Respect MAJORITY rights: Judges throw out appeal by Muslim men who hurled abuse at soldiers' welcome home parade
Last updated at 7:05 PM on 16th February 2011
The focus on minority rights 'should not result in overlooking the rights of the majority' when it comes to freedom of speech, the High Court said today.
Two judges were rejecting appeals by five Muslim men who staged a protest as British soldiers who had recently returned from Afghanistan paraded through Luton.
They ruled that the protests, which included accusing the troops of being 'rapists, murderers and baby killers', went well beyond 'legitimate expressions of protest'.
Jubair Ahmed, Jalal Ahmed, Ziaur Rahman and Ibrahim Anderson, arrive at Luton Magistrates Court
'Abusive': Airport baggage handler Jalal Ahmed waves a banner at the Royal Anglian Regiment's homecoming parade in Luton last year
The five men demonstrated against the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as the Second Battalion the Royal Anglian Regiment, known as the Poachers, made its way through the city on March 10 2009.
They were all convicted of public order offences by Luton Magistrates' Court.
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.
The men had appealed to the High Court in London, arguing that they had been legitimately exercising their Article 10 rights to freedom of expression and to protest under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Opinions please...
AntwortenLöschenGood!
AntwortenLöschenI concur.
AntwortenLöschenAgreed!
AntwortenLöschenCommon sense has made it to at least one court room.
AntwortenLöschenshocking...
AntwortenLöschenSo, calling one's opinion that the soldier who is assigned to an illegal mission is de-facto a rapist is WRONG?
You asked for opinions. You got them.
AntwortenLöschenThe issue is not the rights or wrongs of the war, it is these men's actions in the way they acted in their protest. They set out to cause distress with their actions and have been held to account for that. I hope they have to pay the legal bills too.
AntwortenLöschenSome have protested the war by strapping bombs on themselves and blowing the hell out of Western cities, would you support them because they agree with your view on the war?
There has to be a measure of responsibility in our actions, we cannot just say that it is free speech to act in ways which are likely to incite further problems... this is not America!
As to the war in Iraq, the real war criminals are those who sent the armed forces in the first place. Bush and Blair are the ones who should be answering for the mess they have made.
and you got mine...
AntwortenLöschen:)
No... we got your "question"... which, i suspect was a feeble attempt to encourage further debate on a topic that most, if not all of us, agree on.
AntwortenLöschenSome still believe the ends do not justify the means.
EXACTLY!
AntwortenLöschenExcept for this...
AntwortenLöschenNot sure if i read that right, but many of us... i'd say millions like me who marched peacefully in the streets of NYC on one of the coldest days of the year 2003 to protest the impending invasion of Iraq, and continued to protest and express our disgust with the actions of the Bush administration... acted with the utmost responsibility.
It's not all that free, G...
AntwortenLöschenWhat you left out of your wikipedia search...
"Laws limiting funeral protests
In response to the protests conducted by Westboro members at Indiana funerals, a bill was introduced in the Indiana General Assembly that would make it a felony to protest within 500 feet (150 m) of a funeral. The bill provides penalties of up to three years in prison and a $10,000 fine for those found to be in violation of the law. Shortly before this bill was signed members of the church had threatened to protest in Kokomo, Indiana, at a funeral service that was being held for a soldier who was killed in Iraq. On January 11, 2006, the bill unanimously (11–0) passed a committee vote,[77] and while members of the church had traveled to Kokomo to protest, they were not seen during or after the funeral service.
South Dakota adopted similar legislation. WBC has expressed its intention to contest such laws, and if victorious collect damages while the Phelps Chartered law firm collects attorney's fees under the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act of 1976.
On May 23, 2006, the state of Michigan banned any intentional disruption of funerals within 500 feet (150 m) of the ceremony. Violating the statute would be a felony, punishable by up to two years in prison and a $5,000 fine for the first offense and up to four years in prison and a $10,000 fine for a subsequent offense.[78]
On May 17, 2006, the state of Illinois enacted Senate Bill 1144, the "Let Them Rest In Peace Act", to shield grieving military families from protests during funerals and memorial services of fallen soldiers. A first-time violation of the Act is a Class C misdemeanor, punishable by up to 30 days in jail and a $1,500 fine and a Class 4 felony for a second or subsequent offense, which is punishable by one to three years in state prison and a fine of up to $25,000.[79]
On May 29, 2006, President George W. Bush signed into law the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act (Pub.L. 109-228), prohibiting protests within 300 feet (91 m) of the entrance of any cemetery under control of the National Cemetery Administration from 60 minutes before to 60 minutes after a funeral.[80] Penalties for violating the act are up to $100,000 in fines and up to one year imprisonment.[80] The bill garnered overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress with a 408–3 vote in the House, with 21 not voting, and a unanimous vote in the Senate.[80]
On January 11, 2011, the state of Arizona held an emergency legislative session to pass a law barring protests within 300 feet of a funeral and within an hour from its beginning or end. The law was swiftly signed into law ahead of the January 12th funeral of those killed in the 2011 Tucson shooting.[81] [82]
So far the religious whack jobs have had the good sense not ot challenge those laws. Had they, they would have faced arrest the same way this group of MUslims did.
There are also numerous law suits against them.
But the UK did not have those laws.
AntwortenLöschenFurthermore, they are still not prevented from expressing their views.
If these guys had done what they did in the UK here in the USA, no one would throw them in jail.
I believe they would have had they gone within the proscribe 500 feet.
AntwortenLöschenand you seem to have left THIS out:
AntwortenLöschenOn September 24, 2009, a federal appeals court ruled in favor of Westboro Baptist Church and reversed the lower court's award. It found their picket near the funeral is protected speech because it involves "matters of public concern, including the issues of homosexuals in the military, the sex-abuse scandal within the Catholic Church, and the political and moral conduct of the United States and its citizens", and did not violate the privacy of the service member's family
I guess the Brits are less tolerant of such demonstrations.
AntwortenLöschenMaybe they should enact the laws just so people are clear just how far they can go.
That covered the personal lawsuits filed against the church.
AntwortenLöschenThe laws proscribing just how close they can get are still in effect.
I think it's fair that they should be able to express their views.. within limits.
The limits need to be made clear in the UK.
I am glad I live in the USA.
AntwortenLöschenI am too... sometimes.
AntwortenLöschenNo, but with the climate here today, their next-of-kin would have to pick up the bodies. The only reason Westboro gets away with it is they are a Christian Organization. I wouldn't want to be a Muslim and try that here at the moment.
AntwortenLöschenif they could find any remnants...
AntwortenLöschen:P
And the UK does not have the Patriot Act either.
AntwortenLöschenIf these Muslims has done what they did in the US a teabagger would have shot them!
I have no problem with people expressing their views so long as the people take responsibility for their actions. You have mentioned Fred Phelps, he is a good example of a person who has no concept of taking responsibility for their actions. He may well believe whatever religion he spouts (which can be demonstrated is not anything to do with Christianity). It is because his 'church' is supposedly 'Christian' that he gets away with as much as he does, can you really say that a Muslim doing the same would be treated the same way. Could you imagine a Muslim picketing a funeral calling the soldiers 'murderers and rapists' would be left un-molested in America today?
I am glad you are happy to live in the USA, personally I would not be happy. I would not like to be in a place where I would fear getting myself or my children treatment for illness or injury from a corporate medical system which would have me living in poverty to pay the bills just because I did not get the right kind of insurance.
apparently, that is because the UK already acts as if it does. Oh, forgot to mention. The UK does not have a written constitution either. And the police shoots and kills a South American because he rushed to the subway. etc.
AntwortenLöschenIn that regard, I think the UK is smarter: No public notice needed. It will act as it seems PROPER.
The big question then becomes who the "it" is.
You mention the protester's being Muslims, and I understand that there is a resentment about the Muslim immigrants there. But why throw them in jail?
And what exactly is "responsible" behavior? Me calling a zionist a zionist may also become irresponsible... or even what you just wrote: "Because they are Muslims they were aggravating the people" kind of words are also irresponsible and causes aggravation.
At least in the US they are setting a "physical distance", not an obscure bound on what is and what is not "responsible".
First of all, the law on incitement is very clear, they broke that law and they are paying the price. The same law has been used against extremists from many different backgrounds. It is not because these men are Muslim that they have been prosecuted, it is because of what they said, which in the eyes of the police, the courts and most people here, was inflammatory and likely to cause offense.
AntwortenLöschenThere are many who agree with the views they put forward about the legality of the war and to some extent the actions of some service personnel. It is the manner of their protest which was/is repugnant. Calling for the killing of soldiers and politicians is not a way to make a point. Though it might be OK if you are Sarah Palin!
It is not acting responsibility that is the key, it is taking responsibility for your actions. If you do something which is against the law, then there is no point bitching about being prosecuted.
Do you think that if a Muslim group acted in the same way as the WBC in the USA that they would be tolerated in the same way as the 'Christian' group?
I WISH they were. However, many comments here indicate that they would not. I do not know enough about how violent people would get. In full truthfulness, what is the issue here? They you have HURT the feeling of some people? And you may have hurt it so bad that you may be aggravating them to incite violence?
AntwortenLöschenI guess that is the problem of those who will get aggravated and will (might?) resort to violence.
I refrain from making this a Muslim-Christian issue but many here do.
I do not understand what the judge is objecting to. Can someone be explicit, please?
Actually as far as the law is concerned the protest by Muslims would be accorded exactly the same protection as the protest by the WBC loonies, the KKK, or the any other peaceful demonstration. The officials on the scene would do what was needed to protect them. I just think the probability of violence is much greater. I'm not sure now long the WBC is going to get away with it before some loony with a gun goes after them either.
AntwortenLöschenThe protest itself would be protected in the US, no mater how abhorrent it would be, and as long as the rules were followed would not be prosecuted. The physical safety of the participants would be a lot harder to guarentee.
I believe the people in the UK have a DIFFERENT view of free speech (Note: "different" not "less")
AntwortenLöschenThe defendants in this protest were calling for a violent struggle against the Army units that had been on a home coming parade, they also advocated violence to non believers and the overthrow of the British government in favor of some form of Islamic authority in order to punish those who do not share their world view. They enraged many with their attitudes.
AntwortenLöschenThe aim of comparing the Muslim protesters to the WBC in the context of a protest in the USA is that the repugnant actions of the WBC and their ministry of hate are tolerated because of their so called Christian background. Given that there are many in the States who profess a stronger dislike for Muslims than even communists, it is more than likely that a protest by Muslims on US soil the like of which is seen with the WBC is more than likely to draw a violent response. Since I do not consider the WBC to be Christian, this is not a case of Christian vs. Muslim. In fact, the kind of people who would be prepared to to protest in this way cannot be considered to be people who follow any of the Abrahamic religions, they are rather adherents to political perversions of those religions, and when politics and religion mix in that way, people suffer.
I do not read that at all at the posted news above or anywhere else.
AntwortenLöschenThe judge does not seem to have ever mentioned that either.
Also, call for violence is subject to interpretation. For instance here, various parties and political groups place their opponents onto the "cross-hair", which can be arbitrarily interpreted as calling to kill them with a rifle.
Most importantly, I just do not see your claim in the press, regardless if it has merit or not.
Are you sure you are not citing hearsay?
I feel sure that some loony with a gun will take shots at the WBC at some point in the near future, but I am even more sure that if the banner of Islam was there instead of 'Christian' there would be a much more extreme response, much sooner.
AntwortenLöschenIn a similar vein, look at the number of supporters there were for the 'burn a Qur'an' day that was proposed in Florida, do you think that a Muslim in the US proposing a 'burn the Bible' day would last very long after promoting such an idea?
Sadly, the website where these people posted their ideas has long since gone, If I had kept the link I would have looked it up on the net archives. I will look it up later when I get home.
AntwortenLöschenThere really were not that many supporters for the "burn a Qur'an day". That pretty much repulsed everybody outside of the lunatic fringe. The press gave that a whole lot more coverage than it deserved.
AntwortenLöschenThe "Burn a Bible day" idea by a Muslim group here would get exactly the same response as a "Burn a Qur'an day" would get in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or any other Muslim country. In other words, it would get you dead or deported. I'm not sure why you would expect anything different. The question is what kind of response a "Burn a Bible day" would get in those countries.
You know what... I wish the government should NOT have applied any pressure upon them and simply let them burn the Koran. It could only add to the profitability of the publishers.
AntwortenLöschenThe press itself is after profits only, hence they will always "INCITE AGGRAVATION".
I guess the UK judge should lock up the news paper editors first.
Could you add the lawyers to that too?
AntwortenLöschenAlthough I neither wish nor see it happen, I would LIKE to beg to differ. I would like to believe that we are more "civil" than those mindless autocracies.
AntwortenLöschenHowever, I am not going to challenge a Muslim clique pf a perverted mind to attempt that.
The issue here is more the LEGAL perspective than the "harnessing of mob mentality", which is an ADMINISTRATIVE perspective.
Sure, if I were the admin, I would certainly pay great attention that no civil clashes would emerge.
But, in the US, the administration (government) and jurisdiction are separated. (Or, to a great extent).
Apparently, in the UK, the separation is not THAT sharply delineated.
certainly not.
AntwortenLöschenIn spite of all the bad name given to lawyers, if it were not for the lawyers, we all would have been "digested" by big money.
The greatest horror of corporations in this country (the USA) is a class action lawsuit, something the UK does not allow.
Essentially, it effectively substitutes the role of a state prosecution, which is easily "bought-out" via political influence.
But, it is MUCH harder and COSTLIER to buy out a class-action-law-suit.
In normal times I suspect you could get away with a "Burn a Bible day" in the US. These, regrettably, are not normal times. I'm sure you wouldn't get a riot like you would in the opposite case, but I am not as sure you would get out with a whole skin.
AntwortenLöschenI fully agree and call it a problem for the ADMINISTRATION to manage. Indeed, the "Burn a Koran" was "mitigated" by direct intervention by the W.H., not by Supreme Court...
AntwortenLöschenActually, it would be illegal to have either a burn a Bible or a burn a Qur'an day in the UK. We have legislation making Incitement to Racial Hatred a criminal offense.
AntwortenLöschenTrying to organise it would probably lead to you getting arrested.
that would be a religious hatred.
AntwortenLöschenAnd, here I go:
I hate all three of the Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
Jail me?
It covers religions too.
AntwortenLöschenYou might get away with that statement, but suggesting others should hate them too would be considered illegal here.
My worry with this kind of restriction is that if people aren't allowed to say what they think and discuss it openly it sends the whole problem underground where it is much harder to deal with and may result in more violent forms of protest.
I don't hate any religions if they are practiced peacefully, btw.
MIGHT? Just "MIGHT"?
AntwortenLöschenSheesh... I am staying in the US.
Wise move.
AntwortenLöschen:))
AntwortenLöschenI would have thought that calling anyone a rapist who is not a rapist is WRONG. These individuals were not convicted for holding opinions or even voicing those opinions. They were convicted under public disorder laws and appealed to overturn their convictions under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Anyone reading this http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html would have to agree with the the judgement made on appeal.
AntwortenLöschenPersonally I think it would be interesting if one or more of the soldiers involved were to sue in the civil court for slander and libel.