As reported here previously, Tim Burton of LibertyGB went on trial yesterday in Birmingham on a charge of “racially aggravated harassment” for tweeting that Fiyaz Mughal was a “mendacious taqiyya-artist”. Enza Ferreri reports the good news — rare these days — that Mr. Burton was acquitted. As a bonus, the doctrine of Islamic taqiyya was publicly discussed in the courtroom.
Three Tweets Are Not Racially Aggravated Harassment, Birmingham Court Rules, Taqiyya Doctrine Accepted
by Enza Ferreri
On 8 April at Birmingham Magistrates’ Court, District Judge Ian Strongman heard a trial of racially aggravated harassment against Tim Burton, 61, a computing consultant from Birmingham and the Radio Officer of the British party Liberty GB.
The reason for the charge was three tweets he sent over a period of a month from early June to early July 2013 to Tell Mama UK, a helpline organisation for victims of anti-Muslim attacks that also serves to monitor and collect data on them, whose director is prominent Muslim Fiyaz Mughal.
Investigations by The Telegraph‘s Andrew Gilligan discovered that, in the wake of the murder of soldier Lee Rigby, Tell Mama had inflated numbers and seriousness of “Islamophobic” crimes, many of which were just posts on social media.
Discrepancies were also found between police figures and the association’s statistics, and this led to Tell Mama’s state funding — which by then amounted to £375,000 — being discontinued.
These revelations inspired Mr Burton to write the tweet “I wish to report Fiyaz Mughal for being a mendacious, grievance-mongering little Muslim scumbag & I want my £214,000 back now.” (a reference to taxpayers’ money) and two other tweets of a similar tone, calling Mr Mughal a “taqiyya-artist”. For these three tweets Mr Burton was accused of racially aggravated harassment.
The concept of taqiyya, part of a well-established Islamic doctrine, is the divine permission and even encouragement for Muslims to deceive non-Muslims to further the cause of Islam, particularly when Muslims are a minority.
The trial lasted all day. The Crown Prosecution Service called Mr Mughal as a witness via a video link. He repeatedly expressed that the tweets made him feel intimidated and targeted for his Muslim faith. On cross-examination, it was revealed that he did not know the meaning of the word “mendacious”, one of the insulting remarks that provoked the trial.
Next, the defendant Tim Burton took the witness stand. He said that his tweets, although in retrospect intemperate, were not intended nor expected to generate distress or anguish in someone like Tell Mama’s director, whose job is to search for and read online posts of analogous kind.
He added that the tweets were a political expression of outrage at the abuse of public money and the encroachment of Islam into British society.
Dutch scholar of Islam Professor Hans Jansen gave evidence as expert witness on taqiyya. He explained that the doctrine of taqiyya is accepted by all Muslim theologians and Quran commentaries, and rejected the prosecution’s and Mr Mughal’s theory that this word refers to a behavior only found among minority Shia Muslims persecuted by majority Sunni Muslims, or that it is just used by far-right groups to victimise Muslims.
The District Judge, who had read some of Professor Jansen’s writings before the trial, seemed to find his arguments persuasive.
He found that Mr Burton had a right to free expression and that Mr Mughal had not been caused harassment by the three tweets sent to Tell Mama which were critical of him and his organisation. Mr Burton was acquitted on all charges.
Enza Ferreri is an Italian-born London writer and the Press Officer for Liberty GB. She blogs at www.enzaferreri.blogspot.co.uk. For her previous articles and translations, see the Enza Ferreri Archives.
Even a small victory is welcome.
This is no small victory… This is a momentous one.
The mask has been removed (however briefly) and the monster has been revealed for all to see.
If those who have eyes take notice they can see the threat for what it truly is and start drawing correct conclusions.
“If those who have eyes…”
A statement made in the land of the blind.
Thin reed to use as support that the concept of taqiyya has been accepted. It’s a start of course, and more cases will have to be tried where evidence and testimony on Muslim lying is introduced.
” Mr Burton was acquitted on all charges. ”
WE are relieved? Really? Does the result gives us relief? What about the time and money wasted for nothing? Taqqiya’s goal is also to bleed the kuffars slowly to death without being aware of it, playing on kuffars’ infinite stupidity and confusion. Just by letting this case go to trial and listening to the silly, trivial case is a step to continuously tread the sole of the shoe on the kuffars’ throat.
It is amazing that “democracy” will degenerate and decay to an unrecognizable system. WE need a new functionally descriptive word for the NEW confused, confusing, decadent, system. What about: [redacted]cratic, Islomocratic. My goodness … How can a whole country get a virus in their heads and become so rotten and so anti-subjects/citizens? They went to war to save Iraqi people and “Yugoslav ” people from their own rulers. A big mendacious Claim intended to deceive the population. And they succeed every time. But my big question is : Who will save the western people from their own satan-like rulers? Poor Britain! Are you entering the Pitch Dark Ages?
From the narrative it doesn’t appear that taqiyya has been accepted as a concept used by Muslims to further their own and Islam’s goals. Rather, it appears that free speech has been upheld over the vexatious and unfounded complaint of Mughal. ‘Seemed to find his argument (Jansen) persuasive’ is hardly an endorsement that the concept of taqiyya has been recognized by a court of law.
Disagree. As a court advocate for over 20 years in an English common law based judicial system this:
“[Hans Jansen] explained that the doctrine of taqiyya is accepted by all Muslim theologians and Quran commentaries, and rejected the prosecution’s and Mr Mughal’s theory that this word refers to a behavior only found among minority Shia Muslims persecuted by majority Sunni Muslims”
is extremely important. It can and will likely be applied or appropriated by lower and higher English courts in future cases where taqiyya is under scrutiny. Further, judicial systems in other English common law descended nations such as the USA, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, etc, also cite caselaw from the UK in determining legal arguments. It is akin to a seed that may well become a strapping sapling and thence a towering majestic tree. It is a major cause for celebration for the anti-jihad movement. Well done to Tim Burton for calling Professor Jansen as an expert witness in his defence.
Thank you Julius; I did not get that from the narrative, but as you have pointed out, it is indeed a welcome addition to fighting the Islamization of all our nations.
Let us all pray that it is adopted quickly and as a matter of some urgency.
Charles Hammond Jr: it is a momentous victory and will not be brief or evanescent as I explained above.
Diane Harvey: you are correct, in future cases involving Muslim grievance mongerers this judicial decision will be repeatedly invoked by the anti-Muslim side. In the UK and jurisdictions descended from England.
Great news!
(Nice move- saying how could he be all upset at reading something that he’d been getting the govt to pay him to read for ages!)
“Acquitted” doesn’t exactly “innocent”- It simply means “not proven”. So the Moslem plaintiff “wins” under the “no smoke, without fire” principle. So the aim of ” Taquiyya” . The Magistrate is so keen to not “offend” he has not (as he should have done) openly declared Mr Burton innocent. That would have sent a clear message to the Islamic “Community”. Instead now the suspicon and fear remain. This may have been a Pyrrhic victory for Tim I am afarid…..
There is no ‘innocent” verdict in English and English-derived judicial criminal law: only “guilty” or “not guilty”. Its been that way for several hundred years. Acquitted is quite enough for one’s reputation to remain untarnished.
Scotland, oddly, has/had three possible verdicts “guilty”, “not proven” and “innocent”.
It would cost taxpayers a vast fortune to introduce the three possible verdicts system as a huge amount of additional and extremely costly court time and lawyers fees ( the defence lawyers in most criminal trials in the UK, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc, are paid for by the tax payer) would be spent, after “guilty” has been ruled out, in determining whether a defendant is to be declared “not guilty” or “innocent”. Bear in mind that the vast majority of people charged with criminal offences did what they were charged with, so serious career criminals who are usually privately represented, ie paying their own defence lawyers, because they can afford to do so, would go to inordinate lengths, to get an “innocent” verdict.
Speaking as a layperson: In the USA, there are at least six more legal situations:
1. The prosecutor has discretion to decide which cases to prosecute. A person can be 100% guilty of a crime – which is wholly irrelevant if the prosecutor refuses to prosecute using prosecutorial discretion.
2. The prosecutor agrees to prosecute the case against a person who is 100% guilty of a crime, but then the prosecutor ‘throws’ the case by failing to prepare an adequate prosecution or omitting to present compelling evidence.
3. The judge who hears the case simply dismisses the charges against a person who is 100% guilty of a crime. I wager that is the situation we will begin to face as Muslims infiltrate the Western court system, and Muslims are elected or appointed to be judges.
4. The judge who hears the case disallows the admission of evidence that would enable the conviction of a person who is 100% guilty of a crime.
5. Judges consider and rule by non-USA law in USA courtrooms.
6. Judges on higher courts simply to refuse to hear appeals of lower court decisions which were badly argued and/or reasoned so the badly argued and/or reasoned cases stand as precedent without the full scope of legal issues being debated and decided.
This must not be the end of it. Mughal has been permitted by the British Justice system to bring a vexatious case with the intention of silencing a legitimate critic. The case itself was trivial and should have been laughed out of court like the pathetic Mughal himself. Instead, the hearing lasted all day and while the doctrine of taqiyya was exposed to public gaze, I suspect that the outcome will be swept under the carpet and quickly forgotten about. However, who made the decision to prosecute this as a criminal case? The Police and the CPS should be censured for this and the offending apparatchik should lose his or her job. Also, why has no action been taken against Mughal for wasting the time of the Police and the court? Finally, who paid the costs? Tim Burton’s legal expenses for a court hearing that lasted all day must have been considerable. I do hope he has managed to retrieve this. If not, he does have a case to recover his costs from Mughal for making this trivial complaint in the first place.
The Crown Prosecution Service are not allowed to bring a prosecution unless they have a 80% certainty of a successful conviction.
This was clearly a trial which should never have been brought. For years the CPS refused to bring the cases of muslim rape gangs because they could argue they were not 80% sure of a successful conviction.
My friends in the legal profession tell me that the CPS has a hugely disproportionate number of muslim lawyers working for it.
10 years ago, the West Midlands Police brought a criminal prosecution for “inciting racial hatred” against Channel 4, because the TV company had the temerity to show what was being said in mosques in Birmingham. Again, we can put this down to infiltration of the police/CPS by muslims, who are preferentially prosecuting such cases, whilst preferring to turn a blind-eye to 1000s of school-girls being groomed, raped and prostituted.
Joe, I remember the programme well. Naiive as I was then, I expected the various Immams to be prosecuted for hate speech. I know better now. I also remember reading an article in one of the conservative dailies accusing the police of turning against its own people. We have slipped a long way down this slope since then.
“He found that Mr Burton had a right to free expression and that Mr Mughal had not been caused harassment by the three tweets sent to Tell Mama which were critical of him and his organisation.”
If the first were true, the second would not be a matter for the court.
The trial lasted all day. The Crown Prosecution Service called Mr Mughal as a witness via a video link.
Testified via video link, why was that privilege deemed necessary by the court, what next rehearsed and edited pre-recorded testimony?
Presumably because he feared for his life? Where is the history of kafirs killing muslim opponents in the west? No such history. But plenty of history of muslims/leftists killing those who criticise islam.
Significantly, the right of school-girls to testify via video link against the muslims who had raped and abused them for years, was denied to these girls. They were made to face their rapists day after day after day. Some of those school-girls were suicidal having to relive all that and be badgered persistently in open court. And all this despite the UK parliament having mandated in the 1990s that such vulnerable witnesses should be able to testify via video.
Once again, we see how muslims are given preferential treatment in the British judicial system. I hope that LibertyGB start to draw attention to the different forms of treatment accorded raped school-girls and a man who was putting himself forward to be the Mayor of London.
Not forgetting the propaganda blinder the media played by whitewashing the cases from the front-pages with the necro-prosecution of a whiter than white celebrity.
I hope Tim Burton can recover his costs from Mughal.