Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Tommy Robinson to be Charged Under Section Four

The Black Flag of Jihad

We reported yesterday that the criminal charge against English Defence League leader Tommy Robinson has been dropped. Mr. Robinson had been accused of assaulting a police officer when he grabbed the Black Flag of Jihad from one of the poppy-burning Muslim demonstrators on Remembrance Day.

The authorities seem to have realized that they would have been hard-pressed to gain a conviction under that charge. However, they have evidently not given up the idea of locking up Tommy Robinson, and have now decided to charge him under Section Four of the Public Order Act.

First, the news article:

Assault charge against EDL leader dropped

Prosecutors have dropped claims that Stephen Lennon [Tommy Robinson], the founder of the English Defence League, assaulted a police officer during clashes with Islamic protesters in London.

Lennon, 27, of Layham Drive, Luton, was due to go on trial at West London Magistrates’ Court. But the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said it had withdrawn the charge after new evidence emerged. However, a spokesman said Lennon will now face an offence under section four of the Public Order Act, but has yet to be charged. Lennon was arrested by Met Police officers in Kensington, west London, as the nation stopped to mark the anniversary of Armistice Day last year. He was among a group of EDL demonstrators which clashed with a militant Islamist group who burned poppies during the two-minute silence. One officer suffered a head injury that required hospital treatment during the clashes involving more than 50 people. Five others associated with his right-wing group were arrested and two Muslim protesters were held on suspicion of public order offences. Members of the Islamist group Muslims Against Crusades have vowed to “expose the enemies of Islam”.

Two men, aged 30 and 26, have since been charged with public order offences and are due to go on trial later this year. A hearing was due to take place on Wednesday to formally drop the charge of assaulting a police officer and adjourn the case to a date to be set. Mr Lennon is also known as Yaxley-Lennon and uses the pseudonym Tommy Robinson. Speaking after the charge of assaulting a police officer was dropped, Mr Lennon claimed more than 1,000 supporters had pledged to picket the court if the case went ahead.

He said the decision was made after EDL members found fresh video footage of the incident. Mr Lennon described the new potential charge as “out of a Christmas cracker” and said he would deny it. Speaking by telephone from Liverpool Street station, Mr Lennon said he was not due to attend the hearing. He said: “This is a joke, a farce. It completely shows they are trying to pin anything they can on me. I will plead not guilty to the public order. I was trying to prevent a crime of burning poppies. I was trying to do the police’s job because they failed to keep the rule of law on the streets of London.”…

Section Four is the same part of the Public Order Act under which Guramit Singh has been charged. As Nick reported a couple of weeks ago, the Act was amended after 9-11 to make sure that Muslims could be protected from “racially or religiously aggravated harassment”. This is presumably exactly the same law which will be used to prosecute Tommy Robinson.

To recap, here is Section 28 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which defines ‘religiously aggravated’, and was later amended (emphasis added):

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:

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.

Section 39 details the amendments (emphasis added):

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.).

I don’t have the ear of Tommy Robinson’s solicitor, but if I did, I would recommend that he build a defense based on the meaning of the Black Flag of Jihad. If anything is intended to cause “religious aggravation”, it is the battle flag of Mohammed, which announces war, suffering, and death to Christians, Sikhs, Jews, Hindus, and all other non-Muslims.

Tommy Robinson was acting to prevent religious aggravation when he took down that flag. I don’t know whether the defense team will buy it, but EDL readers may want to pass this idea on to Tommy Robinson.

It’s worth considering.


Hat tip: DF.

14 comments:

Nick said...

Section 4 of the Public Order Act deals with 'Fear or provocation of violence' whereas Section 4A, which so far as I can tell is the legislation employed by the Cambridgeshire Constabulary to arrest Guramit Singh, deals with 'Intentional harassment, alarm or distress'

See link.

Salome said...

So people who go around burning war memorial symbols such as poppies and cursing Britain's war dead and waving the black flag of jihad don't get caught under section 4A?

Nick said...

If it is true that two of the 'Muslim protesters' (as the PA article describes them) have been arrested on suspicion of public order offences, then that could be significant.

If either of those two fellows were the ones waving the flag about, it seems to me that Tommy could say that one of those fellows 'displayed to another person [Tommy] 'writing, [a] sign or visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting ... with intent to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person [Tommy]'. In other words they are the ones guilty of an offence and the fact that Tommy was provoked to raise his hands is evidence of that. In addition, the fact that the guy has been arrested shows that the police think so too.

(This rests on one of the two fellows mentioned in the original news article being one of the guys Tommy had the altercation with.)

So in that context, the meaning of the black flag of Islam would be significant. Is is 'threatening, abusive or insulting'? If it can be shown to be any of those things - and I would argue that the context in which it was being waved around matters - then there might be a possible legal avenue open to Tommy there.

EscapeVelocity said...

The thought police dont like you speaking out politically against Islamization. Nor criticizing Islam or Muslim behavior.

L said...

Britain - Your dhimmitude is showing.

Richard said...

A good litigator should be able to win this case, the question is will he get a good one?

goethechosemercy said...

I recall the story of an RAF veteran from ww2 being brutalized by young Muslims on Remembrance day also. Any word on what those pillars of the "new society" are facing as consequences???
For the poppy burners and England haters on the streets of England, I would suggest this: expel, expel, and expel.
They're like unejected vomit in the body politic of Britain.

Findalis said...

They used this tactic against Paul Ray aka Lionheart. It took him years and thousands of pounds to get the police to drop the charges. That is what will happen now.

Start setting up defense funds fast.

Freyja's cats said...

On an earlier blogpost I proposed bringing back the old gods, goddesses and demi-gods and heroes of Europe, such as the Greek pantheon, the Roman pantheon, the Celtic pantheon, the Germanic pantheon, and the Slavonic and Baltic deities, etc.

Any Europids who have either never been Christian, or have fallen away from Christianity, and are neither atheistic nor agnostic, could then have the delicious opportunity to form the Council of the Pantheons of Europe.

Even the Christians could rekindle their ancient European roots. You could get nearly every Europid lovin' the old deities again.

Then, instead of Allah versus only Jehovah or Yahweh, you would have a plethora of EUROPEAN gods.

Being surrounded by true "polytheists" everywhere in Europe, will drive the Islamists nuts.

The Islamists will then violate every silly "hate" law in Europe, attacking them and the symbols.

Just think! A mighty oak tree would then be "Thor's sacred tree."

You could sue any Muslim that desecrates it.

In the UK, bring back the Celtic and Germanic gods and goddesses. Put up sacred sites and banners and flags everywhere.

Perhaps the pressure will even compel at least some of the Islamic population, to return to their lands of origin.

What are the days of the week in the Germanic languages?

Why, they are SUNday and MOONday and TYRsday and WODENsday and THORsday and FREYJAsday.

And there's SATURNday from the Romans.

See? The Old Gods and Goddesses are everywhere.

Scottish Infidel said...

Does anyone know what the Scottish Equivalent of this Law is??

Shirl in Oz said...

I have passed it on for you

Silly Kuffar said...

@Frejas cat - The problem today is SATANIST. I don't usually mention this on any comments/threads etc, but SATANISM is alive and well which is why one of it's proponents ISLAM is being used to attack Christians.
Now as someone who knows about our Old "Ways" isn't Satan and saturn inextricably linked ?

Do not turn away from CHRISTIANITY to accept SATAN.
Otherwise you are as much to blame for what is happening to the once CHRISTIA EUROPE today.
Why should people want to have SATAN in their lives. The Bushes, Bliars etc are SATANISTS.
WE ARE NOT - WE ARE THEIR ENEMYS NOT SUPPORTERS.

Only three Religions come into this, CHRISTIANITY, ISLAM and ISLAMS FOUNDER SATAN and SATANISM.

Vivi Andersen said...

Can anyone tell my :

is there some connection to an EU-law or is this law a pure English one ?

4Symbols said...

In hoc signo vinces

@scottish Infidel,

Scottish law is basically made up as they go along because of this Scotland probably has the most oppressive criminal justice system in the West (concerning public order).

The statue of David Hume outside the High Court in Edinburgh is almost signaling the impenetrability of Scottish Law just like Hume's writing.