Il CPS fa appello contro l’annullamento della condanna per l’incendio del Corano
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yd8g5qn3jo
di StreamWave190
Il CPS fa appello contro l’annullamento della condanna per l’incendio del Corano
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yd8g5qn3jo
di StreamWave190
9 commenti
CPS don’t want to prosecute anything but want to waste our time appealing someone burning their own piece of paper.
They clearly have too much funding and time on their hands, take note RfA
“The Crown Prosecution Service has appealed against a High Court judge’s decision to overturn the criminal conviction of a man who burned a Quran outside the Turkish consulate in London.”
Gross. The person who burnt the book did no wrong, the person who threatened him with a knife on the other hand…
From the BBC News Article:
‘The Crown Prosecution Service has appealed against a High Court judge’s decision to overturn the criminal conviction of a man who burned a Quran outside the Turkish consulate in London.
Hamit Coskun was initially found guilty of a religiously aggravated public order offence, having shouted “Islam is religion of terrorism” while holding the flaming religious text aloft outside the consulate in February.
The 51-year-old, who was backed by free speech campaigners, had his conviction overturned by Mr Justice Bennathan last month.
The CPS said that while burning a religious text was not a criminal act, Mr Coskun had “demonstrated hostility towards a religious or racial group, which is a crime”.’
**I dislike the burning of books on principle.** But Coskun was burning his own book. Plus, as with so many religious tomes, it was a dull and offensively sexist, racist and violent piece of fiction. And as with all religious books it only pretends to provide life-changing facts offering perfect and timeless guidance on all things.
By appealing, the CPS is wasting its time and resources, and our money.
Why not instead prosecute some of the councillors, police and social workers who looked the other way, or even abetted the grooming gangs in so many UK cities?
We have a variety of protected charactistics that have similar protections in law. Sometimes those protected characteristics conflict.
We need to be consistent with how we apply the law when different people have different characteristics that conflict. An atheist expressing their opinion on a religion should be judged in the same way as a religious person expressing their views on atheism or other religions. A gay or trans person expressing a view on a religion should be judged in the same way as a religious person expressing a view on gay or trans people.
We shouldn’t limit free speech for some groups but not others. People shouldn’t be prevented from expressing particular views just because some other group might get extremely angry. No group should be allowed to silence another group simply because they can’t control their temper. If certain types of criticism are permitted in one direction, the equivalent criticism should be allowed in the other direction.
>”Our case remains that Hamit Coskun’s words, choice of location and burning of the (Quran) amounted to disorderly behaviour… We have appealed the decision, and the judge has agreed to state a case for the High Court to consider.”
This is the crux of it though. It’s not just what you do, but how l you do it.
The taxpayer footing the bill for yet another case of the CPS trying and failing to prosecute a non-crime
Fuck right off with that. Burning the Koran is protected by his Article 10 right to free expression.
This is another example of two things being true (or, indeed, untrue) at once.
Is this guy nice? No.
Is this worth a lot of public resources to pursue? No.