Skip to main content

Jim Gardiner

It seems that the British Justice system is continuing to over reach it's prerogative in dealing with British citizens.

A recent case, which on first viewing, seems rather silly and an unnecessary waste of police and court's time, on further scrutiny, looks like an absolute and nonsensical miscarriage of justice.

It concerns a British burger vendor, who, in conversation with a customer, stated that there was a problem with muslim "no-go" zones in Manchester, at which point the customer, a Mr. Palmer, denounced the claim as an urban myth. The vendor (Mr. Gardiner) promptly produced evidence supporting his statement which the customer refused to read, preferring to remain in ignorance of the facts.

The vendor was understandably upset that his truthful and heartfelt assertions had been slighted by someone who refused to examine the facts that he had helpfully prepared. He then refused to serve the customer who reported him to the police.

So far so good.

A conversation turned into an argument, but no violence ensued, nor was there any incitement to violence, so where was the hate crime?

Where indeed.

According to the Crown Prosecution Service website:-

"A Hate incident is any incident which the victim, or anyone else, thinks is based on someones prejudice towards them because of their race, religion sexual orientation, disability or because they are transgender."

Lets read that again:- "...prejudice towards them because of their race, religion..."

And three paragraphs down, just to emphasize the point:-

"Racist and religious crime is particularly hurtful to victims as they are being targeted solely because of their personal identity, their actual or perceived racial or ethnic origin, belief or faith."

So, is Mr Palmer a muslim, or does he perceive himself to be one?

Having just ordered a sausage sandwich, it certainly does not read that way, and if he is neither, then how and where was any crime committed?

There is certainly no provision in the CPS statement, for a person to assume another's identity, so as to manufacture a crime of hate, where none exists. The law is quite clearly there to prevent a direct crime against an individual, i.e. a victim, who must be present.

There is, however, provision for a witness of such a crime to report the incident as indicated by the phrase:-

"...the victim, or anyone else, thinks is based on someones prejudice towards them..."

Again, the law clearly requires there to be a victim, for there to be a crime. Of course, Mr Palmer may fit one of the other categories of victims of hate, e.g. he may be a transgender, but there is no indication that Mr Gardiner made any remarks regarding transgenders, so where is the hate towards Mr Palmer, or have we uncovered a new crime of 'Hate by proxy'?

Now, it may be that Mr Palmer, the police, and the judge, have each assumed that Mr Gardiner would have been hateful to a muslim had one turned up, but the fact that he has obviously held and researched his views for some time, evidenced by his having the corroborating material to hand when he needed to prove his point, and that he was of previous good character, having never appeared in court before. So we must conclude that he would not have directed his opinions to a muslim in any way that might be described as hateful. He even joked about humorously offering them a "bacon butty" if any such intercourse occurred.

And this raises another important point.

It is almost inconceivable for a small roadside vendor who provides pork products, to encounter muslims in the normal course of his work, so why would the court choose to make such a ludicrous projection, and condemn him for his thoughts or actions in what would be a most unlikely situation?






Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why Chelsey?

In all the cases involving rape gangs here in the UK, the victim's right to anonymity has meant that we had only statistics to help us understand what was happening. Although the statistics are appalling, for example in Rotherham, a town of some 110,000 inhabitants, over 1400 children and young girls were groomed and sexually abused and exploited between 1997-2013. Most of the girls were aged 11-15 and at least one, Laura Wilson, was murdered . So we finally have a name and a face, unfortunately, she has become another, even more tragic, statistic. There are many more towns, with many more statistics to peruse  but we also now have a victim brave enough to forgo anonymity and tell us her story. Chelsey Wright is not a child victim and was not groomed for abuse nor had knowledge of, or relationship with any of her attackers, but the rest is predictably similar: a gang of muslim men ready to rape and assault at their first opportunity. There is another uncomfortably familiar...

Trial of the Century?

Could we really be on the verge of truthful disclosure, could the Western media and our legal and political classes be forced to confront the truth? However unlikely this might seem, there is a small glimmer of hope, the tiniest possibility, that we in the Western Hemisphere, will find out what being a Muslim really means. I say in the West, because most of the world knows only too well what Islam really means, especially where it has been a significant presence for more than the five minutes of time that measures our modern attention span. So what is this potentially seismic event? Well, a Jordanian imam has had an arrest warrant issued in Canada for Hate speech, and the words he used appear to have been direct quotations of his prophet, Muhamed. This could be the most significant ideological examination since the Monkey Trial of 1925 , when the teaching, or not, of Evolution was taken to court, and although it was always an intellectual show trial which did little to change...