Skip to comments.The Muslim Hate Preacher and the T-Shirt Salesman: a Bizarre Study in Double Standards
Posted on 06/05/2013 12:15:27 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Compare and contrast. A few days ago, one of Britains best-loved hate preachers, Anjem Choudary, a man so widely admired that we pay him £25,0000 a year in benefits so he can live in this country, was filmed saying murdered Woolwich soldier Lee Rigby will "burn in hellfire" as a non-Muslim.
Choudary then added, in typically disarming manner, that Adebolajo and Adebowale, the two men charged with Drummer Rigbys murder, were doing "what they believed to be Islamically correct", while noting that Michael Adobelajo was "a very nice man".
Quite properly, the police refused to step in. After all, we have the right to free speech in this country, and Choudary said nothing illegal.
Quizzed on the matter, assistant police commissioner Cressida Dick told MPs: "In the case of somebody like Mr Choudary we are constantly assessing whether any of his proclamations are breaking the criminal law." Cressida Dick further explained to MPs that the complexity of legislation surrounding the incitement of religious and racial hatred made it difficult to build a case against Choudary.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.telegraph.co.uk ...
Yes they have Free Speech in Britain...which makes me wonder why the comments section on this piece is closed....
On what basis do they have Free Speech in Britain? There is no First Amendment or Constitution.
Hate crime laws were created for the express purpose of criminalizing anything a non-minority says or does, or doesn’t say or doesn’t do, while setting free minority people who do anything against a non-minority.
Britain has a constitution, although it is a looser one than the US.
Comments section are shut for one of two reasons:
1—If its an ongoing criminal case, the very strict laws of prejudice in the UK dont allow newspapers/media to print public comments.
2—The papers shut them down because of obscene remarks, trolls etc.
Yes, I have, top to bottom, several times. I did say that the British version is different to the US. You seem to think that as it is different to the US, its inferior or simply dosent exist.
BTW, my constitution gives me a constitutional right to vote. Yours dosent.
As a second point, (and I know this will come off as trying to be controversial, but I don't intend it that way) is there anything, other than what the people at Downing Street and Westminster feel, that says they are obligated to let people in Scotland vote or have a say? Anything they have done in that regard is simply their "generosity and magnanimity, no?
This conversation is interesting, but I fear that the Obamadork, his West Wing Clown Show of Felon/Cretins, and the “Just-Us” dept headed by Mr Quota baby himself would love to render our Constitution irrelevant...and are doing a pretty good job thus far. Methinks the UK populace will come to the correct conclusions (and actions) sooner than we will.
Such is our Republican form of government. It is one check against mob rule.
Britain has only traditions and laws, and the concept of Parliamentary Supremacy. In countries with Parliamentary Supremacy, there is not -- nor can there ever be -- a Constitution, because there is no power above the legislature. Rights Englishmen have enjoyed since Magna Carta can be swept away by nothing more than a majority vote.
Witness, for example, the English Bill of Rights (containing a few, very immature, ideas about ordered liberty.) That so called "Bill of Rights" contains a provision for the right to keep and bear arms. That provision was long ago destroyed in all meaningful senses by acts of Parliament.
The Constitution does indeed and explicitly recognize that enfranchised voters must exist, in several places. The most basic is a Constitutional requirement that every State must provide a representative form of government. That is not possible without the Franchise.
Beyond that, the US Constitution DOES guarantee a right to vote; it specifically qualifies certain people as adults for the purposes of voting but otherwise does not specifically say who may vote because the matter of determining the qualifications and rules for election are not part of the basic Federal charter; that is a power reserved for the States.
Brush up on your US Constitutional Law if you intend to comment on it.
Supreme Court, Bush v Gore, stated that Americans do not have a constitutional right to vote.
‘”The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States.”
—Supreme Court, 2000.’
Americans dont have a constitutional right to vote. What exists is a set of amendments detailing what form of discriminations against a person’s ability or qualification to vote are not allowed.
But the actual right to vote dosent exist. A fact which Gore v Bush in 2000 at the Supreme Court confirmed.
The 19th simply prohibits stopping women the vote because of their sex. Again, it dosent provide women with (a constitutionally protected) right to vote, it simply takes away any barriers to a woman voting. And the 14th and 15th DONT provide Americans with a constitutional right to vote: they simply stop someone being denied the chance to vote because of race or any form of discrimination.
Stopping the denial of the right to vote is not the same thing as the actual right to vote.
The Ninth Amendment for example does not actually give any rights, but rather just makes a statement about them. All it does is protect a person’s right to vote, free from intent to stop them from doing so.
‘’In light of the recent election, I thought I would write a quick quiz for all you lawyer-types out there: Which constitutional amendment guarantees American citizens the right to vote? Dont look ahead, just guess. If you said any number at all, Im sorry, but youre wrong. In fact, there is no clause in the Constitution granting the right to vote. As with driving a car or staying up late on school nights, voting in the United States is a privilege, not a right. If you dont believe me, look it up. Americans have the right to own a gun, but they do not possess the right to vote. This isnt good; there needs to be a new constitutional amendment that explicitly enfranchises citizens.
But, you might argue, what about the 15th Amendment, giving people of all races the right to vote? Or the 26th Amendment, granting 18-year-olds the right to go to the polls? Well, the actual texts of each amendment do not give anyone the right to vote, but instead are non-discrimination clauses: They state that the right to vote shall not be abridged or denied on account of gender, age, race or previous condition of servitude.
Only states can grant citizens the privilege of voting. Of course, its easy to call me fussy for differentiating between having a right and not being denied a right. The Supreme Court, however, would disagree. Justice Antonin Scalia, in Bush v. Gore, continuously reminded lawyers that there is no explicit right to vote in the United States Constitution. The majority opinion agreed: The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States (Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104 ).
According to federal law, citizens do not have the right to vote for electors, who in turn are not obligated to vote in the peoples interest.’
In Search of the Right to Vote
Right to Vote Frequently Asked Questions
Americans dont have the right to vote (?!)
Thank you for the reply. Very good post, although I would argue against the calling of the English Bill of Rights as immature in parts. I think its a better and more rounded document than that. Also Scotland also has a Bill of Rights. The US BoR was influenced by both.
I would like to think I know my US constitutional law fairly well, thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.