Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Racial and Religious Aggravation

As a follow-up to his earlier work on the case against Guramit Singh, Nick has posted additional information about the changes to the laws involved. The portion of the statute used against Mr. Singh was modified — after 9/11! — to add “religiously aggravated harassment” as a type of offense.

Nick’s post from The Frozen North is below.


Guramit Singh’s arrest — part 2

It appears that the Cambridgeshire Constabulary have arrested Guramit Singh using legislation created in the months following the terrorist attacks on America on September 11th, 2001. Singh has been arrested on suspicion of intentionally causing religiously aggravated harassment, alarm or distress. The relevant legislation here is Section 28 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which defines ‘religiously aggravated’:

28 Meaning of “[racially or religiously aggravated]”.
 (1) An offence is [racially or religiously aggravated] for the purposes of sections 29 to 32 below if—
  (a) at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrates towards the victim of the offence hostility based on the victim’s membership (or presumed membership) of a [racial or religious group]; or
  (b) the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards members of a [racial or religious group] based on their membership of that group.
 (2) In subsection (1)(a) above—
  
  • “membership”, in relation to a [racial or religious group], includes association with members of that group;
  • “presumed” means presumed by the offender.
 (3) It is immaterial for the purposes of paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1) above whether or not the offender’s hostility is also based, to any extent, [on any other factor not mentioned in that paragraph.]
 (4) In this section “racial group” means a group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins.
 [(5) In this section “religious group” means a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief.]

Note that Section 28 sub-section (1) refers to Sections 29-32 of the Act. Section 31 deals with public order offences committed under the legislation cited by the Cambridgeshire Constabulary in connection with Mr. Singh’s arrest:
31 [Racially or religiously aggravated] public order offences.
 (1) A person is guilty of an offence under this section if he commits—
  (a) an offence under section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986 (fear or provocation of violence);
  (b) an offence under section 4A of that Act (intentional harassment, alarm or distress); or
  (c) an offence under section 5 of that Act (harassment, alarm or distress), which is [racially or religiously aggravated] for the purposes of this section.

Here is Section 28 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 as it was originally enacted:

28 Meaning of “racially aggravated”
 (1) An offence is racially aggravated for the purposes of sections 29 to 32 below if—
  (a) at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrates towards the victim of the offence hostility based on the victim’s membership (or presumed membership) of a racial group; or
  (b) the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards members of a racial group based on their membership of that group.
 (2) In subsection (1)(a) above—
  
  • “membership”, in relation to a racial group, includes association with members of that group;
  • “presumed” means presumed by the offender.
 (3) It is immaterial for the purposes of paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1) above whether or not the offender’s hostility is also based, to any extent, on—
  (a) the fact or presumption that any person or group of persons belongs to any religious group; or
  (b) any other factor not mentioned in that paragraph.
 (4) In this section “racial group” means a group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins.

This has been amended in order to create ‘religiously aggravated’ public order offences. And here’s the thing: this was done in accordance with the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. Here is Section 39 of that Act:

39 Religiously aggravated offences
 (1) Part 2 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37) is amended as set out in subsections (2) to (6).
 (2) In the cross-heading preceding section 28 for “Racially-aggravated” substitute “ Racially or religiously aggravated”.
 (3) In section 28 (meaning of racially aggravated)—
  (a) in the sidenote and subsection (1) for “racially aggravated” substitute “ racially or religiously aggravated”;
  (b) in subsections (1) and (2) for “racial group” substitute “ racial or religious group”;
  (c) in subsection (3) for the words from “on” to the end of the subsection substitute “ on any other factor not mentioned in that paragraph.”
 (4) In section 28 after subsection (4) insert—
  “(5) In this section “religious group” means a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief.”
 (5) In each of the provisions listed in subsection (6)—
  (a) in the sidenote for “Racially-aggravated” substitute “ Racially or religiously aggravated”;
  (b) in subsection (1) for “racially aggravated” substitute “ racially or religiously aggravated”.
 (6) The provisions are—
  (a) section 29 (assaults);
  (b) section 30 (criminal damage);
  (c) section 31 (public order offences);
  (d) section 32 (harassment etc.).

How perverse to see someone arrested after an EDL event in Peterborough in 2010 on the strength of legislation brought into existence after the terrorist attack carried out by Mohammad Atta and his fellow travellers on September 11th 2001!

11 comments:

Richard said...

Never underestimate the level the left will stoop to if they can shut up one of their critics.

syntec said...

Everyone in the country is highly probably now waiting with baited breath to see if our bent law enforcement/legal system will be arresting the thousands of Mohammedan jihadists up and down the country under the same perverse legislation, for the numerous breaches they've been committing against it and getting away with over the past several decades.

God's knows, Mohammedans have not only been committing exactly the same supposed offence(s) as Mr Singh, they've been publically calling for and actively participating in the attempted overthrow and Islamic replacement of Western political systems and their governments as well as the wholesale mass murder of countless non-Muslim ethnicities they call Infidels and Kaffirs.

In passing, we must always bear in mind it was the Christian Crusaders who coined the term 'Infidel' in reference to Mohammedan adherents which the Mohammedans later hijacked so it's they who are the Infidel and that's what we should be calling them at all times until the term sticks (to them) once again for all time.

4Symbols said...

In hoc signo vinces

This is but one of thousands of draconion laws enacted in the UK on the road to totalitarianism and helotdom from Thatcher onwards. The laws were not brought about in secret, to their great shame the British people rather than protect their liberties were bribed with unearned hyper-salaries, hyper-mortgages and hyper-consumerism a whole nation on welfare credit doled out from the bank vaults.

The judge said five to ten but I say double that again
I'm not working for the clampdown
No man born with a living soul
Can be working for the clampdown.

Hesperado said...

The portion of the statute used against Mr. Singh was modified — after 9/11! — to add “religiously aggravated harassment” as a type of offense.

How perverse to see someone arrested after an EDL event in Peterborough in 2010 on the strength of legislation brought into existence after the terrorist attack carried out by Mohammad Atta and his fellow travellers on September 11th 2001!"

While this is perverse, it is not illogical. Also, it is an emblematic microcosm of the PC MC paradigm itself and its nucleus which may be encapsulated by recourse to Lawrence Auster's "Law of Majority-Minority Relations":

The worse any designated minority or alien group behaves in a liberal society, the bigger become the lies of Political Correctness in covering up for that group.

And Auster explains:

"This increasingly undeserved favorable treatment of an increasingly troublesome or misbehaving minority or non-Western group can take numerous forms, including celebrating the group, giving the group greater rights and privileges, covering up the group's crimes and dysfunctions, attacking the group's critics as racists, and blaming the group's bad behavior on white racism."

What Auster has not sufficiently explained, though, is why one particular designated ethnic minority, Muslims, have astronomically surpassed all other ethnic minorities in terms of enjoying the perverse privileges described by this law. The explanation is implicit in his First Law, since Muslims by their expressions and behaviors (not the least of which being various forms of terrorism) serve to augment and exacerbate the crucial "worse behavior" factor in that Law's formulation.

Lawrence Auster's First Law of Majority-Minority Relations, and Muslims

rumcrook™ said...

so why isnt that scum choudry arrested then?

his christmas is evil posters fit this bill.

or is this law only unidirectional as a weapon against criticism of islam.

John said...

I emailed the met office to inquire how the law is interpreted as I found the christmas is evil posters highly offensive. We need to flood the authorities with every single offensive gesture and action our porkophobic occupiers make.

4Symbols said...

In hoc signo vinces

"What Auster has not sufficiently explained, though, is why one particular designated ethnic minority, Muslims, have astronomically surpassed all other ethnic minorities in terms of enjoying the perverse privileges described by this law."

The attraction is not the muslim minoriy per say it is islam, what better way to keep the political elite power structure intact while at the same time making the indigenous populations of Europe submissive, it is NOT choudary prosecuting Guramit Singh it is the British state.

First and foremost islam is a political construct an ideological surgical instrument being wielded by the European political elite to cut deep into Western values and the psychology of European societies.

Auster may not have considered that the designated muslim ethnic minority is the means not the ends, the psychology conditioner permeating acquiescence through the indigenous peoples of Europe.

1389 said...

Among other things, this article explains the leftist/jihadist convergence.

Zenster said...

rumcrook™: so why isnt that scum choudry arrested then?

Le bingo! Give that man a Kewpie Doll! Anjem Choudry makes Guramit Singh look like Mother Teresa.

syntec said...

Actually, 4 Symbols has touched on a rather interesting viewpoint intimating that Islam and not Muslims per se is what the current Marxist Liberal ruling elite are attracted to, highly probably wielding it as a psychological weapon of subjugation and enforced acquiescence of the indigenous peoples of Europe.

To further expand on this viewpoint, one could also posit that the indigenous peoples of Europe are actually the victims of unlawful mental incarceration replete with the added physical punishment dimension in the shape of employment dismissal, bannings from public/political/judicial office, fines and imprisonment itself, to name just the most common of the current Marxist Liberal judicial sanctions.

Put plainly, the indigenous peoples of Europe are being subjected to what amounts to hostage taking and unlawful imprisonment by the current Marxist Liberal power structure.

The time has come for Ethnonationalist forces to once and for all unite and begin the process of bringing criminal proceedings against every guilty individual operating within the present Communist setup which comprises Conservatives, Socialists, Liberals, Humanists and religious clerics alike.

EscapeVelocity said...

Islam is religiously aggravating towards other religions. Ban it, now.