Muslim Men Enforcing Sharia Law...

[Gromit]

...not prosecuted for religiously aggravated offences.

The 3 men attacked members of the public for holding hands, being immodestly dressed and drinking alcohol. They said the wanted Sharia Law and were patroling Bethnal Green.

// "When, on occasions, a person shows their intolerance of another individual, whether by aggression or violence and in such a way as to cause real fear to the individual, then the law can be invoked to protect that individual."

The judge said that her sentencing powers were restricted because the prosecution had chosen not to prefer religiously aggravated offences. //

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/06/muslim-vigilantes-jailed-sharia-law-attacks-london

How can this possibly not be religiously aggravated? They attacked people for not following a religious law. Why were they let of this more serious offence?

[sp1814]

AOG

"Once again a clear cut example of double standards being employed where ethnic minorities are concerned."

No it's not, as shoota subsequently pointed out.

[Gromit]

The Westboro Baptist Church are missing a trick by not opening a London branch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church

They could attack anyone for not being Christian and they would not get a religiously aggravated charge against them.

[hc4361]

They'd still be charged, though, just like the men in the lead story

[FredPuli43]

How is it double standards being applied where ethnic minorities are concerned,AOG ? The law is the same if I attack someone simply because they are Christian in general or Roman Catholic or Church of England Protestant in particular, to take simple examples.

You appear not to know the law. But you are not alone. Rebecca Poulet doesn't appear to know it either !

[mushroom25]

that ginger beard of Mr Horner's has got to be a comedy disguise.

hasn't it?

[anotheoldgit]

FredPuli43

/// How is it double standards being applied where ethnic minorities are concerned,AOG ? The law is the same if I attack someone simply because they are Christian in general or Roman Catholic or Church of England Protestant in particular, to take simple examples. ///

And obviously you do not know your religions Fred, since Roman Catholics and Church of England Protestants are both Christian.

Just Christian would have sufficed.

[Gromit]

// "Kill the non-believers" //

No religious intent there then. There should be a law against that. As it is, there isn't.

[jomifl]

/The law should be changed to protect us from religiously inspired nutters. /
Ah but where to start an where to end?

[hc4361]

Yes, there is a law against that, Gromit. Threatening to kill is illegal, as is causing alarm, harassment or distress.

[anotheoldgit]

FredPuli43

/// You appear not to know the law. But you are not alone. Rebecca Poulet doesn't appear to know it either ! ///

So Rebecca Poulet QC doesn't know the law then Fred? even so she seems to have done well to reach the dizzy heights of Queen's Council.

Are you going to get in touch with her and enlighten her with all your knowledge on such matters?

[hc4361]

I'm sure she has already been enlightened, AOG

[Gromit]

hc

I obviously know that. I was meaning targeting "non-believers" should be an aggravating feature and in itself should be a crime, just as targeting a Muslim, christian or Jew is a crime.

But I'm sure you knew what I meant.

[shoota]

Lol - apologies from me displaying an inability to understand perfectly clear posts - I thought you were referring to AOG not hc......
Tut

[sp1814]

FredPuli43

Your example needs to be the other way around. If a Christian, Jew, Muslim or Sikh person attacks a non-believer, then the law as it stands means that they cannot be charged with a racially/religious aggravated assault.

That's fair (because it protects freedom of religion), and unfair because it doesn't protect non-believers.

If the three had used anti-Christian insults, then the charges could have included this.

But they didn't.

[hc4361]

Only if the victims were Christian, though, sp, and targeted specifically for that reason.

[THECORBYLOON]

ANOTHEOLDGIT, since Fred said "Christian in general or Roman Catholic etc" is it not obvious he knows his religions? Does sectarianism mean nothing to you? When Sinn Fein/IRA murdered Protestants for example, it was not because they were Christians was it?

[anotheoldgit]

shoota

/// Lol - apologies from me displaying an inability to understand perfectly clear posts - I thought you were referring to AOG not hc......
Tut ///

Yes it rather puts one on their back foot, when some dare to criticise other ABers apart from yours truly.

[anotheoldgit]

THECORBYLOON

/// ANOTHEOLDGIT, since Fred said "Christian in general or Roman Catholic etc" is it not obvious he knows his religions? Does sectarianism mean nothing to you? When Sinn Fein/IRA murdered Protestants for example, it was not because they were Christians was it? ///

I understand that quite well perhaps the misunderstanding came from the way Fred worded it, it would seem that even other ABers get misunderstood from the way they express certain matters, makes a change from myself being misunderstood all the times.

On a different matter entirely, could you please refrain from shouting my username it is not polite you know?

[FredPuli43]

AOG, I know Rebecca Poulet pretty well, but I think she will have discovered the error by now ! These embarrassments happen to every lawyer, from the highest to the lowest, and there is no need to remind people of them.