One year on from his imprisonment, the quashing of Ahmed Faraz's conviction for the dissemination of terrorism publications, is a great victory for freedom of expression in the UK. 

In a damning judgement, the UK Court of Appeal ruled that no causal link could be presented that publications produced by the Maktabah bookshop would inspire acts of political violence or terrorism. They said that it was incorrect of the trial judge to permit evidence that those who had carried out acts of terrorism had owned copies of the books or DVDs and that it was a short cut to a conviction.

The judges further explained that when the extent of acts of political violence are considered, the percentage of those who might have read Maktabah publications was very small and so such a causal link was entirely onerous. 

The reliance on pseudo experts by the prosecution proves that creating an atmosphere of fear for a jury, does not mean that a criminal act has taken place, but rather that the prosecution relied heavily on the ignorance of the jury on particularly complicated matters. 

Research Director for CagePrisoners, Asim Qureshi, said of the decision:

"The conviction of Ahmed Faraz by a jury last year was completely incorrect. The jurors based their decision on a fundamental misunderstanding of Muslim ideas and behaviour. The judgement of the Court of Appeal is warmly welcomed as it highlights that incidental links to acts of political violence or terrorism should never be criminalised, particularly where causality is tenuous at best." 

CagePrisoners press release, 21 December 2012

View the Original article

Well, that's the editorial view of Stoke-on-Trent's local paper, the Sentinel, on the recent conviction of the city's British National Party leader on a charge of racial harassment over articles he posted on his Stoke Patriot blog.

According to the Sentinel,  the racist abuse that fills Coleman's blog merely amounts to "purple prose" and his views are "at worst objectionable".

This is a man who couldn't even bring himself to condemn the attempt to blow up a Stoke mosque. Stating only that he could not "sanction" their actions, Coleman described the two men jailed for this crime as "patriotic Britons" and wrote: "I understand and share the anger that must have been in their hearts as they witnessed this Mosque been [sic] built in their city."

If the vile comments that Coleman directs at Muslims on his blog were aimed at the Jewish community he would certainly be charged with incitement to racial hatred. Unfortunately Muslims are not covered by that legislation and the law against incitement to religious hatred is completely useless. The lesson here is that the law needs to be amended so that people like Coleman can be charged with a more serious offence than just harassment.

Yet the Sentinel argues: "this week's jury decision that Coleman's regular internet rants warrant a criminal conviction for racially-aggravated harassment, is not a welcome development. Particularly when reflecting that most of the freedoms we all enjoy would not have been won without the important principle of freedom of speech."

It's the kind of loopy libertarian defence of the far right that you might expect to read at Spiked.

View the Original article

"Can religion really lead a mother and father to kill their own child? It is clear that in the Ahmeds' case, this was so: Alesha, the victim's surviving sister, testified in court that her parents openly acknowledged that they must do away with the rebellious teenager. She had adopted 'western ways', and brought shame on their family."

Cristina Odone exploits the tragic death of Shafilea Ahmed in order to demonstrate that she's an ignorant bigot.

Daily Telegraph, 3 August 2012

Of course, Odone doesn't provide any evidence to back up her assertion that it was their religious beliefs that caused Shafilea's parents to murder her. The quote from Alesha Ahmed that she produces indicates that their motive was a warped conception of "honour", which is not specific to any faith community.

As a 2007 report prepared for the European Parliament, Honour Killing, its Causes and Consequences, states:

"Honour killing is often mistakenly believed to be an Islamic practice or a practice condoned by Islam since it often occurs in Muslim-majority societies. In actual fact honour killing is forbidden in Islam and there is no mention of this practice in the Qur'an or in the Hadiths. There is little evidence of the practice in Muslim-majority countries such as Indonesia or Malaysia. Honour killing occurs in strongly patriarchal societies often referred to as 'honour-based' and which are found primarily in the Middle East, the Balkans, the southern Mediterranean, and South Asia."

In the UK, ACPO's Honour Based Violence Strategy emphasises that honour-based violence is "a cultural, not a religious phenomenon" which "cuts across all cultures, nationalities, faith groups and communities". Last year a Sikh from Telford, Gurmeet Singh Ubhi, was convicted of killing his daughter, in a case that had obvious parallels with that of Shafilea Ahmed. Because the perpetrator wasn't a Muslim, however, this murder received far less attention from the national media, and we were spared stupid articles from the likes of Cristina Odone claiming that it was his religion that made him do it.

View the Original article