Political or Religious Hatred?

TheDaddy · 01-05-2010, 07:08

The use of the term 'Islam will dominate the world' apparently isn't motivated by religion apparently, personally I'd have thrown the book at this pathetic little boy anyway for his despicable act, I have more respect for the nut jobs that go over to Afghanistan to fight for the Taliban, at least they have the decency to do us all a favour and get shot in the face.

Oh and one last thing Tohser Shah, could you let the authority's know when Osama gets here because we are having a bit of trouble locating him at the mo.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...motivated.html

Gary L · 01-05-2010, 09:27

"Islam will dominate the world"
over our dead bodies matey.

The CPS are cowards. it's not racial because Islam is not a race. and it's not religious because Islam isn't a religion it's a set of rules.

it'll be a religion any other time. just not today in court.

01-05-2010, 09:32

as distasefull as it is ,i rather think some EDL or NF members will want to have a little chat with this bloke

Gary L · 01-05-2010, 09:57

Quote:

The CPS said Shah's offence could not be charged as a hate crime because the law requires that damage must target a particular religious or racial group.

It said: 'While it was appreciated that what was sprayed on the memorial may have been perceived by some to be part of a racial or religious incident, no racial or religious group can be shown to have been targeted.'

How would he have had to have worded it to target a racial or religious group?
I can't see anyway that you can. so there's no stopping anyone from writing the exact same things again and only being charged a cleaning bill.

Islam will dominate the world (should this have said Britain?)
Osama is on his way (I assume Britain)
Kill Gordon Brown (he lives in Britain)

01-05-2010, 10:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary L

How would he have had to have worded it to target a racial or religious group?
I can't see anyway that you can. so there's no stopping anyone from writing the exact same things again and only being charged a cleaning bill.

Islam will dominate the world (should this have said Britain?)
Osama is on his way (I assume Britain)
Kill Gordon Brown (he lives in Britain)

the way i see it is that if he said "Islam will dominate Christians" then it is religious crime

"Islam will dominate the world" is a political crime

either way he should have had the book thrown at him and i'm sure (not being a legal expert)that a little more imagination on the part of the CPS could have resulted in stronger charges

Gary L · 01-05-2010, 10:08

If you turn it around use 'Islam' in taking over, and 'Osama' doing what Osama does. killing Gordon (if you take into account who Shah is)
can't we use the favoured anti-terrorism laws instead? you don't need to be a known terrorist to be charged with that one.

who charged him with a hate crime in the first place?

Mr Angry · 01-05-2010, 10:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary L

"Islam will dominate the world"
over our dead bodies matey.

I think that's the general idea Gary - if we are to believe all the anti muslim hysteria.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary L

The CPS are cowards. it's not racial because Islam is not a race. and it's not religious because Islam isn't a religion it's a set of rules.

Whilst I have no sympathy for this chap (and one has to wonder how the police came to have his dna before the offence was committed) I think it's worth pointing out the following for clarity.

The CPS are referring to acts carried out by a follower of Islam, not on a follower of Islam. It's not racial beacause, as the CPS have stated quite clearly, "...no racial or religious group can be shown to have been targeted".

You are, not unusually, looking at the issue from completely the wrong perspective.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary L

it'll be a religion any other time. just not today in court.

No one, in the context of this particular incident, has said that Islam isn't a religion. That is something that you have imagined someone has said as a result of your inability to understand the context of statements made in relation to same.

Again, here are the relevant points:

"The CPS said Shah's offence could not be charged as a hate crime because the law requires that damage must target a particular religious or racial group.

It said: 'While it was appreciated that what was sprayed on the memorial may have been perceived by some to be part of a racial or religious incident, no racial or religious group can be shown to have been targeted."

Gary L · 01-05-2010, 10:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

I think that's the general idea Gary - if we are to believe all the anti muslim hysteria.

I forgot that it's not true. and that they have no intention of killing anybody, and never have.

Quote:

Whilst I have no sympathy for this chap (and one has to wonder how the police came to have his dna before the offence was committed)

Probably drunk driving or something.

Mr Angry · 01-05-2010, 10:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary L

I forgot that it's not true. and that they have no intention of killing anybody, and never have.

Well, at least now you've remembered.

Gary L · 01-05-2010, 10:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Well, at least now you've remembered.

Do you think we should have gone with anti-terror instead of the hate one? we could have got a conviction instead of a cleaning bill.

01-05-2010, 10:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary L

Do you think we should have gone with anti-terror instead of the hate one? we could have got a conviction instead of a cleaning bill.

thats what itouched on earlier ..a bit of imagination from the cps

Mr Angry · 01-05-2010, 10:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary L

Do you think we should have gone with anti-terror instead of the hate one? we could have got a conviction instead of a cleaning bill.

Given that it was not sufficently evidenced under race or religious hatred (incitement or otherwise) legislations how would you propose that it would fall under anti-terror laws?

**Hugh** · 01-05-2010, 10:41

Mr A - don't get dragged down into the maelstrom of illogicallity and perverse reasoning that is the "World of Gary Lâ„¢".....

Here's a Venn Diagram that might help explain things.

You might get out, but you'll never be the same again....

Gary L · 01-05-2010, 10:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

how would you propose that it would fall under anti-terror laws?

I don't know. if they can manage it with a man and a camera. I'm sure it could work with a Muslim and a spray can writing Islam will dominate the world.
Osama is on his way, and Kill Gordon Brown on a war memorial?

---------- Post added at 10:55 ---------- Previous post was at 10:54 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Mr A - don't get dragged down into the maelstrom of illogicallity and perverse reasoning that is the "World of Gary Lâ„¢".....

I don't suppose you have any thoughts on why he was charged with something that he was going to get off with, do you?

Mr Angry · 01-05-2010, 10:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary L

I don't know. if they can manage it with a man and a camera. I'm sure it could work with a Muslim and a spray can writing Islam will dominate the world.
Osama is on his way, and Kill Gordon Brown on a war memorial?

In your eyes he obviously "got off" but in reality he was fined.

I'll ask again, share with us how you are "sure it could work" if he were / had he been charged under anti-terror laws.

On what premise and using which particular elements of that legislation Gary?