Novartis is a leading pharmaceutical company in India, which produces various drugs for the healthcare of the citizens. In 2006, Novartis requested for the patent rights, because they have made a drug named Glivec for cancer ailment. Three years later, Novartis again requested for the same thing. They added innovation in the cancer ailment drug in India, to protect the citizens from this serious disease. But on Monday the 2nd of April, the Court rejected the request of Novartis. The Supreme court of India claimed that, the innovations of Novartis are minor. It is not satisfactory, and so they will not able to get the patent rights.

There is a concept in India that is known as Patent Rights. These rights are given to the new innovative companies and firms just to set the price against the copy of the innovative product. These patent rights remain for 20 years, in which a producer can make changes with time to time. unfortunately, the court had denied the request of Novartis, it has been reported that, if (in case) the court honored the request of Novartis, then there were so many chances that, the price of the drug will rise up because Novartis is the only leading drug producer company in India, but now due to the court order, the generic companies got the opportunity to create competition among the different firms and companies. There is a big chance that the price of the drugs will decrease due to the high competition.

After hearing the court order, Novartis Vice Chairman and Managing Director of Novartis India, Ranjit Shahani shared his thoughts with themedia. He said that the court decision has ruined the future innovation of India. He added that, this decision has a setback for the patients, they will not be able to get the effective treatment with the generic drugs. He mentioned that Glivec was made to treat the chronic leukemia and other types of cancer, and it is making $2,600 per month, while the generic products were only making $175 in a month.

While the lawyer of Indian Generic Drug manufacturer Cipla, Pratibha Singh said that, the patent has set some principles that they will protect them from the international pharmaceutical companies which are trying to update the existing medicines in India. She said that patent rights will never give to those people who are trying to add little changes in their products just to earn their own profit.

As it has been noticed that after the decision, Novartis shares had fell to 5% in the Bombay Stock exchange, while the generic drug companies like Cipla and Natco rose up after the judgment.

After hearing the orders of the court, there was a celebration by the Generic drugs producing companies, it was like their own victory. Generic drugs are also exported in different developing companies like Africa.

About the author

I am running a freelance company to provide development, designing, seo and writing services.

View the Original article

A protester who made racist remarks to a police officer and spat at another during last month's EDL and anti-fascist protests in Cambridge pleaded guilty yesterday.

Roy May, 56, of Elmfield Road, Cambridge, urinated outside a house in Emmanuel Street on February 23 when street closures for the protest were taking place. Pc Singh confronted May about what he was doing and received a torrent of racial abuse, city magistrates were told.

Delia Matthews, prosecuting, said: "He was swearing and his words were slurred because he was drunk." May then spat at police officers, catching Pc Helen Greenfield on the cheek.

May will appear in court again on March 18 for sentencing.

Cambridge News, 12 March 2013

View the Original article

Far right demonstrates outside High CourtA high court judge has banned protests by groups such as the English Defence League being held within 500 metres of the home of the radical Islamist cleric Abu Qatada.

Mr Justice Silber said the injunction issued on Monday was necessary because the protests, which have been held on a weekly basis, had terrified the cleric's family, particularly his children, the youngest of whom is aged 11.

Abu Qatada, who was once described by a Spanish judge as Osama bin Laden's right-hand man in Europe, is currently out on bail under a 16-hour daily curfew. The home secretary, Theresa May, is appealing against a ruling by British judges that he cannot be sent back to Jordan while there is a risk he faces a trial based on evidence obtained through torture.

The high court injunction issued on Monday will ban the English National Resistance, the English Defence League, Britain First, the South East Alliance, the English Volunteer Force and others from staging demonstrations within 500 metres of Abu Qatada's London home.

"There was powerful evidence from the claimants of weekly demonstrations with much shouting of abuse such as 'Abu Qatada off our streets', 'all Muslims are terrorists', 'murdering scumbag', 'go back to Jordan', 'just murder him' and 'forget all this just kill him', Silber said in his ruling. He said some of the chanting and shouting had lasted up to six hours.

Abu Qatada's wife and five children, who brought the case, said the protests had terrified them. The 11-year-old said: "I feel they are a threat to us and I feel scared in the house. I also feel scared when walking outside even on a normal day (when there is no demonstration)."

The cleric's second eldest child, aged 21, said: "When the demonstrations occur, usually on Saturdays, the whole family has to stay in the house. When they first arrive it is very startling and then it is frightening … the demonstrators frighten and panic me and have the effect of worsening a medical condition that I suffer from."

The groups staging the protests vowed on their websites never to stop the demonstrations, and to expose his every address. "We intend to make his life a misery," they said.

The judge said the order would extend a temporary ban issued on 1 February to prevent a demonstration taking place outside the house the next day. Silber stressed that it was perfectly legitimate to protest against Abu Qatada's presence in Britain and the provision of a taxpayer-funded house for the cleric and his family to live in. Abu Qatada himself was not involved in the case.

A second injunction granted on Monday prevents the publication of the names of the children, their pictures and the schools they attend, to prevent further harassment.

Guardian, 25 February 2013

View the Original article

WEST BLOOMFIELD — The Michigan Supreme Court won't hear an appeal over the sale of a Detroit-area school for a mosque and Islamic community center.

In an order released Saturday, the court said a September decision by the appeals court in favor of the Farmington school district will stand.

The Islamic Cultural Association bought the vacant Eagle Elementary School in West Bloomfield Township in 2011. Some residents sued, claiming the deal was somehow corrupt and hidden from the public. An Oakland County judge and the appeals court have said critics have no standing to sue.

The Islamic association has said opponents are unfairly targeting people over their Muslim faith. The West Bloomfield Planning Commission has not taken action on the proposed mosque.

Associated Press, 2 February 2013

See also "State Supreme Court rejects appeal of West Bloomfield mosque opponents", West Bloomfield Patch, 2 Febuary 2013

View the Original article

A man who was put on trial after staging an anti-religion protest by ripping out pages from the Koran in front of Muslims has had the case against him dropped.

A jury at Leicester Crown Court failed to reach a verdict in the case against Peter James Crawford last month. The Crown Prosecution Service reviewed the evidence and a decision was made not to continue with a fresh trial. The case was dropped against Mr Crawford, 52, when the prosecution offered no evidence against him at a hearing.

Speaking this week, Mr Crawford's defence advocate during the trial, Steven Newcombe, said: "I think the prosecution made a sensible decision not to have a retrial in the light of the jury being deadlocked. There were other ways of dealing with this matter, rather than attempting to prosecute Mr Crawford in a crown court. He has learned a lesson and I'm sure he will conduct himself with a greater degree of sensitivity."

A spokesman for the Crown Prosecution Service said: "When jury cannot decide on a verdict, the prosecution must decide whether to seek a retrial on the basis of the same evidence. A number of factors must be taken into account, including the likely penalty if the defendant is found guilty, the time delay in securing a date for the retrial, the views of the victim, judiciary and police and the likelihood of another jury reaching a decision."

Leicester Mercury, 11 January 2013

View the Original article

The gang rape in Delhi is something that has created a buzz among the people. The hearing at the court for this crime will take place on Monday. The five suspects will go through a hearing known as “the fast track”. These criminals are charged for rape, murder, and kidnapping. The incident that happened last month will reveal the charges for this serious crime.

News from New Delhi states that more female police officers will need to be deployed so that they can handle complaints or crimes like rape. The attack on the 23 year old girl was quite fatal and protests all over the country have been carried out to create awareness. People all over the world are eager to find out what the charges for the five rapists will be.

For those people that do not know what a fast track court is, it is a hearing where the court will be surrounded by red tape. Outsiders will be restricted from entering the court to hear what the judge decides. The authorities are waiting for the final results of the test that was carried out on the bone marrow so that they can also charge the sixth adult that was a suspect in this attack. Deputy police, Nalwa said, “The trail will commence as soon as we get all the evidence together.”

New Delhi has also enforced a new policy which states that by this Friday there will be more female police officers at every police station. The Interior Minister, Shinde said, “Starting Friday, the police stations will have two female inspectors and around 10 female constables.”

Women are quite satisfied with this new policy because they feel more comfortable talking to a female rather than a male. It helps them to take with ease and they are able to file their reports without having major issues. There will be many candidates that will be recruited in the next few months to join in on the police force. This will help reduce crimes like rape and it will make it easier for the police to handle such matters.

The Minister is also pushing hard and working on new policies so that cases like rape can be abolished for good. Soon the officials of Delhi will reveal the names of the rapists and will publish their addresses, names, and even case numbers on a new website. This will help to reduce such crimes and will help significantly.

 

About the author

View the Original article

Mahdi Hashi, the British-Somali man who disappeared from east Africa shortly after being stripped of his British citizenship, appeared yesterday in a New York federal court alongside two Swedish men. All three appear to have been rendered by the United States from Djibouti, and have now been charged with terrorism offences.

Hashi, 23, is accused of "providing material support" to Somali militant group al Shabaab. A statement released by the FBI revealed that Hashi has been in the US penal system since November 12. Neither his family nor his UK legal team were informed.

The US claims that between 2008 and 2012 Hashi carried out weapons and explosive training with al Shabaab and was "deployed in combat operations to support al Shabaab's military action in Somalia". It adds that he allegedly participated in "an elite al Shabaab suicide bomber program".

In June, Hashi's family was notified that he had been stripped of his British citizenship; the Home Secretary claimed he was "involved in Islamist extremism". Hashi and a group of Somali Muslim friends in Camden, London, previously claimed MI5 had subjected them to a campaign of harassment and had threatened to label them as terrorists unless they agreed to work as informants.

Mohamed Hashi told the Bureau his son disappeared from his home on the outskirts of Mogadishu weeks after losing his citizenship and that the family was later contacted by a man who said he had been held alongside Hashi in a jail in neighbouring Djibouti.

The fellow inmate also mentioned that two Somali-Swedes were in the facility. Hashi is charged alongside Ali Yasin Ahmed, 27, and Mohamed Yusuf, 29. The New York Times reports the men ‘appeared in court with the aid of a Swedish interpreter’, and Yusuf’s lawyer told Bloomberg his client held Swedish citizenship.

Hashi was taken from the jail by Americans, his family was told by the former prisoner. Yet until the case was unsealed yesterday, they had no further clue as to his whereabouts. The Bureau contacted the State Department on Thursday to ask if Hashi was in US custody and was told: "We do not have anything on this to share publicly at this time."

Saghir Hussain, Hashi's solicitor, told the Bureau: "It seems the US disappeared Mahdi Hashi for the past several months and rendered him to New York. The British government also needs to explain its involvement in this case."

Asim Qureshi, research director of campaign group CagePrisoners said: "If Mahdi Hashi had still been a British citizen he would have had some protection. But he has had his citizenship taken away and that has left him open to being a victim of rendition to the US with no state to defend his rights."

Bureau of Investigative Journalism, 22 December 2012

See also Mail on Sunday, 23 December 2012

And "British involvement results in rendition of Mahdi Hashi to the US", CagePrisoners press release, 22 December 2012

View the Original article

A Greek Orthodox school is being taken to the High Court for banning a Muslim pupil from wearing a headscarf.

The nine-year-old girl's parents were so incensed at the decision they have pulled her out of St Cyprian's Greek Orthodox Primary Academy, in Thornton Heath. Now they have applied to the High Court in an attempt to force the school – the only one of its kind in the country – to reverse its ban on their daughter wearing a hijab.

The girl's parents pulled their daughter out of St Cyprian's, which this week came top of Croydon's primary school league table, in September. She is now dual-rolled at All Saints CofE Primary School, in Upper Norwood. Her parents want her to return to St Cyprian's as her brother still attends the school.

The family have submitted a fresh application to have the issue heard at the High Court after their first attempt was rejected. The matter is due to be considered in February.

The school claims to "respect the religious beliefs and practice of all staff, pupils and parents". Its mission statement says the school is "committed to combating racism" and promoting "good relations between people of different ethnic origins". It adds: "We recognise and celebrate the fact that a significant percentage of our children are from ethnic minority groups".

There is no mention of a ban on headscarves in the uniform policy on the school's website. Girls are required to wear a dark blue coat, an optional blazer, a skirt, a white blouse, a navy blue pullover and navy blue or white socks and black shoes.

Shuiab Yusaf, trustee of Croydon Mosque & Islamic Centre, urged the school to reconsider the ban. He said: "We encourage schools to be a little less strict and allow Muslim girls to wear headscarves if that is what they want to do," he said.

Croydon Advertiser, 21 December 2012

View the Original article

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

The jury in the trial of a man who staged an anti-religion protest by ripping out pages from the Koran in front of Muslims has been discharged.

The eight women and four men on the jury at Leicester Crown Court failed to agree on a verdict. They sent a note to the judge saying there was no prospect of them reaching either a unanimous or a majority verdict on which at least 10 of them agreed.

Peter James Crawford (52) was said to have torn pages from his own copy of the Koran and thrown the holy book on the ground next to a stall run by the Islamic Information Centre, near the Clock Tower, in Leicester city centre, on the afternoon of May 12.

Crawford, of Mere Road, Spinney Hill, Leicester, denied causing religiously aggravated intentional harassment, alarm or distress by demonstrating hostility based on membership of a particular religious group. The Crown Prosecution Service has 14 days to decide whether or not to proceed with a retrial.

Crawford was released on bail with a condition imposed that he should not to go within half-a-mile of the Clock Tower on Saturday afternoons.

Lecester Mercury, 22 December 2012

This disturbing result does illustrate the extent to which the Muslim community is now widely regarded as a legitimate target for abuse.

Here we have what should have been a straightforward prosecution on a charge of religiously aggravated harassment failing because at least some of the jury apparently agreed with the accused that in harassing Muslims he was merely exercising his right to free speech. It is difficult to believe that they would have taken the same view if the abuse had been directed at members of the Jewish community, for example.

Hopefully the CPS will decide to go for a retrial.

View the Original article

An atheist shocked Muslim volunteers at a stall promoting Islam when he ripped out pages from the Koran. Peter James Crawford (52) then threw the holy book onto the ground and told them: "Your religion is a load of b******s."

He is on trial at Leicester Crown Court accused of causing religiously aggravated intentional harassment, alarm or distress, by demonstrating hostility based on membership of a particular religious group, Islam. He denies the charge.

The incident happened at the Islamic Information Centre's stall, near the Clock Tower in Leicester city centre, on a busy Saturday afternoon, on May 12.

Kamran Qayyum, an employee of the organisation, told the court: "We give out literature to create an awareness of Islam and engage with the public." He was with four volunteers when Crawford began pacing around nearby.

Mr Qayyum said: "He started tearing up pages from a book and they were going on the floor. He wasn't saying anything. The pages covered a lot of ground, they were everywhere. I then noticed Arabic inscriptions and realised it was the Koran. I knelt down and was picking up the papers when he threw the Koran down, just missing me."

Mr Qayyum said: "The Koran is sacred to us and we honour it. We also have a Bible on our stand and we show the Bible the same respect. One of the laws of the Koran is it shouldn't be on the floor, it should be high up and our hands should be clean when it's touched. I was shocked."

Mr Quyyum said after the defendant was arrested: "He made a signal to us, shaping his hand in the form of a gun, saying 'See you next Saturday'."

Defence advocate Steven Newcombe said: "There are many who oppose Islam. Did you take it he was expressing anti-Islamic views and disrespecting the religion?"

"Yes," said Mr Quyyum.

Mr Quyyum agreed that apart from a hand gesture – which Mr Newcombe suggested was the pointing of a finger rather than a gun gesture – the defendant did not threaten or provoke any violence.

Another stall volunteer, Zahid Hussein, said: "I saw him ripping up the book. I was in shock, disgusted. It's our life, our way of life and we live by that book – it's very sacred." He said Crawford told them their religion was "a load of b******s."

Crawford, of Mere Road, Spinney Hill, Leicester, claimed, in interview, he was expressing his disagreement with religion of any kind. He told the police it was his own copy of the Koran he tore up, and he would have done the same with a Bible as he did not understand either holy book and "hated" all religion. "I'm not against the people, just their religion," he said.

James Bide-Thomas, prosecuting, said: "The real issue is whether Crawford was insulting and whether it was a crime that we say he committed. It's tradition in this country of freedom of speech and people are entitled to say what they want, as long as it's not illegal in relation to the law, which prevents people going out to cause harassment, alarm or distress by insulting behaviour, basically upsetting people.

"It's for you to decide whether what he did was insulting or whether it was a legitimate piece of freedom of speech being exercised or if what he did was deliberately calculated to upset the people from the Islamic Information Centre."

The trial continues.

Leicester Mercury, 20 December 2012

View the Original article

A leading member of the English Defence League banned from every football ground in the country has been spotted heading for Arsenal matches, the Old Bailey heard.

Joel Titus, 21, was banned from football after he led a mass brawl outside Liverpool Street station more than two years ago. At that time he led Brentford fans in a charge on rival Leyton Orient supporters.

But he has dodged the ban by switching allegiance to Arsenal and joining fellow hooligans in pubs, stations and on supporters coaches, the court was told. The leader of the youth wing of the EDL has also moved to Highbury to be closer to Arsenal's Emirates Stadium.

When he was arrested during one clash he was found with a hard-knuckle Kevlar glove – the same type of weapon he used during the earlier Liverpool Street fight.

Police are now applying for his football banning order to be extended to prevent a repeat of his behaviour. Judge Timothy Pontius will pass sentence today.

Evening Standard, 6 December 2012

Also convicted along with Titus for his part the Liverpool Street station brawl was Martin Pottle, who was jailed again earlier this year over the attack on Kingston Mosque.

In addition to his 9-month prison sentence for affray, last year Titus was slapped with an ASBO banning him from attending EDL protests and entering or loitering outside mosques.

Still, Titus does have his admirers. One of them described this convicted thug as follows: "Nice fella, not afraid to get his hands dirty (so what) ... intelligent kid – best of luck to him."

The author of that encomium is former EDL activist Andy Hughes of the Islamic Far-Right in Britain blog, whose witch-hunting anti-Muslim articles have been approvingly cross-posted at Harry's Place.

View the Original article

A constitutional court in Poland reportedly has ruled against allowing Jewish and Muslim ritual slaughter in the country. The Warsaw court's ruling, which was made known on Tuesday, said the government had acted unconstitutionally when it exempted Jews and Muslims from stunning animals before slaughtering them as their faiths require, according to Piotr Kadlcik, president of the Union of Jewish Communities in Poland.

JTA, 27 November 2012

View the Original article

The legal battle over alimony payments in New Jersey has turned into a clash of civilizations with an activist group accusing an Arab Muslim judge of imposing Sharia, or Islamic law, on Family Court cases.

Family Court Judge Hany Mawla first made headlines in 2010 when then-Gov. Jon S. Corzine made him the first Muslim-American appointed to state Superior Court.

Mawla lately has drawn renewed attention for his rulings on alimony payments. In one case, which is being championed by advocates of alimony reform, Pennsylvania resident John Waldorf remains in Hunterdon County Jail after a month because he was unable to pay his ex-wife the $8,000 monthly payments Mawla ordered.

"It is obvious what Judge Mawla is doing is a 'jihad' against men in general and fathers specifically," Bruce Eden, civil rights director of the state chapter of Dads Against Discrimination, said in a statement this week. "Therefore, as a fathers' rights group we intend to initiate a 'crusade' to remove this vermin from the bench."

In an interview, Eden said Mawla, whose parents moved to Egypt when he was a boy, is following the Sharia practice of throwing debtors in jail.

MyCentralJersey.com, 17 November 2012

See also "Alimony reformers distance themselves from 'anti-Muslim' attack on Family Court judge", MyCentralJersey.com, 17 November 2012

You'd think that even Jihad Watch would balk at this paranoid nonsense. But no, Robert Spencer reproduces Eden's idiotic accusation against Mawla and comments: "That's a reasonable question that bears investigating. But instead, we get the usual cries of 'bigotry' from Hamas-linked CAIR."

View the Original article

A German dental practice which refused to hire a young Muslim woman because she insisted on wearing a headscarf at work broke the law, it was reported on Thursday. The court ruling is the first of its kind for the country.

A young Berlin woman applied last summer for a traineeship to become a dental assistant. Despite being qualified and getting along with staff, she was told that she could not have the position unless she removed her headscarf, the Tagesspiegel newspaper said.

This was religious discrimination, the city's labour court ruled. A headscarf was not an "arbitrary piece of clothing" but an expression of her beliefs and wearing it was part of her right to religious freedom. Refusing to employ because of her headscarf was in breach of the Equal Treatment Act, the judge said.

The court also rejected the suggestion that headscarves could pose a hygiene risk to patients. There was no more chance of transferring bacteria with a scarf than there was via human hair, the judge said.

The Spandau-based dental surgery argued that they had a right to religious neutrality in the clinic. But the judge said that as "it was in no way a religious institution," this was not valid.

Other women who had appealed for the right to wear a headscarf at work have lost in the past, generally because they had taken church-related employers to court.

The woman applied for the position in the summer of 2011. When she was rejected she decided, with help from the Turkish Association of Berlin and Brandenburg, to take the practice to court.

The Local, 18 October 2012

See also "German court rules in favor of headscarf freedom", Today's Zaman, 18 October 2012

View the Original article

A court in Moscow ruled Monday that an anti-Islam film that has sparked violent demonstrations around the world can no longer be shown in Russia.

Tverskoi court's ruling follows a similar local decision taken last week by a court in Grozny, the provincial capital of Russia's Muslim-dominated province of Chechnya.

In Moscow, Justice Ministry spokeswoman Marina Gridneva said the film was deemed extremist because it could incite ethnic and religious hatred.

Russia's communications minister had warned that authorities would bar access to YouTube if its owner, Google Inc., failed to abide by a court order to block access in this nation to the U.S.-produced film, which mocks Muslims and the Prophet Muhammad.

Google in Russia has said it could restrict access to the video, if it received a court order outlawing it, but the company declined to discuss that issue with The Associated Press on Monday evening.

The low-budget film, "Innocence of Muslims," was produced by a U.S. citizen and denigrated the Prophet Muhammad by portraying Islam's holiest figure as a fraud, womanizer and child molester.

The RIA-Novosti news agency quoted mufti Shafig Pshikhachev, head of the Coordination Center of Muslims in the North Caucasus, as welcoming Monday's court ruling in Moscow.

"This is a positive step in defense of believers," Pshikhachev said. "Unfortunately, we are witnessing such events regularly, so I think the adoption of a law is good. We need a legal method of protecting the faithful and our holy places."

Associated Press, 1 October 2012

View the Original article

A former soldier wrote anti-Islamic comments on his Facebook page he started supporting the English Defence League (EDL).

Kenneth Holden, 30, was arrested after police were alerted to two updates he posted on his personal page on the social network site, abusing Muslims.

Holden, of Winskell Road, South Shields, pleaded guilty to two counts of sending an offensive message by a public communication network at South Tyneside Magistrates' Court yesterday.

Claire Wright, prosecuting, said: "On April 21, the two messages were brought to the attention of the police. Officers searched Facebook and found the defendant's page and saw the religiously abusive comments. He was arrested, and asked the police if it was because he didn't like Muslims."

Kevin Smallcombe, defending, said: "He was in the Army, and has some fairly strong views about Muslims. He supports some of the beliefs of the English Defence League and believes that the group was started after some Muslims spat on soldiers who were returning from Afghanistan.

"The comments on Facebook were of a religious nature. Some people say it is part of free speech, but by his guilty plea Mr Holden accepts he crossed the line. Most of our country has fair and tolerant views but some are extremists, on both sides of this argument." Mr Smallcombe added that while Holden supports the EDL, these posts were not in any way to do with the group.

Magistrates adjourned the case until Monday for the probation service to prepare a report about him. He was granted bail until then.

Shields Gazette, 26 September 2012

These abusive anti-Muslim posts "were not in any way to do with" the EDL, a group that specialises in abusing Muslims? Give us a break.

Holden's comments included death threats against Muslims. He claimed to have a pipe bomb and added "GIVE ME A GUN AND AL DO U ALL OSLO STYLE". Yet he was convicted only of sending an offensive message.

Even allowing for the fact that he was presumably charged with a religiously aggravated offence, this seems inexcusably lenient. You can imagine how much more harshly a Muslim would be dealt with if they posted terrorist threats on the internet.

View the Original article

Controversial plans to open a mosque in a former school building in West Bloomfield moved a step closer to reality Friday with a decision by the Michigan Court of Appeals. The appeals court upheld a lower court ruling that found the sale of the former Eagle Elementary to the Islamic Cultural Association was proper.

The Court of Appeals said plaintiffs Melvyn Sternfeld and Eugene Greenstein, West Bloomfield residents who both opposed the sale, failed to prove that they would be harmed by the transaction. "Sternfeld's vague and speculative affidavit does not establish his standing to pursue declaratory and injunctive relief," the three-judge panel said in its ruling.

It wasn't known whether Sternfeld will appeal the decision to the Michigan Supreme Court. His attorney, Robert Davis, wasn't immediately available for comment.

In its three-page ruling, the three-judge panel wrote that Sternfeld never asserted in court filings that the sale of the school to the ICA would have an impact, negative or otherwise, on his home, life or activities "because of close proximity" to the former school. "There is no injury, other than a hypothetical one," said the appeals court.

The ICA wants to convert the former school into a mosque and cultural center, which would be the first to be located in the township. The building was sold by Farmington Public Schools for $1.1 million in June 2011.

But some West Bloomfield residents don't want to live so close to a mosque and Sternfeld and Greenstein tried to stop the sale by filing a lawsuit in Oakland County Circuit Court. A Circuit judge dismissed the case.

Detroit News, 21 September 2012

View the Original article

Stoke-on-Trent's BNP leader posted racist articles on a website including claims the city was being "flooded with Muslims and blacks", a court heard.

Former city councillor Michael Coleman has gone on trial at Stoke-on-Trent Crown Court accused of racially-aggravated harassment. The 46-year-old was reported to police after two blogs he wrote in response to last summer's London riots appeared online.

In them, he said the riots were a perfect example of "the difference in personality, perceptions and values of people of the darker races and ourselves". And he accused Stoke-on-Trent City Council of "flooding this city with Muslims and blacks, a complete population replacement programme. Darkies in, whites out."

Police were called in by Labour city councillor Joy Garner who had been asked to read the blogs by a member of the public.

Coleman, of Caverswall Road, Weston Coyney, admitted writing the entries, but denies intending to cause harassment, alarm or distress.

Mrs Garner told the jury: "I couldn't believe it. It really angered me. I felt real disgust."

The blogs, which were posted by Coleman on Stokepatriot.blogspot.com on August 9 and September 12, were read out in court.

In the first he wrote about the riots saying: "London darkies have reacted with violence. The darkies have exposed their true nature in siding with criminality." In the second, Coleman, who became a BNP councillor for Meir North in 2007 and lost his seat in 2011, criticised the council. Talking about immigration, the father-of-three wrote: "The ultimate outcome will be a city with no jobs, 100 mosques, a massive crime wave and thousands of very poor elderly folk."

Following Mrs Garner's complaint, Coleman voluntarily attended a police interview. He was later charged with intending to cause racially-aggravated harassment, alarm or distress by displaying writing, a sign or other representation, which was threatening, abusive or insulting.

Giving evidence yesterday, former JCB worker Coleman said he used the website to express his personal views and communicate with BNP members.

Asked about the language he said: "We had been warned against using the word 'black' in the party. Instead of using that 'darkie' came to mind. It's a good old English word, I'm a good old English boy. If people are offended I'm sorry."

The jury was due to consider its verdict today.

The Sentinel, 5 September 2012

Update:  See "BNP member Michael Coleman guilty of racism charges", BBC News, 5 September 2012

View the Original article

Two police officers are accused of perverting the course of justice over an incident which happened during the English Defence League demonstration in Bolton town centre. The charges relate to an incident involving one of the Unite Against Fascism counter-protesters, Alan Clough, from Radcliffe, who was allegedly attacked by police.

Now police officers Robert Cantrell and Alan Glover have been summonsed to appear at York Magistrates' Court on September 11. They have both been summonsed to face charges of perverting the course of justice.

Mr Clough, a UAF demonstrator, had been charged with using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour during the protests, which happened in Victoria Square on March 20, 2010. He strongly denied the accusation – but the case against him was dropped when video footage emerged of him apparently being attacked by police.

The footage, which was shot by Granada TV and obtained by Mr Clough's defence team, appeared to show the 63-year-old being pushed to the ground and hit on the head with a baton by police officers.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) decided to drop the case against Mr Clough on the day it was due to start at Bolton Magistrates Court in October, 2010.

Campaign group Justice4bolton, which was set up after the demonstration, alleged that the police used heavy-handed tactics on the day and called for an inquiry.

Bolton News, 31 August 2012

Update:  See "Riot officer to face perverting course of justice charge in probe into policing of EDL demo in Bolton", Manchester Evening News, 31 August 2012

View the Original article