UK Prosecutors Say 'Cult' Acceptable 357
An anonymous reader notes that following our discussion this week about the 15-year-old who was under threat of prosecution for calling Scientology a cult in a recent demonstration, the UK Crown Prosecution Service has decided that there is no case to answer. They have issued new guidance to the City of London police clarifying when they can use their public order powers. Quoting: "A [CPS] spokesman said: 'In consultation with the City of London Police, we were asked whether the sign was abusive or insulting. Our advice is that it is not abusive or insulting and there is no offensiveness (as opposed to criticism), neither in the idea expressed nor in the mode of expression.' A spokeswoman for the City of London Police said: 'The CPS review of the case includes advice on what action or behavior at a demonstration might be considered to be "threatening, abusive or insulting." The force's policing of future demonstrations will reflect this advice.'"
Watch out, City of London cops... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Watch out, City of London cops... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Watch out, City of London cops... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What happens if you get to the final level? Are there any cheats or secret chambers to collect additional Thetan points?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Watch out, City of London cops... (Score:5, Funny)
It has come to our attention that you have made an unauthorized use of our copyrighted work entitled Cult of Scientology (the "Work") in the preparation of a work derived therefrom. We have reserved all rights in the Work. Your post entitled 'Watch out, City of London cops...' illegally utilizes our Work. By using the name Cult of Scientology you have violated our copyrighted work.
As you neither asked for nor received permission to use the our name as the basis for 'Watch out, City of London cops...' nor to make or distribute copies, including electronic copies, of same, I believe you have willfully infringed our rights under 17 U.S.C. Section 101 et seq. and could be liable for statutory damages as high as $150,000 as set forth in Section 504(c)(2) therein.
I demand that you immediately cease the use and distribution of all infringing works derived from the Work, and all copies, including electronic copies, of same, that you deliver to us, if applicable, all unused, undistributed copies of same, or destroy such copies immediately and that you desist from this or any other infringement of my rights in the future. If I have not received an affirmative response from you by April 1, 2009 indicating that you have fully complied with these requirements, we shall take further action against you.
Very truly yours,
Terryeo
Co$ and City of London Police bribes (Score:5, Informative)
I wonder how much would City of London Police go for on eBay? Pretty cheap probably.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Interestingly, if any action were to take place, it wo
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Sudden outbreak of common sense... (Score:4, Insightful)
Every religion is a cult, just a popular one. Scientology isn't popular in any definition of the world and as such "cult" is very appropriate.
Cult != Religion (Score:5, Insightful)
Cults engage in serious mind control. Religions are just a set of spiritual principles. For example, there are some Christians who worship in a cult-like society, and some that do not.
To those who want to cite bible passages, you're missing the point. It is the current behavior of the group that defines this, not what's in their books.
Anyone who studies scientology will know how intense their brainwashing is, and since I was once part of a Christian church that was not a cult, I know it is as different as night and day.
Cult behavior is along the lines of 'removing subject's ego, connections outside the church, ability to question doctrine', and these factors can sometimes be found in any religion, but are not attributed to the whole set of that religion.
Since the Church of Scientology is a hierarchal organization, it can be classified as a cult, but there are practitioners of Scientology beliefs in the 'Freezone' which do not answer to the CoS command and are not cultlike.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you really believe this then I suspect that you have not been subjected to a "religion" firsthand.
When contemplating "religion as cult" you also have to consider those that are in a poor position
to fend of against "mere persuasion".
Also, the term cult itself is something that has become demonized and not used in it's original
context. It's meaning has already been twisted.
Re:Cult != Religion (Score:5, Insightful)
And if you really believe that it is impossible to distinguish between the level of coercion leveled on a member of say the UK Church of England and say Scientology hen I suspect that you have not been subjected to a cult firsthand.
So what was the Inquisition then? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So what was the Inquisition then? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because by the standard of amounts of violence and death used to keep the cult/religion together, islam certainly spans the crown by a margin of at least a few hundred million deaths :
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2342790/Hindu-Indian-History-Islamic-Invasion [scribd.com]
About 100 million people died, and that's counting only 1/3rd of the eastward expansion of islam, in about 400 years, and that's the low death toll estimate.
The inquisition is less than a grain of sand with it's estimated death toll of about 2000 (lowest) to about 50000 (highest).
So in comparison : the largest ever problematic section of Christian history caused 1/2000 th the amount of deaths as ONE muslim religious expansion war. And that's using the highest death toll estimate on the christian side and a low one of the muslim side (otherwise it'd be 2000 versus 300 million).
At the westward side of expansion there were a lot of cultures in the way of the muslims. Hardly a trace remains : Egyptians, Tunisians, Carthage, the Berbers, tons of Jewish kingdoms, twice as many small Christian kingdoms (and we're hardly 1/6th of the distance westward, one can only imagine the amount of culture lost)
So tell me, what do you think ?
Re:So what was the Inquisition then? (Score:4, Insightful)
Uh-huh. And I suppose then it would be fair to judge a modern day practitioners of non-religion (i.e. atheism) by the actions of Soviet Russia, and the millions of Christians slain?
Surely there are no differences of time and place. Clearly I must fear to reveal that I am a Christian lest I be sent to a Siberian gulag to work or freeze myself to death, just as you today must feverishly espouse your faith in Jesus lest you be tortured to death. Strange that they could both be true at the same time, though...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
His statues, his pictures, his words were revered.
The state was officially atheist. If "cults of personality" count, then plenty of alleged atheists are really religious, which given your explosion of anger in the next sentence I think you would take issue with.
Secondly, how the HELL do you "practice non-religion"? Talk about your weak, weak attempt of lumping "not Christian" in along with "sovi
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If that's not coercion, what is? Bear in mind, that just because many people have the intelligence to know the RCC is full of shit when it threatens burning in the fires of hell for all eternity, doesn't mean children are able to see things that way, least of all raped children.
Als
Re:Cult != Religion (Score:5, Informative)
cult
1: formal religious veneration : worship
2: a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4: a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator
5 a: great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b: the object of such devotion c: a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion
I would say Christianity and any other religion falls in line with this. It doesn't necessarily have to have a negative connotation, but that's generally how its used.
And if you want my two cents, church is just as much a brainwashing tool as an e-meter.
Agnostically yours,
Justin Hopewell
Re:Cult != Religion (Score:4, Informative)
Perhaps my goal is to sensibly define the radical difference between the Church Scientology and say, the Epsicopal Church.
Saying they are both cults waters down the human rights abuses of the CoS. If you haven't studied how the CoS operates, I recommend it. It is a fantastic look at merciless authoritarian control.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. If you lump religions in with actual cults just because you don't subscribe to their religious beliefs, then you might as well call any group of people with similar beliefs and values a cult. Vegetarians? Cult! Athiests? Cult! Republicans? Cult! Democrats? Cult!
Of course, this is totally ridiculous and reduce
Re:Cult != Religion (Score:4, Insightful)
Remember, for example, that the catholic church only accepted freedom of religion in the early 60s. Before that, leaving christianity behind was as unthinkable according to the official church doctrine, as leaving Scientology is today.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Cult != Religion (Score:5, Insightful)
Also not all cults are religious. Psychotherapy and politics can also be the basis for a cult.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The Merriam-Webster online dictionary lists five different definitions of the word "cult."[15]
1. Formal religious veneration
2. A system of religious beliefs and ritual; also: its body of adherents;
3. A religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also: its body of adherents;
4. A system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cult != Religion (Score:4, Insightful)
Look at Jesus, he asks you to sell everything you have in order to gain entrance to heaven. You have to hate your family and only love God. (No really, you can even quote the bible on that)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Look at Jesus, he asks you to sell everything you have in order to gain entrance to heaven. You have to hate your family and only love God. (No really, you can even quote the bible on that)
You mean like this? [biblegateway.com]
Actually, I believe he was going for something more like this [biblegateway.com].
Re:Cult != Religion (Score:5, Informative)
Luke 14:26
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters-yes, even his own life-he cannot be my disciple."
Mark 10:17-31
As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good-except God alone. You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.'"
Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.
Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!"
The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
Re:Cult != Religion (Score:5, Informative)
As for the second passage, and I'm sure you've been told this before, Jesus is not saying everyone needs to sell everything they have. Jesus knew the heart of this particular person and therefore asked him to give up the most important thing(s) in his life. Jesus is not telling you to give up everything, He's asking if you are willing to do so, there's a difference. This passage could have easily have been about sex or any other thing that could be or is important to a particular person. It's all about what or who is most important.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you read the Bible, you'll find that *everything* was an object lesson to Jesus. The simple act of eating and drinking, family, death, sickness, birds and flowers, life itself -- he never missed an opportunity to explain his thoughts. He was, after all, acting as a teacher figure.
To single this particular event out and s
Re:Cult != Religion (Score:5, Insightful)
"Give me everything you have, and you will have treasure in heaven."
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Actually, that was misheard. What he actually said was "Bull, your work is not done. Give me some more, I'll shout when it measures eleven." The rest was just twenty two minutes of misunderstanding, only to be cleared up moments before the final credits.
Re:Cult != Religion (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
1. You must honor your mother and father - respect, show deference to, obey, etc. I doubt there are many people out there who are going to argue that this is a bad principle. So, I'll just leave that one as it is. (And, yes, I realize some parents really need their head examined, but that's an argument for another day.)
2. The second is an interesting passage...basically it sounds like it is contradicting the first passage AND saying that you need to give up every
Re:Cult != Religion (Score:5, Interesting)
He said, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26 [gnpcb.org])
I'm not sure what kind of Christianity you were involved in; from the look of how you treat Bible verses, I would guess it was a particularly fundamentalistic group. Even in your atheism, you don't seem to have lost your fundamenalist approach to reading.
Step back from this as a religious issue for the moment. Look at the text as a report about a teacher. Do you really think his point was to have hatred toward your family? This Jewish teacher, who held to the 10 Commandments (including to honor your father and mother)? This teacher, who earlier in the same book said, "Love your enemies"? You think Jesus taught people that they should hate their family, but then love their enemies?
It's odd that you don't allow for hyperbole. Particularly when there are other biblical examples [gnpcb.org] of using "hated" for "love less". Particularly when even a cursory look at the whole context of Jesus' teaching reveals that he did not mean "hate your family and only love God".
I imagine you might respond with, "Teehee, see how the Bible contradicts itself?" If so, I wonder...How do you take something like, "I am the door"? Did Jesus think he was a big slab of wood on hinges?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Interesting. "There are idiots in the world" implies "There is no God"? That sounds like a novel version of the problem of evil. :)
Re:Cult != Religion (Score:4, Interesting)
1.) Yes, there is a general potential validity in deciding to accept the opinions of other people based on their expertise and objectivity, without taking the time to study it yourself. Life is short. You can't deeply study everything. (But see #3.)
2.) If you want to go that way, it might be reasonable for you to say that smart people you trust tell you it's contradictory. But if you don't know what you're talking about, it's not reasonable to make the specific claims you've been making about what Jesus taught. You're speaking from ignorance, saying untrue things, and looking silly in the process. If you're not going to study something, don't speak as though you know about it.
3.) The reasonability of #1 depends on certain factors about the people who you're deciding to trust. Their intelligence, their level of study, and most importantly, their objectivity. It's that last point where your little theory breaks down. You give "skeptics" the benefit of the doubt on the theory that they don't have a stake in the question, and doubt "theologists" on the theory that anyone who studies the Bible and disagrees with you must have already been a convinced believer seeking to justify their belief. Give me a break.
Skeptics are often ex-believers seeking to justify their unbelief, and believers are often people who became convinced. And skeptics are also often people who left their beliefs because they couldn't reconcile problems, and believers are often people who believe for emotional reasons or because their parents taught them.
You don't get to assume that one side is objective, decide to agree with them, and claim that your decision is based in rational skepticism.
Re: (Score:2)
Eh? What verse do you have in mind?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Everyone advocates beliefs of one sort or another. If you are forced to believe something against your own free will... that is mind control.
From the way you are speaking, you must rush out to the shops in an excited panic after every commercial ad break.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
--
phunctor
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Indeed, there is an argument that we shouldn't have to distinguish between cult and religion - it's a shame that saying "Scientology is a dangerous religion" isn't enough.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
is the word "cult" insulting? (Score:3, Insightful)
if the student held up a sign saying "bill gates is a geek", amongst the 13 year old male jock contingent, this is a horrible slander. but with the rise of the internet, its almost a compliment, especially as "geek" implies new wealth nowadays
Re:is the word "cult" insulting? (Score:5, Informative)
The CPS isn't made up of judges, it's the Crown Prosecution Service; they're solicitors. They decide whether there's a case to charge someone with a crime or not. In this case they decided, rightly, that there wasn't. It didn't even get in front of a judge.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
(That's actually a bit of generalization; it's also responsible for actually prosecution people if they do decide there is a case.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:is the word "cult" insulting? (Score:5, Informative)
On the other hand, in the age of middle east mega-religions, it's pretty much taken on the meaning of "unpopular, wrong, pseudo-religious scam," which Scientology also clearly is.
Then again the term "pagan" -- ie, a country-dweller (analogous to the Germanic "heathen" -- dweller in the heath) because of Christianity, too.
but the point is, Scientology is only out there confuse reality and roll you for your wallet -- same as every other religion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Look, I'm an atheist too, but it's radically disingenuous to say or imply that all religions are a means of social control. It may very well be the case that some or many or most of them are, but even if you had said that (and hopefully backed it up with some sort of evidence), it would be non-sequitur in the context of ChromeAeonium's comments. He/she was discussing his/her own personal church community as a counter-example to your assertion that all religions are out for money. Come back to you, and y
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
There, that's what I meant by geek.
I wonder about "homosexual behavior is sinful". (Score:3, Interesting)
Should it be? If so, why?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I read this as "many (most?) religious people aren't smart enough to pick up a dictionary and find out what the word cult means."
The first paragraph of the Wikipedia entry for "cult" [wikipedia.org]:
"Cult typically refers to a cohesive social group devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture considers outside the mainstream, with a notably positive or negative popular perception. In common or populist usage, "cult" has a positive connotation for groups of art, music, writing, fiction, and fashion devotees, but a negative connotation for new religious, extreme political, questionable therapeutic, and pyramidal business groups. F
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I gather from the way you are using this word that you think that 'negro' is a generally insulting word, similar to 'nigger'.
Deferring to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] again:
"Prior to the shift in the lexicon of American and worldwide classification of race and ethnicity in the late 1960s, the appellation was accepted as a normal neutral formal term both by those of African descent as well as non-African blacks. Now it is often considered an ethnic slur [...]"
I can't speak for all of America, but I've lived in quite a few places. In each of them, the word "negro" would have been ignorant at best, and often at least mildly offensive.
Thank goodness that is settled (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The bigger porblem (Score:5, Informative)
It shall be remembered that 20 years ago, the cult of $scientology was deemed a criminal organization in Ontario after it infiltrated the Ontario Ministry of Justice and proceed to trash their evidence file. The Supreme Court of Canada has also recently ruled so.
I'd have thrown the book at him (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'd have thrown the book at him (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You're welcome.
Nice to see (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Nice to see (Score:4, Informative)
2) the prosecutors refuse to take the issue to court, and clarify to the cops what is or isn't allowed
Sounds like a workable system to me.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nice to see (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, I would bet that this is exactly what those Scientology nuts wanted to happen. Thanks to the Fair Game [wikipedia.org] policy, identified critics of the Scientology get harassed or may even "disappear". These things are happening right now. This is why you see people wearing masks at the Scientology protests.
Now this guy has been clearly identified. They now know his name and where he lives. Getting in trouble for some kind of "hate crime" thing is way better than having the cult of Scientology harassing you the rest of your life. Having the case thrown out isn't much of a victory at all.
You know... (Score:4, Insightful)
If it walks like a duck... (Score:3, Funny)
Right for the wrong reason (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're defense of your religion is in the courts when you are offended by someone then both your religion and your faith in it is weak. Perhaps you should take another look at your faith and where it is placed.
I may not like you bashing my faith but won't it do more good to debate you about the merits of my faith than to threaten legal action against you? Who knows I may get you t
Re: (Score:2)
I happen to think that on balance this is a good thing and it's nice to see that the legislation doesn't appear to be being used irresponsibly so innocent things like what this lad has done do not get people in trouble.
The big win of course is that any future protests in this area and throughout the coun
Re: (Score:2)
I happen to think that on balance this is a good thing
I don't. It just validates their persecution complex, and encourages them to go underground. Let them say what they want, and everyone will know who the crazies are and avoid them.
Like it or not, advocating Sharia law is political speech. If they can silence their political speech,
Oblig. Simpsons (Score:4, Funny)
An Anonymous reader (Score:4, Funny)
Pope's cult? (Score:3, Insightful)
All negative connotations aside, the only functional difference between a cult and a religion is popular acceptance and usually membership size.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Anonymous get noticed because they're right.
Tom, come out of the closet (Score:5, Funny)
See ? (Score:3, Informative)
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=559324&cid=23489324 [slashdot.org]
What do they call themselves in scotland? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's the law - don't expect police to know it (Score:5, Informative)
There have been several major changes to British liberties recently - the Terrorism Act is the beast behind almost all of them. Those changes - such as the outright ban on demonstrating near parliament and the requirement of express permission in order to do so nearby - are completely distinct from what has happened here.
Also, don't confuse the recent legal order curtailing legitimate demonstrations to a specified area either (Brian Haw [parliament-square.org.uk] has been protesting the Iraq war outside of Parliament for 6 years!)
What has happened here is quite simple: an irate Scientologist who doesn't know the Public Order Act as much as the officer involved, persuaded a PC to halt the demonstration because of the wording on the sign.
This was a mistake by the officer based upon the facts and wording of the sign which, as the CPS said, cannot be deemed to be threatening, insulting or abusive (Public Order Act).
The "cult" description of Scientology is now a matter of fact within UK (there's an EU opinion too) born from the obiter of Justice Latey from a 1984 high court ruling which the sign incongruously quoted.
The officer should have better exercised his office of constable, chosen to read what written, and make up his own mind (in the UK a police officer is responsible for his own actions, he cannot be commanded by those senior to do anything he does not believe is lawful - he is personally liable for what he does and does not, save for contractual/employment obligations). Here the PC showed he was inadequately aware of the Public Order Act which permits the 15 year old's protest.
The CPS was right. They did the lawful thing. It would never have gone to court from the get go. It is an utterly laughable mistake by the PC that even Lionel Hutz would have recognised!
I hope the London constabulary involved is property briefed on their public order duties. I personally feel this was entirely avoidable - especially since R(Laporte) [fairfordco...ion.org.uk].
Matt
Scientology Tactic (Score:4, Insightful)
What a bunch of cults (Score:2, Funny)
Sony? Try Scientology! (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, neither cent, euro or generic currency symbols are supported with or without JS in the new discussion system, making this post way less funnier
How funny there's... (Score:5, Interesting)
What ever happened to the days of the local Bobby? Friend to all law abiding citizens, there to help and not hinder. Nowdays when you REPORT a crime they're rude to you.
What the fuck happened?
The defininitions for you (Score:3, Funny)
Cult: A small, unpopular religion.
Thinking for yourself: Awesome.
Being insulting is a crime? (Score:3, Insightful)
I thought that hate speech, inciting a crime, or defamation are the only types of speech that are illegal?
So what does freedom of speech mean then if you can't insult anyone or any organization? It's negative criticism generally insulting?
Have a look.... (Score:3, Informative)
Theres apparently going to be a big protest on June 14th 'At A City Near You'.
Re:I kind of understand threatening and abusive (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Would be nice to know more details. (Score:5, Informative)
what I was really impressed with was (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The video is currently available on http://www.schnews.org.uk/schmovies/index.html#cf [schnews.org.uk]
look for 'Cult Friction' and the 'click here to download link' (70mb mpeg)
Re: (Score:2)
Holding a sign that says "Behead those who insult Islam" is all well and good
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Allah akbar (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe American readers of this site are not that much aware of the situation in Britain, but for the last years signs held up at demonstrations asking to 'behead those who insult Islam' or for 'death to Israel' have gone 'unnoticed' by the British authorities, meaning that no-one ever got arrested for displaying them (or relentlessly shouting similar slogans). Many Europeans are already taking this as proof that Britain has finally fallen to the Islamists.
In that light, it would have been outrageously laughable if voicing this rather common sense opinion on Scientology would have resulted in prosecution.
Re:Allah akbar (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.libdemvoice.org/why-im-glad-nick-griffin-was-acquitted-235.html [libdemvoice.org]
Nick Griffin, the Leader of the BNP, was acquitted yesterday of charges of inciting racial hatred. In 2004 Griffin made a speech to BNP activists in which he described Islam as a "wicked, vicious faith" and said that Muslims were turning Britain into a "multi-racial hell hole".
Griffin is a racist, he espouses an ugly creed based on fear and ignorance, almost every word he says is offensive. But being offensive shouldn't be enough to land you in jail.
Yesterday, Mizanur Rahman, a young radical Islamist was jailed for his part in the protest earlier this year over the Danish newspaper cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed. Rahman waved banners and chanted into a megaphone shouting "Annihilate those who insult Islam" and "Behead those who insult Islam."
Although he apologises now, Rahman's remarks were full of hate, they were grotesque, offensive and shocking. But being shocking shouldn't be enough to get you convicted.
I'm a black gay man and much of the anti-hatred legislation that Griffin and Rahman were prosecuted under was designed to protect people like me. But freedom is a delicate thing, and I believe that our current raft of hate crime laws in danger of undermining the very freedom they aim to protect.
So the "Behead those who insult Islam" guy was jailed, the scientology protester and the guy that called Islam a "wicked vicious faith" were not. Seems fair enough to me. Rahman clearly stepped over the incitement line and Griffin didn't (or more likely didn't step over it in public).
Rahman got six years in prison
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mizanur_Rahman [wikipedia.org]
He participated in the Islamist demonstration outside the Danish Embassy in London in 2006, where he prayed "Oh Allah, we want to see another 9/11 in Iraq, another 9/11 in Denmark, another 9/11 in Spain, in France, all over Europe. Oh Allah, destroy all of them." [3] On November 9, 2006, he was found guilty of inciting racial hatred[4]. The jury could not reach a verdict on the charge of inciting murder. The Crown indicated it would seek a retrial.[5] At his retrial in 2007 he was additionally convicted on the solicitation to murder, and sentenced to six years in prison.
The government must really hate you if they keep trying you until they get the right result. And everyone else must hate you too if no one questions this dubious piece of gamesmanship.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)