Change The Law Till It Delivers The Result You Desire ?

In the wake of the acquittal of B.N.P. activists Nick Griffin and Mark Collett by a jury at Leeds crown court yesterday, the British government is considering a raft of new tougher legislation to address racial and religious hate speech and incitement . Griffin and Collett had been tried on existing charges of ` inciting racial hatred `, but the jury took just three hours to return verdicts of ` not guilty `.Fueling calls for change in the law .



The BNP is now claiming that the trial verdict vindicates them, and naturally the government is pandering to demands that they “ do something “. With new legislation promised by Gordon Brown, the government is playing right into the BNPs hand by appearing vindictive in its calls to change the law to ensure that future trials will return the results they desire, this is not justice. It is petty micro management.

The problem is not the law, it is how it was applied and prosecuted. The jury never heard key corroborating evidence from the defendants own lips. That was a key failing of this case, not some imaginary ` deficiency ` in the laws.

The BNP and their race hate message have no place in UK society, but we cannot move the legal goal posts every time a jury returns a verdict that is unpalatable, and this is exactly what is happening here.

The West Yorkshire Police warned that the prosecution was a “ win /win “ opportunity for the BNP, and predictably Griffin and his followers are milking the fallout from the trial for all it is worth.

Justice has not been done, despite the best efforts of most involved but knee-jerk new legislation is not the answer. The BNP is already using the not guilty verdict to demonise the BBC whose undercover documentary ` the secret agent ` was a key prosecution evidence. Claiming that the BBC perused a “ witch hunt “ against the BNP abusing its position for political ends.

If the jury had heard such outbursts as :

……all Muslims are anti British terrorists

Or

… none whites have no place here

The verdict may have been different .


Related News Links:
news.bbc.co.uk
news.bbc.co.uk

They can change the law all they want, but if they can't find a jury to convict them just for controversial political speech, they won't be able to really do anything about it.

I applaud the jury for standing up and refusing to convict. It seems to me nothing they said represents a clear and present danger.

I couldn't believe it when I read on the BBC that they would try changing the law as they didn't get a conviction...

How is that fair?

Although what they guys said was unpalatable for normal, civil folk, he had every right to say it and wasn;t calling for beheadings, deaths or murder, unlike those of Muslim ilk which get away with it.

He might be racist, but it's a British form of racism. Still all very civil about it at the end of the day.

To be honest though, I think alot of people secretly agree with some of the things the BNP do say. Not all, but some....

In England, do you have bans against double jeopardy and passing ex post facto laws like we have from the U.S. Constitution?

In other words, if the law was changed, would the gov't have to wait until they had new evidence of them doing the same thing after the law changed, or could they just use the new law with the old evidence?

Not any more....

They have just been repealed, although in order to be tried twice, there needs to be new and compelling evidence. You cannot be tried twice on the same evidence.

EDIT: Thats the double Jeapardy thing, anyway.

[edit on 11/11/06 by stumason]

There's also the Constitutional protection against Bills of Attainder which I guess Britain didn't have at the time of the American Revolution.

That means the Congress can't pass a law like "stumason is a really nasty guy and we sentence him to life in prison!" All laws have to apply to everyone, not to a single person or group of people.

Just seems to me like the Government want to stiffle any sort of criticism about anything so the minorites don't get offended. What if the majority get offended? Oh well, we'll just ignore it.... Typical Labour thinking

"We should look at them in the light of what's happened here because what is being said to young Muslim people in this country is that we as a country are anti-Islam, and we have got to demonstrate without compromising freedom that we are not," he said.

He said there should be "consequences" from saying Islam is "wicked and evil".

That was quoted from Lord Falconer, one of Blairs stooges. So, from what he is saying, they can calls us godless infidels, call for our deaths and support terrorists, but when we call them nasty names, that should be illegal?

Why do we have to go to such great lengths to show we are "not anti-Islam".

By doing that, they are showing that, indeed, they are not anti-Islam, just anti anything else...

DJOHNSO77 :


I vehemently disagree.

The BNP goes far beyond mere “ political controversy “ in its rhetoric, they are not exercising their rights to free speech and opinion. They are racist thugs masquerading as a political party, and they do not have any place our country . that is just my opinion and I would vote to ban them in an instant.

I stand by my opinion that the trial was botched.


STURMASON :

I largely agree,

Abu Hamza [ dr hook ] and other islamist advocates have made public speeches that also deserve prosecution under existing laws .

But due to political spinelessness , no action has been taken .

This unfortunately has two key repercussions – it allows Griffin [ the BNP leader ] and others to wrap themselves in the mantle of martyrdom, falsely claiming that they are persecuted .
And second it emboldens Islamic and other extremists who come to believe they are some how “ protected “ and thus free to pour oil on the political fires. Making blatantly racist speeches , incitements to violence and criminal acts, and bloody getting away with it [ for now ]