UK Muslims convicted in landmark gay hatred case

[xchrom]

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/01/20/uk-britain-muslims-gays-idUKTRE80J19620120120

(Reuters) - Three British Muslim men were found guilty on Friday of stirring up hatred by distributing leaflets calling for the death of homosexuals in what prosecutors said was a landmark case.

The men, from Derby, had posted and handed out pamphlets near their local mosque with the title "Death Penalty?" featuring a mannequin hanging from a noose and saying gay people would to go to hell.

The leaflets were part of a protest by a group of Muslim men against a forthcoming Gay Pride parade in the city.

Ihjaz Ali, Kabir Ahmed and Razwan Javed became the first people in Britain to be found guilty under a law introduced in 2010 making it an offence to stir up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation.

[joeybee12]

1. Good...wonder if we could get a law like that here? knr

[Vanje]

8. No

The following groups have a lot of power in government and the media:
"Focus on the Family" , American Family Association , Concerned Women of America , Family Research Council , Family Research Institute , National Organization for Marriage , Traditional Values Coalition.

Southern Poverty Law Center includes them all in their index of Hate Groups.

There is no way views espoused by the powerful individuals behind these groups, will be penalized. No Way.

Hell, Our "liberal" president's inauguration showcased Rick Warren, who has compared gay marriage to incest and pedophilia, and whos organization, Saddleback Church, has denied membership to uncloseted gays.

Our country has a ways to go.

[Meeker Morgan]

9. It's already illegal in the USA to incite murder ...

This is quite different from the more vaguely defined "hate speech".

[closeupready]

2. Well, as they say, if you do the crime, you do the time.

I'm fine with this ruling, though I have doubts about whether such a law would be enforceable stateside.

[irisblue]

3. a question

would they want legal protection from the death-to-muslim-bigots? you want that, you gotta give it...

[Bill O-Rights]

4. I'm a little confused why it's 'wrong' to criticize Muslims but not Christians when they have

essentially equal positions, basically, on gay people. (I mean, of course, the more fundamentalist
factions of both groups)...I've been noticing a fair amount of what sure looks like hypocrisy in the media over this. ??

[alp227]

5. Welcome to DU. Thing is, how much influence does the fundie Muslim lobby have in this country

compared with the fundie Christian lobby? The fundie Christian lobby makes the majority of noise in political discourse especially scares over the All-American Muslim TV show and "creeping sharia". Was there much Muslim money behind California Prop. 8? Furthermore, this case was in the UK, and the UK is prosecuting this as a hate speech case. As an American I see this more as a violent threats case as hate speech is not a crime in this country (and can't be unless the 1st amendment were modified.)

[Vanje]

6. Yep nt

[Vanje]

7. Islam has its own Fred Phelps.

"AllahHatesFags.com

[dipsydoodle]

10. Generally speaking

whenever a subject like this comes up elsewhere in DU there's a load of whining about the absense of freedom of speech here in the UK. We've got our hate laws for a very good reason most commonly known as the overall good.

United Kingdom

For England, Wales, and Scotland, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 makes hateful behaviour towards a victim based on the victim’s membership (or presumed membership) in a racial group or a religious group an aggravation in sentencing for specified crimes.[31] For Northern Ireland, Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 (S.I. 1987/463 (N.I. 7)) serves the same purpose.[32] A “racial group” is a group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins. A “religious group” is a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief. The specified crimes are assault, criminal damage, offences under the Public Order Act 1986, and offences under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 requires a court to consider whether a crime which is not specified by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 is racially or religiously aggravated. The Act requires a court also to consider whether the following circumstances were pertinent to the crime:

(a) that, at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrated towards the victim of the offence hostility based on—

(i) the sexual orientation (or presumed sexual orientation) of the victim, or
(ii) a disability (or presumed disability) of the victim, or

(b) that the offence is motivated (wholly or partly)—

(i) by hostility towards persons who are of a particular sexual orientation, or
(ii) by hostility towards persons who have a disability or a particular disability.[33][34]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime#United_Kingdom

[xchrom]

11. i don't disagree with their conviction -- and i very much

have a problem with hate speech -- i believe it leads to violence.