamophobia, so coupled with the fact that the Mail is behind that argument I think we know how much credence to give it.
As for the justification of the apparently asymmetric response of the police to Mr. Scott and Mr. Hudaib, we certainly need more evidence before drawing fair conclusions regarding the OP.