Harry Perry has written the First Person column in today's Leicester Mercury (which is not on the website):
Koran case shows flaw in the legislation
Secularist Harry Perry calls for the removal of the word "insulting" from part of the Public Order Act
Tearing
up a holy book is not an effective way to take issue with religion but the
right to free expression valued by jury members is so fundamental to our way of
life that it must be protected even when its exercise involves bad taste or
insult.
A
criminal prosecution was recently brought by Leicester’s Crown Prosecution
Service (CPS) against a man who publicly demonstrated his opposition to
religion by ripping up a Koran in public and throwing it to the ground.The
case ended with a hung jury and a decision by the CPS not to pursue it
further. The failure of the jury to reach a verdict reveals a
problem with the law.
Many
religions take it on themselves to seek to persuade people of other religions
or of no religion to convert. Dire consequences of failing to
believe in this or that god are often cited in these attempts. Likewise,
atheists sometimes seek to expose the fallacies in religion, hoping to persuade
people to give it up. They can all do this because what they are
seeking to change is a matter of personal conviction. With race,
gender, sexual orientation or disability the position is completely
different. You cannot persuade someone to change these
characteristics.
The
legislation that rightly protects people in these categories from being
harassed and abused or put in fear of their life on account of their
characteristics has been developed over recent decades. But the
addition of protection on grounds of religion more recently has brought with it
a threat to the right of free speech because the police and the CPS have not
got clear in their minds the qualitative difference involved. It is
because of this that a broad coalition, including religious opinion, is
currently trying to get Parliament to remove the word “insulting” from Section
5 of the Public Order Act as it has been used by the police in several
instances to silence critics of one or other persuasion.
There
is no special protection from insult or abuse on matters like politics,
vegetarianism, astrology, homeopathy, and so on, beyond that which ordinary
citizens expect purely in virtue of being a citizen.
The same should
apply to religious belief and non-belief.
Leicester
Secular Society is a “Freethought” organisation dedicated to the idea that the
best way to change people’s convictions is through the rational debate of
available evidence. People in Leicester who wish to show their
disagreement with others’ beliefs should normally do so in a calm and reasoned
way, showing respect for persons even when condemning or lampooning their ideas
or station. This is common courtesy and politeness, after all, and
exemplifies the kind of city and country that most of us would like our
children and grandchildren to inherit from us.
But
by the same token, those whose beliefs are challenged, even when done
discourteously, would be best advised to ‘turn the other cheek’ rather than
calling for prosecutions.
Harry Perry, Leicester Secular Society
Protester who tore up Koran has case dropped at Leicester court
A man who was put on trial after staging an anti-religion protest by ripping out pages from the Koran in front of Muslims has had the case against him dropped.
A jury at Leicester Crown Court failed to reach a verdict in the case against Peter James Crawford last month.
The Crown Prosecution Service reviewed the evidence and a decision was made not to continue with a fresh trial.
The case was dropped against Mr Crawford, 52, when the prosecution offered no evidence against him at a hearing – a move described by Mr Crawford's advocate as "sensible".
During the trial in December, Mr Crawford was alleged to have torn pages from his own copy of the Koran and thrown the holy book on the ground next to a stall run by the Islamic Information Centre, near the Clock Tower, in Leicester, on May 12 last year.
He told Muslim volunteers at the stall that he disagreed with their religion.
Mr Crawford, of Mere Road, Spinney Hills, Leicester, claimed in interview he was expressing his disagreement with religion of any kind, saying it was all "b******t".
He told police he would have done the same with a Bible as he did not understand either holy book and "hated" all religion.
"I'm not against the people, just their religion," he said.
James Bide-Thomas, prosecuting, said in his opening address to the jury last month that freedom of speech was "tradition in this country" and "people are entitled to say what they want, as long as it's not illegal in relation to the law which prevents people going out to cause harassment, alarm or distress by insulting behaviour".
He said: "It's for you to decide whether what he did was insulting or whether it was a legitimate piece of freedom of speech being exercised, or whether what he did was deliberately calculated to upset the people from the Islamic Information Centre."
The jury told the judge there was no prospect of them reaching either a unanimous verdict or one on which at least 10 of them agreed.
Mr Crawford had denied causing religiously aggravated intentional harassment, alarm or distress, by demonstrating hostility based on membership of a particular religious group.
Speaking this week, Mr Crawford's defence advocate during the trial, Steven Newcombe, said: "I think the prosecution made a sensible decision not to have a retrial in the light of the jury being deadlocked.
"There were other ways of dealing with this matter, rather than attempting to prosecute Mr Crawford in a crown court.
"He has learned a lesson and I'm sure he will conduct himself with a greater degree of sensitivity."
A spokesman for the Crown Prosecution Service said: "When jury cannot decide on a verdict, the prosecution must decide whether to seek a retrial on the basis of the same evidence.
"A number of factors must be taken into account, including the likely penalty if the defendant is found guilty, the time delay in securing a date for the retrial, the views of the victim, judiciary and police and the likelihood of another jury reaching a decision."
Mr Crawford was not available for comment.
Koran-ripping jury discharged
The jury in the trial of a man who staged an anti-religion protest by ripping out pages from the Koran in front of Muslims has been discharged.
The eight women and four men on the jury at Leicester Crown Court failed to agree on a verdict.
They sent a note to the judge saying there was no prospect of them reaching either a unanimous or a majority verdict on which at least 10 of them agreed.
Peter James Crawford (52) was said to have torn pages from his own copy of the Koran and thrown the holy book on the ground next to a stall run by the Islamic Information Centre, near the Clock Tower, in Leicester city centre, on the afternoon of May 12.
Crawford, of Mere Road, Spinney Hill, Leicester, denied causing religiously aggravated intentional harassment, alarm or distress by demonstrating hostility based on membership of a particular religious group. The Crown Prosecution Service has 14 days to decide whether or not to proceed with a retrial.
Crawford was released on bail with a condition imposed that he should not to go within half-a-mile of the Clock Tower on Saturday afternoons.
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.
Street attack used as reason for EDL demo in Leicester
A vicious street attack by a gang of young women in Leicester provoked the English Defence League's decision to protest in the city.
The EDL, which says it was formed to combat Islamic extremism, issued an online video last week to link its proposed protest on Saturday, February 4, with the case of 22-year-old Rhea Page.
The assault on Miss Page and her partner in the city centre in June 2010 was widely reported in several national newspapers and on a number of web sites.
It was claimed that the sentencing judge had decided not to send the women to prison after hearing that they had acted out of character because at least one of them had been drinking.
As Muslims, one of the defence lawyers told the court, they were not accustomed to alcohol.
The Leicester Mercury was the only news organisation in court for the hearing last November.
In sentencing the women, Judge Robert Brown made no reference to their drinking or their religion.
Instead, he decided to suspend the sentences because he said Miss Page's partner had possibly used unreasonable force in protecting her, although he was not charged with any offence.
The judge said: "I can see there's a context in which there's a sense you felt you were the victim of unreasonable force."
Miss Page later criticised the judge and said the women should have gone to prison because of the attack.
Some critics of the authorities' handling of the case have claimed the women should have been charged with racially aggravated assault because one of the Somali women reportedly called Miss Page a "white bitch" once during the attack.
The Crown Prosecution Service, which determines which charges are brought against offenders, has also clarified its handling of the case.It said: "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 no realistic prospect of conviction for a racially aggravated offence."
The women – sisters Ambaro Maxamed (24), Ayaan Maxamed (28) and Hibo Maxamed (24), all from East Park Road, Leicester, and their cousin, Ifran Nur (28), of Gotham Street, in the city – all admitted actual bodily harm and got six-month sentences, suspended for 12 months.
