IF THE EDL WANT TO SEE FAIR PLAY, THEY SHOULD CALL OFF THEIR MARCH

This article is published in today's Leicester Mercury:

If the EDL want to see fair play, they should call off their march

Leicester Mercury acting editor Richard Bettsworth on the distortions that will bring the English Defence League back to our city

The English Defence League is heading to Leicester in two weeks' time to protest against the UK's "two-tier justice system" which it claims treats Muslim offenders more leniently than others.

If this claim was true it would, of course, be utterly outrageous. Any justice system which operated such double-standards would be manifestly unfair and would quickly lose public trust.

So, what on Earth could the EDL possibly have in the way of evidence to back up such a serious claim?

This week's Insider seeks to examine that question and to sort out the truth from the hysteria.

The group's reason for coming to Leicester is the case of Rhea Page, a young woman who was subjected to a horrific attack in the street by four women.

The EDL suggests Rhea's attackers were dealt with leniently because they were Muslims and that if a white gang had launched an attack on a Muslim girl they would have been dealt with more severely.

There are two things about this case that are used to justify this claim.

The first is a suggestion that the attackers were spared prison because they were Somalian Muslims who were not used to alcohol. The second is that the victim was called a "white bitch" during the assault, but that the perpetrators were not charged with a racially aggravated offence.

Let's deal with the first point.

At this stage it is important to understand how this story emerged.

The Leicester Mercury was the only newspaper which covered the case and we carried a report on the proceedings on November 24.

The observation about the women not being used to alcohol was made by defence lawyer Gary Short. We quoted him on this point towards the end of our article but we did not suggest that this was the reason why the judge spared the attackers an immediate prison sentence.

On the contrary. We gave the actual reason earlier in the report which was that the judge, Robert Brown, said he accepted the women may have felt they were the victims of unreasonable force from the victim's partner (Rhea says her partner was only trying to protect her).

Since then, I have got hold of a transcript of the sentencing which clearly confirms this was the reason that the judge decided on a suspended sentence rather than sending the attackers to prison.

However, two weeks after our article, the story emerged in the national newspapers, where the line about the women being Muslims who were not used to alcohol was given much more prominence.

Most of these articles reported that the attackers were freed "after" the judge heard this evidence. Even though they used the word "after" instead of the word "because" these articles clearly implied that the two things were connected.

This was misleading and created a perception about this case which is at odds with the facts.

Let's have a look at the second point – the fact that the attackers were not charged with a racially aggravated offence. A video on YouTube promoting the EDL demonstration says: "This is an obvious racist attack on a white English female, yet it was dealt with quietly and as a drunken thuggish gang attack."

It goes on: "Unfortunately, many believe that it's not possible to be racist against white people."

This is what the Crown Prosecution Service says about its decision: "The CPS reviewed all the evidence in this case, including whether a racially aggravated offence should be brought on the basis that the comment 'white bitch' was reported to have been heard during the incident.

"However, this racist comment could not be attributed to any particular suspect and was not adopted by the group as a whole. There was therefore no realistic prospect of conviction for a racially aggravated offence."

So, clearly the CPS does consider that it is possible to be racist against white people. Its reason not to charge anybody with a racially aggravated offence was purely a legal one. It could not be sure of securing a conviction.

The EDL states its central aim is to combat "Islamic extremism".

However, the women involved in this attack were clearly not "Islamic extremists" and the incident has nothing whatsoever to do with that issue.

One can only conclude that the reason the EDL has leapt up on the misunderstandings about this case is because it actually has a much wider agenda. It is seeking to propagate a message that white English people are becoming second-class citizens in their own country and preferential treatment is given to Muslims.

That is, of course, deeply divisive and dangerous stuff which breeds resentment between communities. And, as we have seen, its argument crumbles as soon as one carries out a detailed examination of the facts.

At this point, I would add something of a footnote about the Rhea Page case.

Like Rhea, I did not agree with the judge's decision to suspend the sentences and I felt that the defendants should have been imprisoned.

It was an appalling attack and I think the justice system needs to send out a clear message in such cases that this sort of random, drunken violence will not be tolerated.

However, I have absolutely no doubt that the judge's decision was based on a proper and legitimate assessment of the case, and had nothing whatsoever to do with the religious persuasion of the defendants and their lack of tolerance to alcohol.

Unfortunately, nothing I have said will dissuade the EDL from carrying out their demonstration.

They will come to Leicester on February 4, in a protest which will cost huge amounts of public money to police and will probably hit trade in the city centre. And all of this disruption and potential discord will have been based on an entirely flawed premise. That's not fair on any of us, whatever our race or religion.