Evil Christian extremists held to account for their crimes
The BBC reports:
The leader and deputy leader of far-right group Britain First have been found guilty of religiously-aggravated harassment.
Paul Golding, 36, and Jayda Fransen, 32, were arrested over the distribution of leaflets and posting of online videos during a gang-rape trial.
Fransen was convicted of three counts of religiously aggravated harassment. Golding was found guilty of one charge.
Both were jailed at Folkestone Magistrates’ Court.
Fransen was handed a 36-week sentence and Golding 18 weeks.
During their trial in January, the court heard they had targeted homes and people in Kent whom they believed were connected to a rape trial at Canterbury Crown Court where three Muslim men and a teenager were convicted of rape and jailed.
Offensive leaflets
They filmed the abuse and then released it on social media and through the Britain First website.
They also posted offensive leaflets through the letterboxes of houses in the area where the rape-trial defendants lived.
The pair, both from Penge in south-east London, were arrested in May last year.
Fransen had denied four counts while Golding denied three. Judge Justin Barron dismissed the remaining counts.
Giving evidence, Fransen had denied being a racist and said she had carried out campaigns against people accused of sex offences.
Mr Golding told the court he had often acted as Fransen’s cameraman.
Image copyrightPABoth Fransen and Golding were convicted on a joint charge of religiously aggravated harassment after an incident last May at 555 Pizza takeaway in Ramsgate, when Fransen banged on the windows and doors of the shop and screamed “paedophile” and “foreigner”.
Fransen was convicted of abuse after visiting a house she wrongly believed to be the current address of Sershah Muslimyar, a defendant in the trial.
She was also convicted of visiting the Kent home of another defendant, Tamin Rahmani, and shouting racist abuse through the front door while his pregnant partner Kelli Best was there.
‘Hostility’ towards Muslims
Judge Barron said Fransen and Golding were “well-known”, “controversial” and “generate their own publicity”, but his verdict was based “solely on admissible evidence heard in court”.
He said their words and actions “demonstrated hostility” towards Muslims and the Muslim faith.
“I have no doubt it was their joint intention to use the facts of the case [in Canterbury] for their own political ends.
“It was a campaign to draw attention to the race, religion and immigrant background of the defendants.”
Categories: Christian extremism, Islam, Islamophobia
Blogging Theology 
Oh dear..oh dear dear dear.
Couldn’t happen to a nicer couple
LikeLiked by 2 people
😂😂😂
LikeLiked by 2 people
I agree patrobin. Admirable people.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’m just glad that these two dangerous extremists have been locked up maybe they will share a ward with anjem choudhary
LikeLiked by 2 people
They’d either end up killing eachother or collaborating on a prison takeover 😂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Why do you compare this scum to Anjem Choudary?
LikeLike
Because he’s a bigoted doofus like britain first
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nobody was able to present Islam that well on TV discussions like Anjem. It’s not appropriate to compare him to right wing trash.
LikeLike
Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Tim Winter, Mohammad Al-Yaqoubi, Hamza Yusuf, Hamza Tzortszis, Ziauddin Sardar, Yasmin Mogahed, Dawud Walid, Omar Suilemann, Yasir Qadhi are all far better expositors of Islam both in the East and West, Anjem is an extremist nut job who supports terrorists groups who are killing Muslims and non-Muslims in droves. Who is in prison because of said links to said groups and is responsible for radicalising people to join them. The man is a buffoon and a dangerous one at that.
LikeLike
I have to agree with Pat Robins above comment. Anjem Choudhary was a liability and did a lot of damage to the image of Islam, which will take a lot of work on the part of good Muslims everywhere to undo. By presenting such a negative image of Islam, Anjem was either knowingly or unknowingly (Allahu alim) playing into the hands of the enemy’s of Islam.
We don’t need “help” from those like him, especially when there are other Muslims available that are far more acceptable, agreeable, tolerant, and peaceful in presenting positive and accurate portrayals of Islam.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good points!
LikeLike
Prison sentences for non-conformist speech is facism.
LikeLike
Nope try inciting hatred towards the Muslim community which is hate speech ergo why they are having a time out at two of her majesties lovely prisons.
Read the article to find out just how their disgusting behaviour has affected innocent people even potentially the death of an unborn child. They deserve more if this is the truth.
Abu I have discovered footage of said jailbreak in progress breaking news!
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Erasmus,
Set aside for a moment that a “good Christian” like Erasmus is defending a disgusting hate group….
…and focus on the fact that Britain First is well known as a far right FASCIST political organization….and Erasmus bizarrely defends them with a cry baby accusation of….. “fascism”???!!!
weirdly Ironic.
LikeLike
Ignoramus, so are you against prison sentences for people who deny the Holocaust, as is the law in some European countries?
LikeLike
The predator helping the predator.
LikeLike
I am against prison sentences for those who deny the holocaust. Speech should not criminalized. A tyrannical Government suppresses the right of its citizens to fight wickedness by putting on a mask of altruism.
LikeLike
Should freedom of speech include inciting violence/hatred toward a community which could cause harm to them physically and psychologically?
LikeLike
Yes, I believe so. Speech does not compel anyone to commit violence. The law also forbids us. So the proper response should be to ridicule and to hold those in contempt who call for such violence, not to put them in jail.
Also it is the right of every man to hate what is evil and wicked and to make his aversion public. This is what totalitarian regimes are against. This is the real reason for hate speech laws in my opinion. It is a kind of blasphemy law to outlaw speech that repressive regimes are afraid of because it exposes the bad things that are going on under their rule which they want to hide.
I noticed that there were Muslims around Choundray with banners that read “death to those who insult Islam” or “eradicate those who insult the prophet” or similar but I am sure that none of those people were charged with any crime or put in jail. The government has preferred targets of these laws which it seeks to silence and turns a blind eye to other groups committing “hate” crimes.
LikeLike
Erasmus,
Please try to keep your comments in the same “string” of the discussion otherwise it gets confusing (especially when there are a lot of comments). Click “reply” underneath the comment you want to reply to, and then enter your comments in the comment box that pops up. As the conversation progress, just scroll to the initial comment and click reply to keep your comments in the same string.
LikeLike
Erasmus,
The EDL members were not convicted because they exercised free speech. They were convicted because they engaged in “religiously aggravated harassment” which is a form of verbal abuse and intimidation. In one case or two cases their anger and hate was directed at someone who was entirely innocent and not even involved in any related offense or wrongdoing.
So don’t try and spin this in to a free speech issue. It is about personal harassment and intimidation.
LikeLike
Erasmus,
In regard to the Muslims with banners you mentioned, I agree with you that this is not acceptable behavior on the part of Muslims or anyone else, and I would have personally advised against it.
However, I am not a lawyer, but I would assume that since their statements were more general and did not threaten, harass or intimidate any one individual in particular they were not in violation of any British laws in the way that the members of the EDL did.
LikeLike
Sorry. My last reply was to Patrobins question:
“Should freedom of speech include inciting violence/hatred toward a community which could cause harm to them physically and psychologically?”
LikeLike
Which reply, the one above or below? you can see how it gets confusing when you don’t keep your comments in the same thread!! 🙂
You have to scroll back up to the original comment in the thread and click reply, then your comment will appear as the last comment in the thread. Just trying to help.
LikeLike
We have a right and a duty to scrutinize each other’s behavior for the sake of protecting our fellow citizens from harm. If it is necessary to publicly accuse a group or an individual for the sake of protecting the weak of our society then that to me is more important than protecting the feelings and self-esteem of the accused. Because of the prevalance of evil in our society it is a price that all should be willing to pay, in my view, for the sake of the common good. It should be more important to protect the weak and vunerable in our society than protecting the reputation of a religious or secular group.
LikeLike
FYI, under some comments there is no word “reply” which can be clicked. For example under the last two comments of Ibn Issam.
I reply,
I would ask what was the nature of this “harassment”?
There was no violence or physical damage involved so a prison sentence was not justified in my view.
This is just an example of doctrinaire and ideological infringement of liberty on the part of the governing power to instil fear and intimidate others who would like to voice uncomfortable non-conformist views in the public sphere.
LikeLike
Erasmus,
You have to scroll back up to the original comment in the thread and click reply, then your comment will appear as the last comment in the thread. Just trying to help.
I think there has to be some boundary line across which we cannot accept certain forms of speech. In my line of work, verbal abuse and harassment is grounds to be fired from the job. why would it be any different in the public sphere. You are concerned about the governing power to instill fear and intimidate (and I understand your concerns) but you seem to have no concern for the individual victims who were harassed, intimidated, verbally abused and put into a state of fear due to the action of the EDL members. If it was Muslims who were doing such to an individual Christian victim how would you feel? I can tell you that I would be equally dismayed and upset.
LikeLiked by 1 person