Yesterday we posted about the trial of Tim Burton on “hate speech” charges, which is coming up in London on March 27. Below is an interview with the defendant from back in November that provides more details on the case against him.
Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for uploading this video:
If anything is perverting the course of justice it is the system that ‘justice’ has now become where laws may be used to prosecute into silence those who wish to expose its wrongdoing.
Some questions: 1. Why wasn’t a complaint taken out against Mughal by any member of the public after the original court appearance of 2015 for fraud? Anyone can lay a complaint to police if they have the evidence of such fraud and one does not need to be a ‘victim’ to lay that complaint.
2. Obviously the police who have interviewed Mr. Burton this time around could not determine with any accuracy that he should be charged with anything at the time of his interview. That tells me there was uncertainty by the police in bringing about any charges at all until they sent off their ‘evidence’ to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). So if police were unsure of charges sticking why did they put their case forward to, what is apparent to me, a compromised CPS, rather than just putting a report in and not pursuing any further action, in other words, who told them to submit their ‘evidence’ to the CPS?
3. To all that has been presented here, and if it is accurate, then a trial by jury over a two charges of ‘harassment’ seems to be a case of the justice system trying to kill an ant with a sledgehammer. I know that Mr Burton did plead not guilty at his ‘mention’ in the lower court, but why couldn’t the sitting magistrate have dealt with these charges on the day or put the case over for a future time to be decided at the same lower court?
A judge and jury to hear the charges of ‘harassment’ seems to me way over the top!
His lawyer needs to ask questions of why the so called Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has so many jihadists working in it.
Our lawyers and judiciary are part of the problem. We need to collect as much evidence as possible of jihadist and communist takeover of our criminal law systems.
UN General Assembly, Human Rights Council, 2nd Session, 20th September 2006, document ref. A/HRC/2/3
36. As such, the right to freedom of religion or belief, as enshrined in relevant international legal standards, does not include the right to have a religion or belief that is free from criticism or ridicule. Moreover, the internal obligations that may exist within a religious community according to the faith of their members ( for example, prohibitions on representing religious figures) do not of themselves constitute binding obligations of general application and are therefore not applicable to persons who are not members of the particular religious group or community, unless their content corresponds to rights that are protected by human rights law.
37. The right to freedom of expression can legitimately be restricted for advocacy that incites to acts of violence or discrimination against individuals on the basis of their religion. Defamation of religions may offend people and hurt their religious feelings but it does not necessarily or at least directly result in a violation of their rights, including their right to freedom of religion. Freedom of religion primarily confers a right to act in accordance with one’s religion but does not bestow a right for believers to have their religion itself protected from all adverse comment.
Document available here.
United Nations General Assembly, Human Rights Council, 31st Session, 23d December 2015, document ref. A/HRC/31/18
5. In political discussions, legal debates and journalistic interviews, the Special Rapporteur regularly faces questions concerning the relationship between freedom of religion or belief and freedom of opinion and expression. Often, such questions reveal a sceptical attitude. The assumption seems to be that these two rights do not easily fit together. For instance, when people wonder how it might be possible to reconcile freedom of religion or belief and freedom of expression, such wording displays a perception that the two rights stand in essential opposition to each other. The underlying idea may be that, whereas freedom of expression facilitates frank and open discussions, including satirical provocation and caricatures that may be offensive to some, freedom of religion or belief, by contrast, would more likely be invoked against excessive provocation relating to religious issues. In short, while freedom of expression seems to signal a “green light” to all sorts of provocation, freedom of religion or belief appears to function more like a “stop sign” to provocation – or such is the perception.
6. In 2006, the previous Special Rapporteur, in a joint report, stressed that “freedom of religion primarily confers a right to act in accordance with one’s religion but does not bestow a right for believers to have their religion itself protected from all adverse comment”. This is an important clarification. Freedom of religion or belief is a right to “freedom”, a quality which accounts for its close relationship to other rights of freedom, including freedom of opinion and expression. Moreover, among the various facets covered by freedom of religion or belief, the rights to free personal orientation and free communicative interaction with others constitute indispensable core aspects, which point to the positive interrelatedness with freedom of opinion and expression.
Document available here.
United Nations General Assembly, 67th Session, 7th September 2012, document ref. A/67/357
53. The Special Rapporteur also reiterates his concern in relation to anti-blasphemy laws, which are inherently vague and leave the entire concept open to abuse. He wishes to underscore once again that international human rights law protects individuals and not abstract concepts such as religion, belief systems or institutions, as also affirmed by the Human Rights Committee (CCPR/C/GC/34, para. 48). Moreover, the right to freedom of religion or belief, as enshrined in relevant international legal standards, does not include the right to have a religion or belief that is free from criticism or ridicule. Indeed, the right to freedom of expression includes the right to scrutinize, debate openly, make statements that offend, shock and disturb, and criticize belief systems, opinions and institutions, including religious ones, provided that they do not advocate hatred that incites hostility, discrimination or violence. The Special Rapporteur thus reiterates his call to all States to repeal anti-blasphemy laws and to initiate legislative and other reforms that protect the rights of individuals in accordance with international human rights standards.
Document available here.
It is just as well that we stopped referring to our cultural enriching neighbours as “wogs”, isn’t it?