Skip to main content

Jim Gardiner

It seems that the British Justice system is continuing to over reach it's prerogative in dealing with British citizens.

A recent case, which on first viewing, seems rather silly and an unnecessary waste of police and court's time, on further scrutiny, looks like an absolute and nonsensical miscarriage of justice.

It concerns a British burger vendor, who, in conversation with a customer, stated that there was a problem with muslim "no-go" zones in Manchester, at which point the customer, a Mr. Palmer, denounced the claim as an urban myth. The vendor (Mr. Gardiner) promptly produced evidence supporting his statement which the customer refused to read, preferring to remain in ignorance of the facts.

The vendor was understandably upset that his truthful and heartfelt assertions had been slighted by someone who refused to examine the facts that he had helpfully prepared. He then refused to serve the customer who reported him to the police.

So far so good.

A conversation turned into an argument, but no violence ensued, nor was there any incitement to violence, so where was the hate crime?

Where indeed.

According to the Crown Prosecution Service website:-

"A Hate incident is any incident which the victim, or anyone else, thinks is based on someones prejudice towards them because of their race, religion sexual orientation, disability or because they are transgender."

Lets read that again:- "...prejudice towards them because of their race, religion..."

And three paragraphs down, just to emphasize the point:-

"Racist and religious crime is particularly hurtful to victims as they are being targeted solely because of their personal identity, their actual or perceived racial or ethnic origin, belief or faith."

So, is Mr Palmer a muslim, or does he perceive himself to be one?

Having just ordered a sausage sandwich, it certainly does not read that way, and if he is neither, then how and where was any crime committed?

There is certainly no provision in the CPS statement, for a person to assume another's identity, so as to manufacture a crime of hate, where none exists. The law is quite clearly there to prevent a direct crime against an individual, i.e. a victim, who must be present.

There is, however, provision for a witness of such a crime to report the incident as indicated by the phrase:-

"...the victim, or anyone else, thinks is based on someones prejudice towards them..."

Again, the law clearly requires there to be a victim, for there to be a crime. Of course, Mr Palmer may fit one of the other categories of victims of hate, e.g. he may be a transgender, but there is no indication that Mr Gardiner made any remarks regarding transgenders, so where is the hate towards Mr Palmer, or have we uncovered a new crime of 'Hate by proxy'?

Now, it may be that Mr Palmer, the police, and the judge, have each assumed that Mr Gardiner would have been hateful to a muslim had one turned up, but the fact that he has obviously held and researched his views for some time, evidenced by his having the corroborating material to hand when he needed to prove his point, and that he was of previous good character, having never appeared in court before. So we must conclude that he would not have directed his opinions to a muslim in any way that might be described as hateful. He even joked about humorously offering them a "bacon butty" if any such intercourse occurred.

And this raises another important point.

It is almost inconceivable for a small roadside vendor who provides pork products, to encounter muslims in the normal course of his work, so why would the court choose to make such a ludicrous projection, and condemn him for his thoughts or actions in what would be a most unlikely situation?






Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Eid 2013: Somali rape gang

It may seem odd to begin a blog named after Chelsey Wright, with a story about an apparently unrelated, albeit similar attack, in another part of the country, but this was the one that first alerted me to the depth of our decline as a law abiding nation. There are many disturbing aspects of this case : The reaction of the defendants The reaction of the defendant's families  The religious context The media coverage The prosecution It was this last point that really bothered me, and still does, because the case was widely reported as a young girl who went willingly to meet a man she did not know, and then 'accompanied' him to meet a larger group of men she also did not know, in a hotel where she otherwise had no business to be.  The circumstances were set and the 'victim' seemed anything but an innocent party to the events that followed.  But after their conviction, the girl released a statement detailing how she had been corralled by the men and fo

John Alabi

A recent case in Canada highlights the growing subversion of Western Legal systems, where every opportunity taken to use our laws against the interests of the population and State. The case was brought to my attention at JihadWatch , and involves an Ontario landlord who was taken to court accused of discrimination under the Human Rights Code for refusing to take off his shoes in his tenant's apartment. On the surface, this is quite a simple, and easily resolved case, requiring a reprimand and possibly a small fine and agreement to behave differently in future (although even this may be inappropriate, as Mr Alabi had already acquiesced to their demands, see below). It is, after all, perfectly reasonable, if not usual, for people to ask visitors to remove outdoor shoes when entering their living space, and over the years I personally have, on several occasions, complied with such requests. What is different here, is that a simple landlord/tenant dispute is being used to set