Headline: Britain First leader and deputy leader jailed for hate crimes
From the BBC:
7 March 2018
The leader and deputy leader of far-right group Britain First have been found guilty of religiously aggravated harassment.
Paul Golding, 36, and Jayda Fransen, 32, were arrested over the distribution of leaflets and posting of online videos during a gang-rape trial.
Let that sink in for a minute, "arrested over the distribution of leaflets and posting of online videos" Here in America people are fired up because their you tube videos are being deleted because of their political content, we take it for granted that we will not also be arrested for making controversial remarks.
Fransen was convicted of three counts of religiously aggravated harassment. Golding was found guilty of one charge.
Both were jailed at Folkestone Magistrates' Court.
Fransen was handed a 36-week sentence and Golding 18 weeks.
Wow, that' more than a slap on the wrist for saying the wrong thing. This case illustrates how if you live in a country with so called "hate speech" laws then you don't have free speech. The only sort of speech that ever needs to be protected is offensive speech, no one ever tries to silence love speech.
During their trial in January, the court heard they had targeted homes and people in Kent whom they believed were connected to a rape trial at Canterbury Crown Court where three Muslim men and a teenager were convicted of rape and jailed.
The pair, both from Penge in south-east London, were arrested in May last year.
Wow, I guess that's why the founders of America put that "speedy trail" clause in the Bill of Rights.
'Hostility' towards Muslims
They denied a total of seven counts of harassment.
Judge Justin Barron threw out three of the charges, while Fransen was found guilty of three and Golding of one.
He told the court the pair were "well-known", "controversial" and "generate their own publicity", but his verdict was based "solely on admissible evidence heard in court".
He said their words and actions "demonstrated hostility" towards Muslims and the Muslim faith.
Let me make it clear, I don't know what they were saying exactly and may or may not agree with the content, to me the content is not important, what this story is about is illustrating how hate speech laws are Orwellian and negate free speech laws. I am not hostile towards Muslims per se but there are things I am hostile towards and I think it is paramount to protect people's right to express hostility as long as they are not physically harming others or making threats of harm.
"I have no doubt it was their joint intention to use the facts of the case [in Canterbury] for their own political ends.
"It was a campaign to draw attention to the race, religion and immigrant background of the defendants."
Oh I see, what they did was wrong because they were supposed to pretend that none of that stuff actually matters, if there is a rash of foreign Muslim immigrants raping people I guess you are supposed to think it is just a one-off thing and that there can't possibly be a cultural reason why foreign Muslim immigrants are raping everyone.
Both Fransen and Golding were convicted on a joint charge of religiously aggravated harassment after an incident last May at 555 Pizza takeaway in Ramsgate, when Fransen banged on the windows and doors of the shop and screamed "paedophile" and "foreigner".
However, in each case, they instead targeted innocent members of the public.
They filmed the abuse and then released it on social media and through the Britain First website.
Here in America if you were running around screaming at people in a pizza spot there are a number of remedies, the owner of the pizza shop can ask you to leave and have you removed for trespassing or if you are out on the street you could be charged with disturbing the peace if you are really disturbing the peace, what is an important difference here is that the actions are illegal, the content of what you are yelling about is irrelevant. If you want to yell about things in the streets you can get a permit for that and yell about anything you like as loud as you like and you cannot be denied or arrested based on the content you are yelling about.
They also posted offensive leaflets through the letterboxes of houses in the area where the defendants lived.
Here in America you could certainly be brought up on federal charges for putting anything in mail boxes that is not mail, once again the content does not matter unless it is actually threatening. On the other hand in many places you can post things on telephone polls or other places or get permission and post them on private property that say any damned thing you like that is not a direct threat of violence, in the UK that is a crime if you say the wrong things about the wrong people.
Giving evidence, Fransen had denied being a racist and said she had carried out campaigns against people accused of sex offences, while Mr Golding told the court he had often acted as her cameraman.
Fransen was convicted of abuse after visiting a house she wrongly believed to be the current address of Sershah Muslimyar, a defendant in the trial.
One wonders what exactly she did or said that was "abuse" at the house she visited in error.
She was also convicted of visiting the Kent home of another defendant, Tamin Rahmani, and shouting racist abuse through the front door while his pregnant partner Kelli Best was there.
Let that sink in, she was convicted of a crime for yelling at an accused racist. I guess it was even worse because the accused rapist's pregnant girlfriend saw it, must be like an aggravated speech crime to use oldspeak in proximity to the unborn or the fairer sex.
During sentencing Fransen spoke over the judge, saying: "This is a very sad day for British justice. Everything I did was for the children of this country and they are worth it."
How dare she speak over the judge after having been convicted of speech crimes! Eight months of imprisonment out to shut her up.
As Britain First supporters left the courtroom they hurled abuse at court staff and members of the press, shouting "no surrender".
They were allowed to hurl "abuse" without being arrested? Or was shouting "no surrender" being called abuse now? Should they surrender to this?
It is reading things like this that make me grateful that the founders of America broke free and established a new nation where we enjoy free speech today. If you live in a country with hate speech laws then you don't have free speech. The problem with these laws is they create a chilling effect where people are afraid to say things for fear of saying the wrong thing. Let everyone say their piece and that which is the wrong thing will be self evident, if you are right you don't have to violently suppress ideas that are wrong. The truth will suppress that which is wrong. As long as people are not afraid to say it.
this rant is an 