Far right leader gets suspended prison sentence for race hate speech

Kevin Quinn, the leader of a right wing party convicted of a religiously aggravated public order offence after a racist speech in South Oxhey, has received a six-month suspended prison sentence.

Quinn launched a tirade of abuse at a British First Party rally after setting up a stall with Union flags in the shopping precinct on Saturday, December 1, 2007.

The 44-year-old was arrested after he was heard to shout all Muslims are b******s, while referring to the plight of British school teacher Gillian Gibbons, accused of blasphemy in Sudan after allowing children to name a Teddy Bear Muhammad.

Quinn was found guilty after a second trial at St Albans Crown Court in March and sentence was adjourned for reports until Monday.

The jury in the first trial was discharged when they could not reach a verdict on Quinn of Ousland Road, Queens Park, Bedford.

A two-year suspended sentence imposed on the unemployed father of four, for disseminating racist literature had only just expired when he took to the stand in South Oxhey.

In mitigation Mark Kimsey, said although Quinn - who sat in the dock with his bag dressed in a blue tracksuit - held “extreme views” the court case had had a profound effect on the party leader and its 1000 members.

Mr Kimsey said: “The words uttered on that day weren’t to cause offence but the emotion was some what high.

“Earlier he had been handed an article in the Daily Mail about the woman in Sudan and the naming of a Teddy Bear Muhammad.

“The words were said in the heat of the moment and he apologises for the upset.”

He added: “One shopkeeper took exception to the words uttered, but there was no public unrest.”

One of Quinn’s children had been bullied as a result of the media attention to the case, which had caused the defendant to think about his place in the party.

Mr Kimsey said: “He is reconsidering his role in the party. He has learnt a hard lesson by the impact the court case has had on him and those closest to him.

“He will now concentrate on his family rather than the political views he holds.”

Before sentencing, Judge Stephen Warner said: “The jury found you used abusive or insulting words directed towards those of the Muslim faith.

“There is a right of freedom of speech in this country, which extends to those such as yourself who seek to express in public views such as yours however offensive many may find them to be.

“That right, however, does not include the right to insult or abuse such members of the public that are exposed to that behaviour.

“A member of the public felt sufficiently strongly to contact police because you had abused that freedom of expression.

“You have a long history of involvement in extreme organisations and clearly hold deeply entrenched views consistent with that ideology.”

The judge noted the party operated on a small scale and was a “marginal less than sophisticated fringe organisation”.

He concluded: “The option I face is to send you to prison today, which many would regard you thoroughly deserve, or an alternative course to mark the seriousness of the offence but allow you to stay in the community.”

Judge Warner suspended the six-month sentence for 18 months. Quinn was also ordered to carry out 250 hours unpaid work, and subjected to a four-month curfew from 7pm to 6am.

He will be supervised by probation for six months.

Comments (14)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:24pm Mon 6 Apr 09

crapman says...

mr kevin quinn,i have a lot of sympathy for you,you expressed yourself,in your freedom of speech,so why should you be punished for it.we have all these non white race hate preachers in this country,and they get away with it scott free every time,as soon as a british white says anything,its all wrong...i know i am going to get slated for my comment on this site,so all you do gooders,get started on me,but i am saying it under the freedom of speech act
mr kevin quinn,i have a lot of sympathy for you,you expressed yourself,in your freedom of speech,so why should you be punished for it.we have all these non white race hate preachers in this country,and they get away with it scott free every time,as soon as a british white says anything,its all wrong...i know i am going to get slated for my comment on this site,so all you do gooders,get started on me,but i am saying it under the freedom of speech act crapman
  • Score: 0

9:22pm Mon 6 Apr 09

Wilkinson says...

I have to say i tend to agree with you. From what i have read in this case Mr Quinn was not aiming abuse at any individual as such, just loudly proclaiming the points he wished to make. The fact that an asian shop keeper decided to take offense to it is a matter of his opinion, and in mine sums this case up. There were police officers present (albeit pcso) who did not intervene until a complaint was made, suggesting the content of Mr Quinn's tirade was possibly not as bad as portrayed.

There is often a man seen in Charter Place on Saturday's who is preaching some kind of strange religion, via shouting about recent news items, i often become offended by his remarks, but wouldn't dream of reporting him to the police, as we live in a country that is supposed to pride itself on democracy and free speech.

The same applies here, just because some do not agree with Mr Quinn, and his opinion may appear to be non mainstream, i do not think that warranted a court appearance.

Did anything happen to the muslim haters who abused the poachers parade in Luton? No, but the sole white bloke who tried to shout them down was arrested for a breach of the peace. How often have the likes of Sheik Abul Hamza been allowed to hold mass hate discussions against the West in the streets surrounding Finsbury Park mosque? Many, and furthermore, the police actually help him do it by cordoning off the roads, let alone arrest the man for inciting racial hatred.

It cuts both ways, we need more consistency from the police and the courts, if we are indeed to live in a free land.
I have to say i tend to agree with you. From what i have read in this case Mr Quinn was not aiming abuse at any individual as such, just loudly proclaiming the points he wished to make. The fact that an asian shop keeper decided to take offense to it is a matter of his opinion, and in mine sums this case up. There were police officers present (albeit pcso) who did not intervene until a complaint was made, suggesting the content of Mr Quinn's tirade was possibly not as bad as portrayed. There is often a man seen in Charter Place on Saturday's who is preaching some kind of strange religion, via shouting about recent news items, i often become offended by his remarks, but wouldn't dream of reporting him to the police, as we live in a country that is supposed to pride itself on democracy and free speech. The same applies here, just because some do not agree with Mr Quinn, and his opinion may appear to be non mainstream, i do not think that warranted a court appearance. Did anything happen to the muslim haters who abused the poachers parade in Luton? No, but the sole white bloke who tried to shout them down was arrested for a breach of the peace. How often have the likes of Sheik Abul Hamza been allowed to hold mass hate discussions against the West in the streets surrounding Finsbury Park mosque? Many, and furthermore, the police actually help him do it by cordoning off the roads, let alone arrest the man for inciting racial hatred. It cuts both ways, we need more consistency from the police and the courts, if we are indeed to live in a free land. Wilkinson
  • Score: 0

10:26pm Mon 6 Apr 09

gusgreen says...

crapman wrote:
mr kevin quinn,i have a lot of sympathy for you,you expressed yourself,in your freedom of speech,so why should you be punished for it.we have all these non white race hate preachers in this country,and they get away with it scott free every time,as soon as a british white says anything,its all wrong...i know i am going to get slated for my comment on this site,so all you do gooders,get started on me,but i am saying it under the freedom of speech act
I agree with what you say and I believe a lot of people will agree also.Freedom of speach should be Freedom of speach be it in "factory floor mode" of finest pro's of the English language.Unfortunate
ly,in todays England, if your white and English it dosn't apply but if your a Muslim fanatic preaching hate or insulting our armed forces not only is it allowed but you will be protected by the police and assisted as much as possible!
[quote][p][bold]crapman[/bold] wrote: mr kevin quinn,i have a lot of sympathy for you,you expressed yourself,in your freedom of speech,so why should you be punished for it.we have all these non white race hate preachers in this country,and they get away with it scott free every time,as soon as a british white says anything,its all wrong...i know i am going to get slated for my comment on this site,so all you do gooders,get started on me,but i am saying it under the freedom of speech act[/p][/quote]I agree with what you say and I believe a lot of people will agree also.Freedom of speach should be Freedom of speach be it in "factory floor mode" of finest pro's of the English language.Unfortunate ly,in todays England, if your white and English it dosn't apply but if your a Muslim fanatic preaching hate or insulting our armed forces not only is it allowed but you will be protected by the police and assisted as much as possible! gusgreen
  • Score: 0

12:09am Tue 7 Apr 09

Roy Stockdill says...

> i am saying it under the freedom of speech act <

Actually, without making any comment whatsoever on the story, could I point out that there is not, and never has been, any such law in Britain called a Freedom of Speech Act? Freedom of speech is a cherished institution that has been enshrined as part of the British way of life and our democracy for many centuries, but it has never been put into an Act of Parliament, as far as I am aware. Freedom of speech goes back to historic declarations such as Magna Carta, etc.

I think you are probably confusing it with the Freedom of Information Act, which is a much more recent piece of legislation.
> i am saying it under the freedom of speech act < Actually, without making any comment whatsoever on the story, could I point out that there is not, and never has been, any such law in Britain called a Freedom of Speech Act? Freedom of speech is a cherished institution that has been enshrined as part of the British way of life and our democracy for many centuries, but it has never been put into an Act of Parliament, as far as I am aware. Freedom of speech goes back to historic declarations such as Magna Carta, etc. I think you are probably confusing it with the Freedom of Information Act, which is a much more recent piece of legislation. Roy Stockdill
  • Score: 0

8:43am Tue 7 Apr 09

Mike Ribble says...

Let's keep this in perspective.

This man was convicted not for his views but for the manner in which he expressed them. His offence was using 'abusive and insulting words'.

Freedom of speech doesn't extend to swearing in a public place.
Let's keep this in perspective. This man was convicted not for his views but for the manner in which he expressed them. His offence was using 'abusive and insulting words'. Freedom of speech doesn't extend to swearing in a public place. Mike Ribble
  • Score: 0

10:30am Tue 7 Apr 09

Paradise Watford says...

I agree its wrong that this gentleman gets done for what he did whilst other street speakers have gotten away with worse, however two wrongs do not make a right and he does deserve his punishment.
I agree its wrong that this gentleman gets done for what he did whilst other street speakers have gotten away with worse, however two wrongs do not make a right and he does deserve his punishment. Paradise Watford
  • Score: 0

10:48am Tue 7 Apr 09

Roy Stockdill says...

Mike Ribble wrote:
Let's keep this in perspective. This man was convicted not for his views but for the manner in which he expressed them. His offence was using 'abusive and insulting words'. Freedom of speech doesn't extend to swearing in a public place.
I would agree, but can you not see the concerns of the admittedly less articulate members of society, those who are unable to distinguish between the niceties of legal arguments, that there does not appear to be the same desire on the part of the authorities and the police to prosecute virulent and extremist Muslims who whip up hatred against non-believers? I think we all remember the banners carried at Muslim protests calling for those who opposed Islam to be beheaded. And we await with interest to see whether the Muslims at Luton who called our troops rapists and murderers of babies will be prosecuted. Most people suspect they won't be.

It is the hypocrisy and double standards and the appeasing of militant Islam that angers ordinary people and drives them into the arms of a tinpot little party like Mr Quinn's or the BNP.
[quote][p][bold]Mike Ribble[/bold] wrote: Let's keep this in perspective. This man was convicted not for his views but for the manner in which he expressed them. His offence was using 'abusive and insulting words'. Freedom of speech doesn't extend to swearing in a public place.[/p][/quote]I would agree, but can you not see the concerns of the admittedly less articulate members of society, those who are unable to distinguish between the niceties of legal arguments, that there does not appear to be the same desire on the part of the authorities and the police to prosecute virulent and extremist Muslims who whip up hatred against non-believers? I think we all remember the banners carried at Muslim protests calling for those who opposed Islam to be beheaded. And we await with interest to see whether the Muslims at Luton who called our troops rapists and murderers of babies will be prosecuted. Most people suspect they won't be. It is the hypocrisy and double standards and the appeasing of militant Islam that angers ordinary people and drives them into the arms of a tinpot little party like Mr Quinn's or the BNP. Roy Stockdill
  • Score: 0

11:33am Tue 7 Apr 09

Mike Ribble says...

The possibility of action against the Luton demonstrators hinges on what is and what is not illegal.

Incitement to racial and religious hatred is illegal but holding or expressing an extreme view is not. These are not 'legal niceties'- it's the law. And it is such legal distinctions that define our freedoms.

If abusive language was used at Luton then prosecution should follow as it did for Mr Quinn. If extreme views were expressed then that should go unchallenged as it did for Mr Quinn. No double standard there.

Of course bigots, be they Muslim extremists or white supremacists can always find an excuse to justify their position but others should be ready to test their claims.

The possibility of action against the Luton demonstrators hinges on what is and what is not illegal. Incitement to racial and religious hatred is illegal but holding or expressing an extreme view is not. These are not 'legal niceties'- it's the law. And it is such legal distinctions that define our freedoms. If abusive language was used at Luton then prosecution should follow as it did for Mr Quinn. If extreme views were expressed then that should go unchallenged as it did for Mr Quinn. No double standard there. Of course bigots, be they Muslim extremists or white supremacists can always find an excuse to justify their position but others should be ready to test their claims. Mike Ribble
  • Score: 0

12:56pm Tue 7 Apr 09

Roy Stockdill says...

So calling one group of people b*****ds is illegal but flaunting posters demanding that anyone who doesn't agree with their religion should be beheaded, or describing people as rapists and baby killers, is not?

Now, that is a legal "nicety" I would be interested to hear debated in a court!
So calling one group of people b*****ds is illegal but flaunting posters demanding that anyone who doesn't agree with their religion should be beheaded, or describing people as rapists and baby killers, is not? Now, that is a legal "nicety" I would be interested to hear debated in a court! Roy Stockdill
  • Score: 0

5:38pm Tue 7 Apr 09

RebeccaSmith says...

Mike Ribble wrote:
The possibility of action against the Luton demonstrators hinges on what is and what is not illegal. Incitement to racial and religious hatred is illegal but holding or expressing an extreme view is not. These are not 'legal niceties'- it's the law. And it is such legal distinctions that define our freedoms. If abusive language was used at Luton then prosecution should follow as it did for Mr Quinn. If extreme views were expressed then that should go unchallenged as it did for Mr Quinn. No double standard there. Of course bigots, be they Muslim extremists or white supremacists can always find an excuse to justify their position but others should be ready to test their claims.
FIRST of all... Who decides EXACTLY what is "abusive" and who is being "abused" - If I stand up and say I hate islam and I wish they would go somewhere else, does that mean I would GO TO JAIL? Simply for expressing my thoughts or beliefs? Even though we ALL know that DAILY at the mosques anti-christian, anti-western, antiwhite sentiments are being expressed. The problem with THOUGHT POLICE regulations is that these REGULATIONS are ABUSED and open to too much interpretation... certain of groups are favored over other groups... IN THESE UNFORTUNATE CASES IT SEEMS TO ALWAYS BE WHITE NATIVE BRITS... I WOULD REALLY LOVE IT IF SOMEONE WOULD EXPLAIN TO ME WHY THIS IS TRUE. and it IS true, that's OBVIOUS... DAILY I see, read, hear of native whites being arrested for virtually NOTHING, while islamic extremists call for the destruction of my home, country, and saviour Jesus Christ by implying that Saint George's day parades are racist, the Maypole is racist, and the Govt bows down in what(?)... FEAR? P.C. fear? The muslims DO NOT CARE WHO THEY OFFEND. If a muslim man calls me a white whore, will he be arrested? Mr. Mike Ribble, let me ask you - did the muslims at Luton who screamed at the soldiers calling them BUTCHERS and BABY KILLERS... do you consider THAT abusive? Or is it only when people say negative things about islam... I am nauseated DAILY at how claims of racism against arabs or muslims (i refuse to call them "ASIANS" as I believe that is a very disingenous way to hide the actual race/religion of people mentioned. (considering everywhere else in the world "asians" are considered chinese, vietnamese, japanese, etc., NOT MIDDLE eastern/arab peoples)... WE ALL know that muslims consider all non-muslims as not even a "person" - non muslims cannot "testify" against muslims in court cases in the middle east... Muslims are VERY aggressive in the so-called "defense" of their religion and god, even calling for DEATH against persons who simply say something negative about it. Honestly I really dont care if the gentleman in this story said every nasty word in the book. That's his opinion and he's entitled to it. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO WAY ON EARTH THAT THE MUSLIMS DO NOT SAY JUST AS MANY "ABUSIVE" THINGS TOWARDS WHITES AND CHRISTIANS HERE... BUT THEY ARE NEVER NEVER NEVER EVER ARRESTED FOR IT.
DOUBLE STANDARD !!!!
WRONG !!
THIS PROBLEM WILL NEVER BE EQUALIZED - FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND THOUGHT IN ANY FORM SHOULD BE AS PROTECTED AS THE LIFE THAT EXPRESSES IT !!!!!!!!!!!!
[quote][p][bold]Mike Ribble[/bold] wrote: The possibility of action against the Luton demonstrators hinges on what is and what is not illegal. Incitement to racial and religious hatred is illegal but holding or expressing an extreme view is not. These are not 'legal niceties'- it's the law. And it is such legal distinctions that define our freedoms. If abusive language was used at Luton then prosecution should follow as it did for Mr Quinn. If extreme views were expressed then that should go unchallenged as it did for Mr Quinn. No double standard there. Of course bigots, be they Muslim extremists or white supremacists can always find an excuse to justify their position but others should be ready to test their claims. [/p][/quote]FIRST of all... Who decides EXACTLY what is "abusive" and who is being "abused" - If I stand up and say I hate islam and I wish they would go somewhere else, does that mean I would GO TO JAIL? Simply for expressing my thoughts or beliefs? Even though we ALL know that DAILY at the mosques anti-christian, anti-western, antiwhite sentiments are being expressed. The problem with THOUGHT POLICE regulations is that these REGULATIONS are ABUSED and open to too much interpretation... certain of groups are favored over other groups... IN THESE UNFORTUNATE CASES IT SEEMS TO ALWAYS BE WHITE NATIVE BRITS... I WOULD REALLY LOVE IT IF SOMEONE WOULD EXPLAIN TO ME WHY THIS IS TRUE. and it IS true, that's OBVIOUS... DAILY I see, read, hear of native whites being arrested for virtually NOTHING, while islamic extremists call for the destruction of my home, country, and saviour Jesus Christ by implying that Saint George's day parades are racist, the Maypole is racist, and the Govt bows down in what(?)... FEAR? P.C. fear? The muslims DO NOT CARE WHO THEY OFFEND. If a muslim man calls me a white whore, will he be arrested? Mr. Mike Ribble, let me ask you - did the muslims at Luton who screamed at the soldiers calling them BUTCHERS and BABY KILLERS... do you consider THAT abusive? Or is it only when people say negative things about islam... I am nauseated DAILY at how claims of racism against arabs or muslims (i refuse to call them "ASIANS" as I believe that is a very disingenous way to hide the actual race/religion of people mentioned. (considering everywhere else in the world "asians" are considered chinese, vietnamese, japanese, etc., NOT MIDDLE eastern/arab peoples)... WE ALL know that muslims consider all non-muslims as not even a "person" - non muslims cannot "testify" against muslims in court cases in the middle east... Muslims are VERY aggressive in the so-called "defense" of their religion and god, even calling for DEATH against persons who simply say something negative about it. Honestly I really dont care if the gentleman in this story said every nasty word in the book. That's his opinion and he's entitled to it. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO WAY ON EARTH THAT THE MUSLIMS DO NOT SAY JUST AS MANY "ABUSIVE" THINGS TOWARDS WHITES AND CHRISTIANS HERE... BUT THEY ARE NEVER NEVER NEVER EVER ARRESTED FOR IT. DOUBLE STANDARD !!!! WRONG !! THIS PROBLEM WILL NEVER BE EQUALIZED - FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND THOUGHT IN ANY FORM SHOULD BE AS PROTECTED AS THE LIFE THAT EXPRESSES IT !!!!!!!!!!!! RebeccaSmith
  • Score: 0

5:51pm Tue 7 Apr 09

Wilkinson says...

I feel your pain Becky. The reason that the main 3 political parties suck up to the non white vote (see recent articles on Claire Ward and Dorothy Thornhill as examples) is because it is a sizeable portion of the population.

The last demographic study done in this country was in 2001 where it was recorded there were approx 4 million non whites in the UK (black and asians). That is probably nearer to 6 million now, which represents 10% of the overall population,(obviousl
y a lot higher in London and other city areas)

The lib/lab/con cartel know that if they can tap into this group, and get them voting for them, this will give them a great chance of winning an election, hence the pandering to these peoples every need.

The irony being the middle class cronies in government could not give two hoots about ethnic minorities, hence why they all live in white areas and send their kids to private schools.

So the real losers are us the indigenous population of Britain, who do not have legislation after legislation to protect us, no race card to pull when we're sacked, no nothing.
I feel your pain Becky. The reason that the main 3 political parties suck up to the non white vote (see recent articles on Claire Ward and Dorothy Thornhill as examples) is because it is a sizeable portion of the population. The last demographic study done in this country was in 2001 where it was recorded there were approx 4 million non whites in the UK (black and asians). That is probably nearer to 6 million now, which represents 10% of the overall population,(obviousl y a lot higher in London and other city areas) The lib/lab/con cartel know that if they can tap into this group, and get them voting for them, this will give them a great chance of winning an election, hence the pandering to these peoples every need. The irony being the middle class cronies in government could not give two hoots about ethnic minorities, hence why they all live in white areas and send their kids to private schools. So the real losers are us the indigenous population of Britain, who do not have legislation after legislation to protect us, no race card to pull when we're sacked, no nothing. Wilkinson
  • Score: 0

6:30pm Tue 7 Apr 09

Watford_Paddy says...

All i can say is that if someone was shouting stuff like he was, but about Catholics then I would also take offence and sort the guy out by maybe calling the Police which is probably the better way to deal with the guy. Obviously any Muslim who was walking past would be offended too. Robecca-Smith what I would like to know is how do you know what is taught in a mosque. I have 4 employees who are Muslims i've visited the watford mosque. There is nothing like what you say in your article thats preached in Mosques. People like you are the ones who spread hatred and fuel fires. Yes the Islamic Extremists views are wrong and something should be done about it.
All i can say is that if someone was shouting stuff like he was, but about Catholics then I would also take offence and sort the guy out by maybe calling the Police which is probably the better way to deal with the guy. Obviously any Muslim who was walking past would be offended too. Robecca-Smith what I would like to know is how do you know what is taught in a mosque. I have 4 employees who are Muslims i've visited the watford mosque. There is nothing like what you say in your article thats preached in Mosques. People like you are the ones who spread hatred and fuel fires. Yes the Islamic Extremists views are wrong and something should be done about it. Watford_Paddy
  • Score: 0

8:35am Wed 8 Apr 09

Paradise Watford says...

RebeccaSmith I agree with what you say and I only wish that the protestors at the Luton parade could have been arrested, but as we all know the law is an arse right now seemingly protecting the minority who cause trouble or commit crimes.

I still think however that two wrongs don't make a right and Mr Quinn can not complain about his sentence.

One final point, not all Muslims are Arabs and that in fact there are indeed many Asians(South East Asia etc.) who are also Muslims, as well as many Africans.

As someone mentioned before because it is a multiracial faith that is why an attack on it can not be classed as a racist one, aparrently.
RebeccaSmith I agree with what you say and I only wish that the protestors at the Luton parade could have been arrested, but as we all know the law is an arse right now seemingly protecting the minority who cause trouble or commit crimes. I still think however that two wrongs don't make a right and Mr Quinn can not complain about his sentence. One final point, not all Muslims are Arabs and that in fact there are indeed many Asians(South East Asia etc.) who are also Muslims, as well as many Africans. As someone mentioned before because it is a multiracial faith that is why an attack on it can not be classed as a racist one, aparrently. Paradise Watford
  • Score: 0

2:29pm Fri 10 Apr 09

Lol_91 says...

RebeccaSmith wrote:
Mike Ribble wrote: The possibility of action against the Luton demonstrators hinges on what is and what is not illegal. Incitement to racial and religious hatred is illegal but holding or expressing an extreme view is not. These are not 'legal niceties'- it's the law. And it is such legal distinctions that define our freedoms. If abusive language was used at Luton then prosecution should follow as it did for Mr Quinn. If extreme views were expressed then that should go unchallenged as it did for Mr Quinn. No double standard there. Of course bigots, be they Muslim extremists or white supremacists can always find an excuse to justify their position but others should be ready to test their claims.
FIRST of all... Who decides EXACTLY what is "abusive" and who is being "abused" - If I stand up and say I hate islam and I wish they would go somewhere else, does that mean I would GO TO JAIL? Simply for expressing my thoughts or beliefs? Even though we ALL know that DAILY at the mosques anti-christian, anti-western, antiwhite sentiments are being expressed. The problem with THOUGHT POLICE regulations is that these REGULATIONS are ABUSED and open to too much interpretation... certain of groups are favored over other groups... IN THESE UNFORTUNATE CASES IT SEEMS TO ALWAYS BE WHITE NATIVE BRITS... I WOULD REALLY LOVE IT IF SOMEONE WOULD EXPLAIN TO ME WHY THIS IS TRUE. and it IS true, that's OBVIOUS... DAILY I see, read, hear of native whites being arrested for virtually NOTHING, while islamic extremists call for the destruction of my home, country, and saviour Jesus Christ by implying that Saint George's day parades are racist, the Maypole is racist, and the Govt bows down in what(?)... FEAR? P.C. fear? The muslims DO NOT CARE WHO THEY OFFEND. If a muslim man calls me a white whore, will he be arrested? Mr. Mike Ribble, let me ask you - did the muslims at Luton who screamed at the soldiers calling them BUTCHERS and BABY KILLERS... do you consider THAT abusive? Or is it only when people say negative things about islam... I am nauseated DAILY at how claims of racism against arabs or muslims (i refuse to call them "ASIANS" as I believe that is a very disingenous way to hide the actual race/religion of people mentioned. (considering everywhere else in the world "asians" are considered chinese, vietnamese, japanese, etc., NOT MIDDLE eastern/arab peoples)... WE ALL know that muslims consider all non-muslims as not even a "person" - non muslims cannot "testify" against muslims in court cases in the middle east... Muslims are VERY aggressive in the so-called "defense" of their religion and god, even calling for DEATH against persons who simply say something negative about it. Honestly I really dont care if the gentleman in this story said every nasty word in the book. That's his opinion and he's entitled to it. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO WAY ON EARTH THAT THE MUSLIMS DO NOT SAY JUST AS MANY "ABUSIVE" THINGS TOWARDS WHITES AND CHRISTIANS HERE... BUT THEY ARE NEVER NEVER NEVER EVER ARRESTED FOR IT. DOUBLE STANDARD !!!! WRONG !! THIS PROBLEM WILL NEVER BE EQUALIZED - FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND THOUGHT IN ANY FORM SHOULD BE AS PROTECTED AS THE LIFE THAT EXPRESSES IT !!!!!!!!!!!!
Ok, the daily hate thing in mosques is a load of rubbish, fact! Until you've been in mosque, don't presume or judge. Second, Muslims do not care who they offend? Another load of rubbish. Thridly, not all Muslims are aggressive as you make them out to be to defend there religion.

Mr Quinn is entitled to his opinion at the end of the day and if people are getting arrested for expressing their opinion then someone should really alter the human rights act...
[quote][p][bold]RebeccaSmith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mike Ribble[/bold] wrote: The possibility of action against the Luton demonstrators hinges on what is and what is not illegal. Incitement to racial and religious hatred is illegal but holding or expressing an extreme view is not. These are not 'legal niceties'- it's the law. And it is such legal distinctions that define our freedoms. If abusive language was used at Luton then prosecution should follow as it did for Mr Quinn. If extreme views were expressed then that should go unchallenged as it did for Mr Quinn. No double standard there. Of course bigots, be they Muslim extremists or white supremacists can always find an excuse to justify their position but others should be ready to test their claims. [/p][/quote]FIRST of all... Who decides EXACTLY what is "abusive" and who is being "abused" - If I stand up and say I hate islam and I wish they would go somewhere else, does that mean I would GO TO JAIL? Simply for expressing my thoughts or beliefs? Even though we ALL know that DAILY at the mosques anti-christian, anti-western, antiwhite sentiments are being expressed. The problem with THOUGHT POLICE regulations is that these REGULATIONS are ABUSED and open to too much interpretation... certain of groups are favored over other groups... IN THESE UNFORTUNATE CASES IT SEEMS TO ALWAYS BE WHITE NATIVE BRITS... I WOULD REALLY LOVE IT IF SOMEONE WOULD EXPLAIN TO ME WHY THIS IS TRUE. and it IS true, that's OBVIOUS... DAILY I see, read, hear of native whites being arrested for virtually NOTHING, while islamic extremists call for the destruction of my home, country, and saviour Jesus Christ by implying that Saint George's day parades are racist, the Maypole is racist, and the Govt bows down in what(?)... FEAR? P.C. fear? The muslims DO NOT CARE WHO THEY OFFEND. If a muslim man calls me a white whore, will he be arrested? Mr. Mike Ribble, let me ask you - did the muslims at Luton who screamed at the soldiers calling them BUTCHERS and BABY KILLERS... do you consider THAT abusive? Or is it only when people say negative things about islam... I am nauseated DAILY at how claims of racism against arabs or muslims (i refuse to call them "ASIANS" as I believe that is a very disingenous way to hide the actual race/religion of people mentioned. (considering everywhere else in the world "asians" are considered chinese, vietnamese, japanese, etc., NOT MIDDLE eastern/arab peoples)... WE ALL know that muslims consider all non-muslims as not even a "person" - non muslims cannot "testify" against muslims in court cases in the middle east... Muslims are VERY aggressive in the so-called "defense" of their religion and god, even calling for DEATH against persons who simply say something negative about it. Honestly I really dont care if the gentleman in this story said every nasty word in the book. That's his opinion and he's entitled to it. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO WAY ON EARTH THAT THE MUSLIMS DO NOT SAY JUST AS MANY "ABUSIVE" THINGS TOWARDS WHITES AND CHRISTIANS HERE... BUT THEY ARE NEVER NEVER NEVER EVER ARRESTED FOR IT. DOUBLE STANDARD !!!! WRONG !! THIS PROBLEM WILL NEVER BE EQUALIZED - FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND THOUGHT IN ANY FORM SHOULD BE AS PROTECTED AS THE LIFE THAT EXPRESSES IT !!!!!!!!!!!![/p][/quote]Ok, the daily hate thing in mosques is a load of rubbish, fact! Until you've been in mosque, don't presume or judge. Second, Muslims do not care who they offend? Another load of rubbish. Thridly, not all Muslims are aggressive as you make them out to be to defend there religion. Mr Quinn is entitled to his opinion at the end of the day and if people are getting arrested for expressing their opinion then someone should really alter the human rights act... Lol_91
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree