Scotland Becomes a Third-world Country

It is characteristic of third-world countries that there are severe restrictions on free speech. In particular, comments about religion often attract the wrath of the state. Here we have a guy being sent to prison for a few months for a few daft remarks about Catholics. Granted, they're not very nice, but any country that sends a person to prison for this has a warped sense of morality. And this is what they can do with the laws as they are now; if the proposed law on sectarian hate comes into effect, the penalties will be even more draconian.

A MAN who posted sectarian comments on a Facebook page about Celtic manager Neil Lennon has been given what is thought to be the toughest sentence for a football-related internet hate crime.

Stephen Birrell, 28, was jailed for eight months for posting a string of religious and racially-motivated comments on the social networking site between 28 February and 8 March.

He was arrested in the wake of a major police operation to crack down on people who had been posting hate-filled comments related to Rangers and Celtic following their volatile Scottish Cup replay on 2 March.

Sheriff Bill Totten told Birrell, from Dalmarnock, Glasgow, that the courts had to send “a clear message to deter others who might be tempted to behave in this way”.

One of the comments, posted a day before the Old Firm clash, read: “Hope they all die. Simple. Catholic scumbags ha ha.”

Two days after the match, which triggered a Scottish Government crackdown against football-related disorder, Birrell wrote: “Proud to hate Fenian tattie farmers.”

Birrell was also handed a five-year football banning order at Glasgow Sheriff Court for writing the comments on a Facebook page titled “Neil Lennon Should Be Banned”.

His lawyer, Iain McLennan, told the sheriff that Birrell had accepted what he had done, but struggles to understand the severity of his actions.

He said: “He finds it difficult just to comprehend how serious what he did was. But he does accept that what he did was wrong and gratuitously offensive.”

The sheriff told Birrell he wanted to “send a clear message that the right-thinking people of Glasgow and Scotland will not allow any behaviour of this nature, or allow any place in our society for hate crimes”.

He said: “The use of modern communications to spread or support abuse, or target groups of people because of their ethnic or racial background, has no place in our modern society and has no place in genuine support for any football club.”

Under the Scottish Government’s new anti-sectarianism legislation, anyone posting hate-filled messages online faces being jailed for up to five years.

Source: The Scotsman

No wonder he struggles to understand the severity of his actions. He's not the only one.

The guy should appeal this all the way to the European Court of Human Rights. They're a bunch of utopian do-gooders, but even they might see this as an infringement on free speech too far.

It's also characteristic of third-world countries that the law is not enforced impartially. The judges and police do whatever the government tells them to do, and target whoever the government tells them to target, not as a result of changes in the law of the land but through informal channels of communication and pressure exerted from on high. That is exactly what is going on here too. Why are we suddenly seeing this spate of prosecutions for religiously-motivated hate crimes? Is it because there are more of them? No. Is it because a new law has been passed, criminalising things that weren't criminal before? No. It is because the SNP government overreacted to a football match and started pressuring police forces to carry out prosecutions. The police are supposed to be independent of the government. They are there to enforce the law impartially. But in this case they just knuckle under and do what the gubmint tells them to do - just like in a third-world country.

SDL March Banned

A march planned by a far-right group through the streets of Edinburgh has been rejected over fears for public safety.



Edinburgh City Council's licensing sub-committee turned down the application from the Scottish Defence League (SDL), which wanted to march on September 10. The council said the decision was taken unanimously.



Grahame Smith, general secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Council (STUC), said: "The STUC welcome the decision of the regulatory committee to reject the application by the Scottish Defence League to spread their hatred on the streets of Edinburgh. This sends out a clear message that racism and fascism has no place in Scotland's towns and cities."



Aamer Anwar, a human rights lawyer and organiser of Scotland United, said: "We welcome the council's decision to ban the SDL march. Neo-Nazis masquerading under the flag of Scotland will never be welcome in our capital city. As the only place in the UK that has successfully stopped these thugs marching through our streets, we repeat our message: you are not welcome in Scotland.



"I want to thank the thousands of decent minded people, the trade unions, 47 MSPs, the Scottish Government, the party leaders and the First Minister who backed Scotland United's objections to this march. Today is a good day for freedom and democracy and unity against racism."



Lothian and Borders Police had no formal objection to the application, but raised some concerns in light of "major unrest" across the country.



The proposed route would have taken an estimated 200 people along Regent Road and Waterloo Place to the Wellington monument at the end of Princes Street. The route passes the Scottish Government ministerial headquarters and is close to the US consulate.



A report to councillors who decided the application said that the police acknowledged there may be some disruption to city centre business. But the report also said that with sufficient planning in place, it should be possible to accommodate the SDL procession and any other "resultant demonstrations".



Councillors were given copies of objections, including one from the STUC which had concerns about the proximity of the march to the 10th anniversary of the terror attack on the Twin Towers in New York.



Committee convener councillor Rob Munn said: "The council holds dear the values of freedom of speech, of the right to assemble and march, and we would go to great lengths to protect those rights. We have taken great care to consider all of the issues raised by council officials, Lothian and Borders Police, the SDL and by objectors. Today's decision was wholly based on the information available to us regarding the potential impact on public safety, public order and possible disruption to the life of the community."

Source: Herald

Humza Yousaf Attacks the Government's New Anti-Terror Strategy

Humza Yousaf has an article in the Scotsman today in which he attacks the (London) government's new anti-terror strategy.

The article carries the headline "If extremism is to be conquered, the Muslim community must be given tools for the job" but he never actually explains what these tools are. His view seems to be that Muslims should simply be left alone. Interestingly, he speaks up in favour of free speech (for Muslims, of course).

The strategy of empowerment must be underpinned by the belief that good speech will always defeat bad speech, something I think we have demonstrated many a time in Scotland.

In 2010, the Scottish Defence League announced they would be marching through Glasgow. Instead of badgering the government to ban such a group, the voices of reason took to the streets under the banner of "Scotland United". Whereas the extremists numbered around 70, the Scotland United group was more than 3,000. While not being complacent, the spectre of the SDL has since dwindled and is almost out of sight.

Somehow I think that his support for free speech won't extend to getting rid of the laws that currently restrict it.

Furthermore, Westminster's attack on university Muslim associations across Britain is also in danger of alienating the moderate majority, who will now be reluctant to put their head above the parapet and challenge extremist ideology should it rear its ugly head.

Ah, ye old Muslim classic argument. "Give us what we want or else we'll kill you" dressed up as something moderate and reasonable.

He endorses our friend Mona Siddiqui and someone called Shaykh Amer Jamil, who I've never heard of but will now need to research.

Dr Mona Siddique at Glasgow University to Shaykh Amer Jamil of the Solas Foundation we are lucky to have some extremely well qualified and moderate voices that are established and respected within the Muslim community in Scotland.

Be sure and leave your comment on his article as unlike the pitiful Herald, the Scotsman doesn't do "prior restraint" censorship. I'm sure some comments will be deleted, but they can't delete them all. All in all, the article is poorly written and structured. He demands that Muslims be given "the tools for the job" without ever explaining what they are. It almost reads like a stream-of-consciousness piece that a not-too-bright student would fling together one morning when he realised he had an essay to hand in that day but had forgotten all about it. This shows his meagre intellectual calibre, but then the Scottish Parliament isn't exactly a highly competitive environment in that respect, is it?

[UPDATE: Actually I see this was actually published a week ago. I missed it at the time.]