Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Ideologies > Big Government

Big Government Big Government Forum - Political Philosophy Forum


Thanks Tree7Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old May 31st, 2018, 11:09 AM   #1
#freetommy
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 26,990
The Horrific Injustice against Tommy Robinson and Free Speech

Quote:


How could a modern, Western nation throw a man in jail for speaking his mind? Unbeknownst to many Americans, the UK has long restricted speech in ways that make this incident unsurprising—especially speech critical of Islam. For critiques of “the religion of peace,” the UK has banned a slew of commentators, journalists, activists, and politicians—including Robert Spencer, Pamela Gellar, Geert Wilders, Lauren Southern, and Martin Sellner—from entering the country.

Now, the government has caged Tommy Robinson—apparently because his outspoken criticism of mass Islamic immigration into Europe has persuaded many in the UK to side with his calls for immigration restrictions. This is not the first time Robinson has been arrested for exercising his right to speak. He was previously jailed after publicly criticizing the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

If Robinson is forced to serve his thirteen-month term, he likely will not make it out alive. Once, when jailed for an unrelated charge, he was trapped in a room with eight Muslims who brutalized him and knocked out all of his front teeth. According to the Spectator, “The only reason he didn’t die, he says, is because they didn’t have any ‘shivs’ (bladed weapons).”1 If his present jail term leads to his death, those responsible for caging him with violent brutes will have blood on their hands. Perhaps, opponents of free speech would be indifferent to such a genuine crime. They may indeed welcome such a fate as a warning to those who dare to speak their minds.

By silencing and jailing Robinson, the UK government has perpetrated a horrific injustice. Whatever you think of Robinson, his ideas, or his tactics, all freedom-loving individuals must condemn this perversion of power and stand beside Robinson during his fight for freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to live.

You can donate to Tommy Robinson’s legal fund here.



http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/...d-free-speech/
Sabcat is online now  
Old May 31st, 2018, 11:23 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
tristanrobin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: New Haven, CT
Posts: 23,893
How much did you donate?
Thanks from Clara007
tristanrobin is offline  
Old May 31st, 2018, 02:26 PM   #3
#freetommy
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 26,990
Quote:
Originally Posted by tristanrobin View Post
How much did you donate?
Why is that of any concern of yours?
Sabcat is online now  
Old May 31st, 2018, 02:46 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
tristanrobin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: New Haven, CT
Posts: 23,893
just curious if you're a blowhard do-nothing - or a liar who would say you gave a lot.
tristanrobin is offline  
Old May 31st, 2018, 03:03 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
baloney_detector's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 5,043
Quote:
6. What happened at Canterbury Crown Court?

On 8 May 2017, during the course of a rape trial at Canterbury Crown Court involving four (Asian) defendants, Yaxley-Lennon attended court and attempted to film the defendants for an online broadcast entitled “Tommy Robinson in Canterbury exposing Muslim child rapists”. He was thwarted by the judge making arrangements for the defendants and jurors to leave court through alternative routes, and so settled for filming himself on camera, both on the court steps and inside the court building, preaching to his online followers about “Muslim paedophiles”. He was interrupted and told by court staff that recording was prohibited (section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925, as we’ve discussed above), but continued to record, insisting that he had been told by a different court that he was entitled to film the defendants (notwithstanding that court buildings are plastered with signs reminding people not to do this). His video diatribe – in which he said that “the paedophiles are hiding”, that the police had asked him not to “expose” them as paedophiles (presumably on the basis that they were, at that time, defendants in a live trial) but that “we will”, and that he would be “going round to their house” to catch the defendants on camera – thus continued. The judge hearing the rape trial was made aware, and he was brought before court to be dealt with for contempt of court.

The judge, HHJ Norton, dealt with Yaxley-Lennon on 22 May 2017. She found that he was in contempt by having filmed inside the court building, contrary to section 41, but was also in common law contempt by having continued to film having been told to stop by the court staff. The judge considered the content of his broadcast, and the real risk of his actions derailing the trial, and committed him to prison for 3 months, suspended for a period of 18 months. In practical terms, a suspended sentence means that the prison sentence (3 months) hangs over you for the operational period (18 months). If you remain offence-free and comply with any requirements the court makes, you will never have to serve your sentence. If you reoffend, the presumption in law is that you will serve that prison sentence, additional to whatever sentence you receive for the new offence.

7. So what you’re saying is that Tommy Robinson was given a suspended sentence simply for trying to report on a case? Free speech is truly dead.

No, ye of little brain. He was found to be in contempt of court and given a suspended sentence because his actions put a serious criminal trial in jeopardy. Running around a court building shouting “paedophile” at defendants during a live trial, or live-streaming defendants and members of the public – potentially including jurors – entering and exiting a court building against a tub thumping narration of “Muslim paedophile gangs”, is hardly conducive to ensuring a fair trial. And if there can’t be a fair trial, nobody gets justice. Not the accused, not the complainants, not the public. This is not theoretical – serious criminal trials have nearly collapsed because of the actions of people like Yaxley-Lennon.

We have a quaint tradition in England and Wales that trial by media should be avoided, and that trial on evidence heard in court is the fairest way to determine a person’s guilt. Therefore while criminal courts are open to the public, and it is absolutely fine to report soberly and accurately about ongoing criminal trials, anything which might prejudice or intimidate the jury is strictly forbidden. And this makes sense. It would be a nonsense, for example, to have strict laws preventing individuals from walking up to a juror to say, “The defendant you are trying is plainly a dirty paedophile”, but to allow broadcasters or tabloid columnists to trumpet that message to jurors through the media. Self-defined “free-speech advocates” – particularly a number on the other side of the Atlantic – have difficulty understanding this, so it’s worth pasting in full what HHJ Norton said:
This contempt hearing is not about free speech. This is not about freedom of the press. This is not about legitimate journalism; this is not about political correctness; this is not about whether one political viewpoint is right or another. It is about justice, and it is about ensuring that a trial can be carried out justly and fairly. It is about ensuring that a jury are not in any way inhibited from carrying out their important function. It is about being innocent until proven guilty. It is not about people prejudging a situation and going round to that court and publishing material, whether in print or online, referring to defendants as “Muslim paedophile rapists”. A legitimate journalist would not be able to do that and under the strict liability rule there would be no defence to publication in those terms. It is pejorative language which prejudges the case, and it is language and reporting – if reporting indeed is what it is – that could have had the effect of substantially derailing the trial. As I have already indicated, because of what I knew was going on I had to take avoiding action to make sure that the integrity of this trial was preserved, that justice was preserved and that the trial could continue to completion without people being intimidated into reaching conclusions about it, or into being affected by “irresponsible and inaccurate reporting”. If something of the nature of that which you put out on social media had been put into the mainstream press I would have been faced with applications from the defence advocates concerned, I have no doubt, to either say something specific to the jury, or worse, to abandon the trial and to start again. That is the kind of thing that actions such as these can and do have, and that is why you have been dealt with in the way in which you have and why I am dealing with this case with the seriousness which I am.

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/...ommy-robinson/
Thanks from MichaelT
baloney_detector is offline  
Old May 31st, 2018, 07:00 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 60,008
Quote:
Originally Posted by baloney_detector View Post
Thank you.

Like Putin, one of Sab's favorite pastimes is to create chaos and confusion, and general angst toward Western democratic governments and institutions.
Thanks from baloney_detector and Hollywood
imaginethat is offline  
Old May 31st, 2018, 07:07 PM   #7
#freetommy
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 26,990
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Thank you.

Like Putin, one of Sab's favorite pastimes is to create chaos and confusion, and general angst toward Western democratic governments and institutions.
So you have been paying attention to this? You agree w/ what is going on?

Because i have. And it is completely fucked.


But i like your segue into putin. This is reminiscent of a totalitarian regime. Good job UK.
Thanks from guy39
Sabcat is online now  
Old June 1st, 2018, 02:42 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Hollywood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Memphis, Tn.
Posts: 22,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
Why is that of any concern of yours?
Oh, why the fuck not?
Hollywood is offline  
Old June 1st, 2018, 05:08 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
iolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Rhondda
Posts: 1,998
The Horrific Injustice against Tommy Robinson and Free Speech

Nazi bugger belongs in jail, as even the American Nazis must know. They keep their contempt of court on here, because though they hate law they are afraid of being buggered in your nasty jails.

Last edited by iolo; June 2nd, 2018 at 03:59 AM.
iolo is offline  
Old June 1st, 2018, 07:40 AM   #10
PragmaticBastard
 
GluteusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: USA
Posts: 297
Put all Nazis in jail, I won't shed a tear for them.
GluteusMaximus is online now  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Ideologies > Big Government

Tags
free, horrific, injustice, robinson, speech, tommy



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Free speech" no longer free anymore? Or... Panther Education 125 November 26th, 2017 08:56 AM
Free Speech vs Hate Speech webguy4 Americas 18 September 17th, 2017 02:31 PM
Free speech is free for all not just Liberals right? Sensible Current Events 213 February 10th, 2017 03:06 PM
Hate Speech or Free Speech? Sabcat Freedom of Speech 27 December 10th, 2016 11:52 AM
Warren gives remarkable and unprecedented speech on racial injustice and Black Lives LongWinded Civil Rights 1 October 1st, 2015 07:48 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.