English Police Apparently Arrest Man for Criticizing Immigration of Supporters of Palestinians

From the Express (UK) (Max Parry) (expurgation, of course, in the news story):

The arrest, made at 9.55pm on Tuesday, October 31 in east London, comes after a video was posted on Facebook where the person behind the camera appears to condemn the number of Palestinian flags on Bethnal Green Road.

The person filming appears to say: "Look at this cr*p here," while zooming in on a number of flags attached to lamp posts and road signs.

"You let them into the country and this the s**** they come up with," the person then adds.

The police spokesperson said:

We are aware of a video circulating on social media that shows the arrest of a man on suspicion of a racially aggravated Section 5 public order offence….

We take all allegations of hate crime incredibly seriously. Where offences have taken place, our officers are attending, supporting victims and making arrests - and we will continue to do so.

Comments

[Kleppe]

Palestinian is a race now, apparently. This is literally what liberals want in the United States, for what it's worth; arrests and prosecutions for making mouth sounds they disapprove of.

[Longtobefree]

"We take all allegations of hate crime incredibly seriously. Where offences have taken place, our officers are attending, supporting victims and making arrests—and we will continue to do so."

(unless the perps are Muslim)

[jdgalt1]

It’s worse than that. UK police still have a policy — nationwide, apparently — to let Middle Eastern migrants rape all the schoolgirls they want, with impunity, lest one of them accuse the cops of racism. This is the same issue Tommy Robinson brought up years ago; their response to him is to put him on parole, so he can’t speak or write any more about the problem, and forbid him leaving the UK, so he can’t collect any more humanitarian awards like the one the Danish parliament gave him.

Naturally the police now give high priority to all complaints of racism, no matter how obviously bogus, unless they're made by whites.

If God doesn’t destroy Westminster, he owes Sodom an apology.

[M L]

I was shocked when I read a good recounting of the sort of fiasco you are describing from the UK several years ago. I can't remember where I read it, but something like this from 2014:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerscruton/2014/08/30/why-did-british-police-ignore-pakistani-gangs-raping-rotherham-children-political-correctness/?sh=30ead7f3754a

Is this sort of thing still happening?

[Martinned]

Fortunately right wingers are no more likely than left wingers to believe in conspiracy theories. Glad we cleared that up.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That sounds bad. Not as bad as the comments Prof. Volokh sought to attract from his fans with this, but bad.

Here is one Prof. Volokh doesn't seem as interested in.

Here is another.

Maybe if someone can find a transphobic angle to a bombed refugee camp, or a Muslim drag queen at the settlements, Prof. Volokh might be more interested.

[mydisplayname]

Meanwhile, back in the US, there's a dispute over the difference between a totally unacceptable cease fire and an obviously wise pause in aggression. Those who have been collaterally damaged by the boots on the ground deployed as part of the ongoing contingency operation are seemingly unmoved by the dispute.

Freedom and forthrightness always join truth as a casualty of war... often to the benefit of those possessing power.

[David Welker]

Bingo. That is always what suppressing freedom of speech is. It is always and everywhere a power grab. One that fundamentally denies the equality of people to think for themselves.

[Kazinski]

I sure am glad the UK has a constitution that protects freedom of speech.

Or at least I've been told it does, I've never seen much evidence of it.

[Martinned]

It does, for now. But the Tories are doing their best to dismantle it. The same Home Secretary who is in charge of all police also called for the repeal of the Human Rights Act on many occasions, for example.

[David Welker]

Martinned:

The UK does not believe in freedom of speech. Not with things like this happening.

I think we should keep the UK at a further distance than we do now. They are backsliding away from democracy.

[Martinned]

Maybe you should invade and restore free speech here like you did in Iraq.

[David Welker]

Invading Iraq was a morally correct decision. Saddam Hussein was a dictator who used poison gas on Iraq's own citizens.

I wouldn't invade the UK. I just don't think we should have such close relations with it when it is backsliding from respecting basic individual rights, basic political rights, and democracy itself.

If they are asking for favorable trade relations, we should consider their human rights record. Including their respect or lack of respect for the fundamental right of free speech.

[Rossami]

You have said in the past that you are not from the US so I've always tried to grant you some leeway about your ignorance of US law. I'm now questioning your knowledge of non-US law.

Where, precisely, in the UK constitution is there a clause the protects freedom of speech?

I ask because, unlike most countries, the UK does not have a single codified constitution. What they do have honors some constitutional principles, the first of which is Parliamentary sovereignty - in other words, the legislature can do whatever it wants on all but a very few issues. If the legislature can change the rules by mere statute, then by definition there is no constitutional protection.

[Martinned]

I’m getting a weird glitch when I’m trying to post.

By way of test, let me point out that the US has not one constitution but 51.

[Edit: What I was trying to post]

I get the impression that you are not from the UK, so I’m going to grant you some leeway about your ignorance about non-US law. (Although your comment makes me wonder about your knowledge of US law too, but let’s leave that for another day.)

The UK has a set of laws that govern how laws are made. That is what a constitution is, unless you subscribe to the approach of the French declaration of the rights of man and of the citizen (in which case hardly any country would have a constitution).

The UK has a set of constitutional statutes, one of which is the Human Rights Act. The Human Rights Act incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic UK law. The rights protected by the ECHR and the Human Rights Act include the freedom of thought, conscience and religion, the freedom of expression, and the freedom of assembly and association. The Human Rights act prohibits all servants of the Crown, including police officers and courts, from violating the said rights. And so if this case ever goes to trial, someone will have to explain why the defendant didn't act within his art. 10 rights.

The fact that Parliament can legislate contrary to the Human Rights Act, or can legislate to amend or repeal the Human Rights Act, is not relevant for the present case. All constitutions can be amended. In this case, Parliament has not legislated to somehow make the Human Rights Act inapplicable, and the possibility that it might do so is irrelevant.

[Martinned]

I'm hesitant about recommending that you read the Human Rights Act, because it might make you more confused not less. But here it is: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents

[Martinned]

And if you need a quick refresher on the concept of constitutional statutes, this (pre-Brexit) blog post seems to do the trick: https://lawsblog.london.ac.uk/2015/03/16/constitutional-statutes/

[David Welker]

You had better not question the people with the “woke-mind virus.”

You must agree with them. Or else.

“We take all allegations of hate crime incredibly seriously.”

Of course. Because if someone thinks and advocates for their opinions, who knows, they might change minds. And that might be a problem for those who are currently in power.

So, let me get this straight. You can’t observe what you believe to be a negative impact of allowing the immigration of a particular group, because that is just hateful?

And I think one could validly view the flying of the flag of another nation as a negative impact. You could also validly view that as a positive impact. The point is, it is supposed to be up to individuals to decide on their own what is positive and what is negative.

This is what “woke” people would do here in America if we let them.

Cancel culture is a cancer and it must be fought. First, they will make it so that no one is willing to speak due to fear of private retribution. Then the politicians will start hitting our core First Amendment rights next.

Dems have talked about how they want to expand the size of the Supreme Court. You could see how they might nominate a bunch of woke fanatics who refuse to respect the First Amendment.

These illiberal and anti-democratic trends are very concerning.

Again, it is actually very simple. Democracy itself depends on people being able to express their opinions. If you don’t agree with someone’s opinion, you can try initiating a conversation with them. But if you seek to destroy them, or cancel them, you are the problem.

[Martinned]

By the way, while I am very much opposed to these kinds of vaguely defined public order offences, I’m not sure that this was a close call for the police. I live about 2 miles away from Bethnal Green, and between here and there live about 150,000 mostly-Bangladeshi Muslims. Understandably most of these people have strong opinions about the Palestinian cause, and standing in the middle of the street effectively calling them a bunch of c*** is definitely likely to provoke some disturbances against the public order. So if it’s your job to enforce the law as it stands, an arrest does seem warranted.

[David Welker]

No wonder this guy doesn't think there should be as much immigration from these groups.

You are saying that people from these groups won't respect freedom of speech? Well, it really sounds like they shouldn't be in the UK then.

Your endorsement of a heckler's veto, or siding with bullies over those seeking to express their opinion, is extremely problematic.

It is completely valid to restrict immigration of people who are a threat to democracy or a threat to free speech or a threat to any other fundamental right.

[Martinned]

Your endorsement of a heckler’s veto

Why do you insist on knowingly misrepresenting what I said? I went out of my way to say clearly that I don't endorse this law. But the entire point of the law is to facilitate a heckler's veto.

[ThePublius]

"...effectively calling them a bunch of c*** is definitely likely to provoke some disturbances against the public order. So if it’s your job to enforce the law as it stands, an arrest does seem warranted."

"Why do you insist on knowingly misrepresenting what I said? I went out of my way to say clearly that I don’t endorse this law. "

That seems like a pretty clear contradiction to me. I agree with David. I came up with the same term reading your post, "heckler's veto," before seeing David's response.

An arrest is warranted, not of the person criticizing the flags, but of those who would attack him for saying it!

[Martinned]

An arrest is warranted, *given what the law is*. That is in no way, shape or form, an endorsement of what the law is. I don't know how to make this any simpler.

[Idihax]

Islam is a caustic blend of regurgitated paganism and twisted Bible stories. Muhammad, its lone prophet, conceived his religion solely to satiate his lust for power, sex, and money. He was a terrorist.

[Martinned]

Speaking of a racially aggravated public order offence:

Conservative MP Bob Stewart guilty of racially abusing activist

A Conservative MP has been found guilty of a racially aggravated public order offence after telling an activist to "go back to Bahrain".

Bob Stewart, MP for Beckenham in south-east London, got into a row with activist Sayed Ahmed Alwadaei outside the Foreign Office's Lancaster House in Westminster on 14 December.

He told Mr Alwadaei: "You're taking money off my country, go away."

During the heated exchange, he added: "Go away, I hate you."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67310954

Again, since it apparently needed repeating, I do not support this law. If it was up to me, it would be repealed yesterday. Also, this conviction seems substantially more borderline than the arrest discussed in the OP.

[Martinned]

The BBC has now added to its reporting, and that doesn't make the case for the prosecution seem any stronger.

Chief magistrate Paul Goldspring fined the MP £600.

Westminster Magistrates' Court heard the 74-year-old had been attending an event hosted by the Bahraini Embassy when Mr Alwadaei, the director of advocacy at the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy, shouted: "Bob Stewart, for how much did you sell yourself to the Bahraini regime?"

Stewart replied: "Go away, I hate you. You make a lot of fuss. Go back to Bahrain."

Mr Alwadaei challenged Stewart on his connections with Bahrain, asking repeatedly whether he had accepted any money from the Bahraini government.

The MP, who was stationed in Bahrain as an Army officer in the 1960s, told the campaigner to "get stuffed" and added: "Bahrain's a great place. End of."

Paul Jarvis, prosecuting, told the court: "Mr Alwadaei felt upset and humiliated by what had taken place."

He added: "He (Stewart) demonstrated racial hostility towards Mr Alwadaei by way of his comments."

However, the prosecutor said Stewart "was not motivated by racial hostility".

Asked for his thoughts on the allegations of racial hostility, Stewart said: "That's absurd, it's totally unfair. My life has been, I don't want to say destroyed, but I am deeply hurt at having to appear in a court like this.

"I am not a racist. He was saying that I was corrupt and that I had taken money.

"My honour was at stake in front of a large number of ambassadors."

Claire Walsh, Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor of the CPS, said: "His claim that his words were misinterpreted was rejected by the court in light of evidence presented by the CPS, including footage filmed by a witness and the victim's testimony.

"Hatred of any kind has no place in society and wherever our legal test is met, the CPS will not hesitate to prosecute those who perpetrate hate crimes."

The MP was also ordered to pay legal costs of £835.

His £600 fine would have been £400 had it not been for the seriousness of the hate crime he committed, the CPS said.

[Anthony4]

I have called the London precinct that made the arrest of the man for complaining about the illegal raising of the Palestinian flags in London street corners, and illegal immigrants taking over the city of London. I conveyed that the arrogant officer that executed the arrest warrant is a dead man walking. Also, the agony that all London precinct members (dispach, beat cop, chief of police) will suffer after the whirlwind of consequences arrive to their department, and how unfortunate for their family members's as they will suffer agony for this stupid, illconcieved arrest warrant. "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" ( Sir Newton).