We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

The Lionheart case

Instapundit has linked to this story, but I am not yet wholly convinced. I am happy to add to the general blog-yell that may or may not now be going up everywhere in the non-pro-Islamic blogosphere, but suspect – although I could be entirely wrong in my suspicion – that this may turn out to be a bit of an exaggeration:

I am currently out of the Country and on my return home to England I am going to be arrested by British detectives on suspicion of Stirring up Racial Hatred by displaying written material” contrary to sections 18(1) and 27(3) of the Public Order Act 1986.

This charge if found guilty carries a lengthy prison sentence, more than what most paedophiles and rapists receive, …

At the risk of being pedantic, what precisely happened? Did Lionheart get a letter? If so, what, precisely, did it say? To be even more pedantic, the phrase “This charge if found guilty” It does not fill me with confidence. Nor does it that, on what is obviously such an important matter, Lionheart has allowed a pair of inverted commas to go awol. But maybe that is to read too much into what is merely some stressed-out grammar.

I suspect that, if any ruckus does now occur, there will in due course be an announcement to the effect that Mr Lionheart has entirely misunderstood the situation and has nothing to fear, free speech is sacred, blah blah. If that does happen, it may then be hard to know how much this official clarification will be a true clarification of what had, truly, been the attitude of the authorities, and how much it will be a tactical retreat in the face of an Instalaunch, and of any blogosphere and mainstream media fuss that follows from it. But whatever has been and turns out to be the true story here, I would now like to know a bit more.

Lionheart’s central claim, albeit floridly expressed, is one I have come around agreeing with, having started out (on 9/12) believing the opposite. The enemy is not “Islamic extremism”. The enemy is Islam. Although please note that this says nothing about the manner in which this enemy should be responded to. I daresay I might disagree somewhat with Lionheart’s ideas about that.

But even if I disagreed with Lionheart about everything, I still agree with Instapundit’s attitude:

I don’t know much about the blogger, but I don’t need to – people shouldn’t be arrested merely for blogging things that the powers-that-be don’t like.

If Lionheart’s claim that he faces arrest just for blogging his mind are correct, then of course it is everything-and-the-kitchen-sink time. Let battle be joined. But for now, I would like just a little more reconnaissance.

77 comments to The Lionheart case

  • Nick M

    Gates of Vienna jumped the shark a while back, especially with their support for assorted neo-Nazi types in Europe. They seem to be working themselves up into a gleeful lather over the prospect of a European “civil war” vs Islam.

    Check out their spat with the generally sane Charles Johnson’s LGF.

  • I’m just going to have to repost my article explaining that but for Islam, Western civilisation would not have… well, civilisation.

    Posted on an American web site that brought me a record eleven death threats. I was quite pround.

  • I don’t think it will get you any death threats here, Ian, although it may well get you laughed at.

    It may also get your comments deleted for spamming us with something completely off-topic. We have often written about Islam and Western Civilisation but that is not the topic of this article. This article is about civil liberties in the UK.

  • Lee Kelly


    I would try posting your article on an Islamic website. I imagine that you might receive a similar outraged response. To suggest that Islam is responsible for decadent and blasphemous western civilisation, you may even break your current death threat record.

  • James

    Sane? LGF? What? LGF’s positively foaming at the mouth, in much the same way Michelle Malkin is!

  • Paul Marks

    I doubt that the Byzantines owed much to Islam Mr Thorpe.

    Although for Western Europe missionaries from Irish monasteries (never under the Roman Empire so not undermined by the collapse of Rome) were perhaps more important – they founded institutions as far away as Switzerland. If you are talking about written literature this (with the help of the Irish and others) never died in Europe.

    Even the notion of living in cities never died – although many towns shrank to a very small size in the worst periods of the dark ages.

    As for the “English” – they were much the same people as the Fresians (indeed the language was the same). The Fresians were just outside the Roman Empire.

    “Every Fresian is a King” – why so?

    “For a King is under the power of no one but God – and no Fresian is the under the power of anyone but God”.

    This did not mean that they were chaotic, it meant that they rejected despotic rulers and such late Roman notions as peasants being tied to the soil.

    In much the same way as the Saxons (much the same West Germanic people as the Fresians) with their councils of twelve (not just Norman juries you see) and their inheritance laws allowing near equal rights for women.

    Both Fresians and Saxons refused to accept serfdom serfdom (hence the long resistance to this in England in both late Anglo Saxon and even in Norman times and the break down of the institution after the Black Death?).

    And nor the folk of what is now Norway and Sweden.

    But that would be another story.

    As for the great divide between mainstream (which means French) Western civilization and Islam.

    First there is the division between Church and State – the two swords as it was later called.

    The idea that such things as Popes should not just be the creatures of lords.

    Also there is the idea of SECULAR law.

    Under Islam relgious law became the only real source of law.

    In the West both Roman and Germanic ideas of law survived.

    But let us just take one example – land ownership.

    It used to be said that the Edict of Quierzy in 877 marked the great divide. As under the edict fiefs were hereditary and could not be taken by the power of an arbitary King – i.e. de facto private property in land.

    However, some say that the Edict of Quierzy was just the restating of old principles.

    Whichever is true – it is rather different from the situation under Islamic rulers. Where the ruler may take land with less difficulty.

    Of course many a Western ruler has brought down a rich man (the vile activities of Philip the Fair of France spring to mind), but at least in the West someone has to be framed for a crime.

    Property is rather less difficult to confiscate under Islamic rulers.

    And this was true even before the “closing” of Islamic thought to basic reason in the 12th and 13th centuries.

  • RAB

    Was it the Rottie site Ian?
    Serves you right they bite over there.
    Paul has nailed the history question for you in chicken and egg fashion.
    But back to the main thread.
    This Government was desperate to GET Nik Griffin for the very same kind of thing.
    As we all know they failed dismally.
    Put this kind of rotten Law in front of a Jury and they will find you not guilty every time.
    Lionheart has nothing to fear.

  • Paul Marks


    I have seen Michelle Malkin many times – for a full hour at a time (when the lady used to look after the”O’ Reilly Factor” when Bill O’Reilly was away), Miss Malkin never once foamed at the mouth or even said anything odd.

    So I suspect that attacks on Michelle Malkin are based on the usual tactics of either quoting out of context – or just making up quotes (an old game of the left).

    At least attacks on Ann Coulter have some basis in truth (although I still find this person very worth reading) as Ann Coulter really does not believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution.

    Are you going to tell me that Michelle Malkin does not either?

    However, neither Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin are liars, and nor are they deluded or fools.

    If either one were to tell me that they saw or heard something, that would be good evidence that such a thing occured.

  • Nick M

    Charles Johnson is sane. Many of his commentators are nutters though. Gates of Vienna is totally nuts though.

    The Byzantines owe something very important to Islam – their downfall. I have been to Mystras in Greece – their last stronghold – and it’s very beautiful and very moving.

  • Ian B

    Surely the bigger issue here isn’t whether or not he actually goes to chokey, it’s the fact that we now live in a society in which he credibly could.

    I’m an artist by trade. I don’t draw political stuff, but if I did I would consciously avoid anything to do with Islam etc for two reasons (a) a muslim might kill me and (b) I might fall foul of the “religous hatred” laws.

    It’s almost beyond belief that we’re now in a situation where these things are credible threats. I’ll be honest here. I don’t like Islam very much, and the more extreme it is the less I like it. The same goes for Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Wicca, Scientology, Greenism, Socialism, Conservatism, Fascism, Syndicalism, Anarchism, Thatcherism and Gordon Fucking Brown, because I don’t like ideologies, period, because the more extreme they get they inevitably end up with somebody saying “well, we have no choice, we’re going to have to start killing people”.

    The fact that we now have laws preventing people even criticising approved ideologies scares the daylights out of me.

  • Ian B

    I know Gordon Brown isn’t actually an ideology. I just don’t like him very much.

  • Lee kelly


    The problem is that Islam is extreme by default, and those Muslims who are not extreme are simply not very good Muslims. The Qu’ran is quite unequivocal, “O Prophet! Strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell, and evil refuge indeed”, “O ye who believe! Fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear him”, “Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolators wherever ye find them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is forgiving, merciful”, “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and his messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, (even if they are) people of the book, until they pay the Jizya (the infidel tax) with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued”.

    The main problem with these versus, when compared to similar versus from other religious texts, is that they are presented as open-ended rules of conduct, rather than context specific commands referring to particular people and places. Anyway, you get my point, scary stuff. I do not expect that I would agree with Lionheart on much, but I do agree that Islam is a problem.

  • Ian B

    Contratulations Lee, you suffer from a mental disorder called Islamophobia!

    Note that this now pervasive meme was started up by… The Runnymede Trust, another gang of professional non-jobbers suckling at the teat.

  • Ian B

    Actually, off topic for this thread, but contemplating the Runnymede Mob and their funding; only some of it comes from the taxpayer. Much of it is from grant-making foundations. Which leads me to wonder why lefties are so good at setting up grant-making market-funded foundations, whereas ultra-capitalist libertarians etc don’t seem to have any. Where are the pro-capitalist funding bodies supported by the free market? Shouldn’t it be a natural fit?

  • permanentexpat

    Remember seeing this before?

    “How many wake-up calls do you need?”

  • Lee kelly

    I wonder if there is one person, just one lonesome little man or woman, who works for the Runnymede Trust, with still the capacity for independent and intelligent thought. I had never heard of the Runnymede Trust until now, but it strikes me as quite a loathsome little group of imbeciles, with too much money and influence, I hasten to add.

    Do you think they would take kindly to my Runnymede-Trustophobia? My Islamophobia? My Totalitarianophobia? My Communophobia? My Brownophobia? Of each these I am quite afraid, for each would and does threaten me with violence, confiscates my earnings and erodes my liberty. I am afraid of each as much as I am afraid of the mugger on the street, the burglar on the roof, or the would-be slaver who would have me as his slave.

    I am not in a kind mood tonight, and feel particularly intolerant of little despots, fascists, chanting rhetoric which pays little more than lip-service to values which their cognitively challenged brains scarcely begin to comprehend, and with the mindless will to force everyone else to suffer for their own mistakes.

  • This needs to be watched very carefully indeed.

    But like Brian suggests, I would like a bit more reconnaissance before telling my Huscarls to form a shield wall on this particular hill.

  • Sodra Djavul

    I find it particularly vile that a poster such as Nick M could leave a comment clearly in bad faith over the LGF-Gates of Vienna controversy without being called for making an off-topic post.

    There is disagreement between whether what Charles Johnson has presented of “evidence” is convincing of LGF’s accusations of Nazi sentiment within Belgium’s largest anti-Islamist political group. LGF says yes, Gates says no.

    If it is the policy of blogs such as these that those who dare to disagree with King Charles without factual evidence presented will automatically be regarded as insane or unreliable then it should be openly stated to achieve a clean break.

    I doubt that was the intention of the author of the original post as he posted the link to Gates of Vienna.

    But to be fair, unless members are willing to call their own on OT and dishonest comments like these, it only stands to reason that refutations will be in order by those who disagree.

    I apologize for the off-topic post but that really should have been addressed by regular readers here.

    – Sodra

  • I find it particularly vile that a poster such as Nick M could leave a comment clearly in bad faith over the LGF-Gates of Vienna controversy without being called for making an off-topic post

    I have no dog in that fight and was only vaguely aware it was going on to be honest. I am so busy with non-blog things at the moment it is all I can do to keep up with what is happening on Samizdata half the time!

    However discussing what anti-Islamic blogs say (rather than sweeping topics such as “Islam and Western Civilisation”) is not entirely off-topic, given that the Lionheart case is about an anti-Islamic blogger.

    Also my personal policy is to stamp on off-topic-ness more rigorously the sooner in the thread it occurs. I am happy if after 10 comments things are still more or less on-topic (so this was not a hugely successful thread by that standard), and I am amazed when they are still on-topic after 30 comments.

  • countingcats

    Back on topic –

    I find the lionheart matter to be a WTF posting.

    On his site, rhetoric there is aplenty, but facts are minimal. Which posting initiated this, how was he informed he would be arrested?

    I bear no love for the laws of New Labour, but I see no evidence that they are being applied here.

    Back off topic –

    LGF is rational, although occasionally not terribly sensible. The commentors tho? The lizard army? Well, I gave up on reading them years ago. Nothing to be gained from that exercise.

    Gates of Vienna? Wordy, occasionally incoherent, and recently I have felt a need to wash myself after my intermittent visits. White supremasism is no prettier than its Islamic counterpart.

  • tdh

    In the US, juries, having forgotten the distinction between directed and general verdicts, have been convinced to act against their weak consciences by corrupt and/or ignorant judges. The judges simply tell the jurors that they have to follow the law as they have given it, and that they are only allowed to rule on the (narrow) facts of the case.

    I’m not sure when this started in the US. I suspect that it was before civics classes were eliminated. (The mistaken belief that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the Constitution arises, with much else, from the same pit of ignorance.) But I’ve never heard of the general verdict’s having been eliminated in the UK.

    Telling a judge, at the time when such ought be disclosed, that you will never act against your conscience is a weird experience. On the one hand, they tend to approve. How can they not? On the other, you probably don’t get to sit on the jury.

    Don’t take a jury’s unwillingness to convict for granted.

  • Stephanie

    Lionheart has recently posted additional details on his blog, including the contents of an email he allegedly received from the police. Is this sort of email normal (if anyone knows)? Something about this situation seems a bit off to me.

    I don’t think it was a good idea for Instapundit to tell people to contact the British Embassy. There is too much that we don’t know, and I really hope the Embassy personnel aren’t spending a lot of time responding to calls and/or emails.

  • Nick M

    My comment was, in my opinion, entirely on topic because Brian’s original post (a) said let’s wait and see and (b) cited GoV. I think my opinion on the general plausibility of GoV, which I read increasingly rarely, is therefore something I thought relevant directly to Brian’s implicit question – is this as bad as it looks?

    I agree with countingcats in his GoV vs LGF summary. I think GoV is sensationalist, frequently poorly informed and verging on racist.

    Sodra Djavul,
    I am calling it as I see it. I am not acting in bad faith at all. I no more shill for Charles Johnson (though I read his blog). There has been for a long time a hint of white-supremicism running through the Gates of Vienna and the espousal of Vlaams Belaang etc. as the only alternative to dhimmitude is enough to make both myself and Santa Claus vomit with rage.

    GoV does exactly what MCB or CAIR do, they seek advancement through the conflation of race with religion or ideology.

    On the wider subject of internet censorship I suggest y’all take a butcher’s at Devil’s Kitchen about the plans of dear old Kevin Rudd in the land of Oz.

  • countingcats

    I am sorry, but on this I get the decided feeling that this blog is written, metaphorically at least, in green Mink.

    Lionheart was notified, by the arresting officer, that he, Lionheart, was to be arrested at some time in the future. The arresting officer, having sent the email, was then going to be away for six weeks and would tell Lionheart what it was all about on his return.

    Really? Is that the way the police now work?

    What about this – “You would only be charged following a full investigation based on all the relevant facts and CPS consent”

    CPS consent? Ok, I am willing to be shown to be wrong here, but don’t the CPS get involved only after charges have been laid by the police? Otherwise it would inply that the CPS are part of the investigative process.


    If this was me I would have been demanding detailed explanations thirty seconds after receiving such an email.

    The terms paranoid fantasy spring to mind.

    Rename him from Lionheart to Münchhausen maybe?

    If I am wrong, I will write him an apology, but I don’t think I am.

  • Ian B

    Could he be being pranked?

  • countingcats

    Um, that should read “green ink”.

    Damned if I know where you get a green mink.

  • Nick M

    That “email” from the cop, signing off as “Ian” is…

    Well, whaddaya think?

    I dunno, I’m trying to convince my wife that I installed two HDs into her computer… And she ain’t playing with either what XP shows as drive E: or the screwdriver test.

    It’s times like this that I wish to be single, never heard of Islam and be playing “Defender of the Crown” on my Amiga.

  • RAB

    Well it rather burns me up that the Runnymede trust has the nerve to call itself by that name, given the connotations that the word Runnymede has with free born Britons like me.
    Well funded knee jerk naives is what they appear to be.
    They appear to have sided with King John on this one!
    Oh and didn’t he try to sell Britain to Saladin for a mess of pottage?

  • Ian B

    Oh, they’re anything but naive. Operations like Runnymede are a central part of ruling class strategy. By being non-governmental, they can make “independent” recommendations, sit on “independent” panels and so on, then guvmint implements these “independent” recomendations as regulation and law, and nobody knows who is really to blame. Just like the only reply you’ll get about e.g. the smoking ban from a minister is “we took independent advice”, that independent advice coming from ASH… who are funded by the guvmint.

    How independent are Runnymede? The government commisisoned them in 1997 to set up a “Commission on the future of multi-ethnic Britain”. The commission was a roll call of usual suspects. The chairman was Bhikhu Parekh, author of such works as “Marx’s Theory Of Ideology” and “Rethinking Multiculturalism: Cultural Diversity and Political Theory “, and who King Tony was kind enough to make a Lord in 2000. From Runnymede’s website we discover that

    The report was welcomed on behalf of the Government by the Home Secretary on the day of publication (11 October 2000) and by Baroness Amos on the following day. A transcript of the Home Secretary’s speech was published in The Runnymede Bulletin, as were substantial extracts from the speech presented by Baroness Amos. Both speeches appear on the Commission’s website […] The report has been considered at the Home Secretary’s Race Relations Forum, a meeting of Labour peers and a meeting of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Race and Community.

    In the House of Lords debate on 19 July it was announced by Lord Rooker that in September 2001 Bhikhu Parekh is to meet formally with the new Home Secretary, David Blunkett. In addition, Lord Rooker announced that the Government will make a formal statement from time to time about progress in implementing the report’s recommendations.

    …which I think kind of illustrates what I keep ranting about. Governance has been decoupled entirely from government. The actual policy makers are not the people we elect, or who anybody elects. The policy makers get their position by patronage, and ministers then implement their “independent” decisions.

    Whose interests do they have at heart? My answer would be “their own, and nobody else’s”.

  • countingcats

    The Byzantines owe something very important to Islam – their downfall

    And Arabic Islam owes something very important to Byzantium – their civilisation.

    Or at least, the one thay had until the closing of the Islamic mind.

  • Ian B

    Here’s an Assyrian

    arguing that there never was any such thing as Islamic civilisation, other than that of the civilisations they conquered (in this case Assyria), and which they destroyed by Islamisation.

  • Ian B

    Dammit, wrong tag. Let’s try again…

    Here’s an Assyrian blah blah blah

  • Sunfish

    Lionheart was notified, by the arresting officer, that he, Lionheart, was to be arrested at some time in the future. The arresting officer, having sent the email, was then going to be away for six weeks and would tell Lionheart what it was all about on his return.

    Really? Is that the way the police now work?

    Possibly. From what I gather, policing in the UK is profoundly fucked. Pardon my language, but that’s the only way I can find to describe a professional culture that drives the best and brightest to emigrate to the rest of the Anglosphere.

    What about this – “You would only be charged following a full investigation based on all the relevant facts and CPS consent”

    CPS consent? Ok, I am willing to be shown to be wrong here, but don’t the CPS get involved only after charges have been laid by the police? Otherwise it would inply that the CPS are part of the investigative process.

    In a major investigation (in the US), it’s normal to get the prosecutors on board early on for legal advice: Do we need a warrant for this or not? and that sort of thing. If you’ve ever watched the TV show “Law and Order” (the US versions), it suffers from all of the flaws of television but at least the show depicts the relationship between police and prosecutors in the US. However, I don’t think that’s what they mean.

    I’m guessing that the situation is the same in the Lionheart episode as in my state: If I want to charge someone with a misdemeanor, I just serve him with a summons and complaint, or, I arrest and then serve in custody[1] and it’s off to court we go. The DA’s office prosecutes and can dismiss the case, but it’s already happening by the time they see it.

    With a felony, I can arrest and jail them, but the DA’s office has to file an indictment or information with the court to actually charge them. And if the DA’s office does not, then there’s no case and the guy walks. Therefore, there’s a strong preference that we consult with the DA’s office before arresting on felonies.

    On procedural questions, I don’t think UK law draws quite the same distinction between felony and misdemeanor, but I’m hazy on that.

    If you can find “A Policeman’s Blog” in Perry’s blogroll on the front page, check it out. And some of Stu’s links as well. You’ll read it and ask yourself “How the hell did we let this happen?”

    [1] Not preferred. State law strongly goes against misdemeanor custodial arrests without specific reason to believe that the defendant will either flee the jurisdiction or pose a continued danger to the public. Actually, the same preferences apply to felonies as well. IMHO, this is as it should be. Jailing people not yet convicted should be very much the exception and only when actually needed.

  • Havaughan

    It would be quite easy for a blogger to start an e-mail dialogue with the police about how far one can go under the Public Order Act.

    During this dialogue the blogger might receive an e-mail saying “You would be arrested on SUSPICION of the offence. You would only be charged following a full investigation…”

    It would then be quite easy to accidentally quote this as “You will be arrested on SUSPICION of the offence. You would only be charged following a full investigation…”

    Naturally, this accidental revision of the original text would result in outrage among bloggers. It might even hit the national press.

    For me, this raises a question. I don’t know if it’s an important question, and it may seem far-fetched, but I’ll try to express it in a meaningful way:

    First premise: the law is applied in a fluid and subjective way, and the police may be more enthusiastic about arresting somebody if public opinion calls clearly for it.

    Second premise: Simply provoking general debate about a particular law makes it more likely to be applied. It brings that law before the public eye, which is a fickle thing and prone to irrational enthusiasms and fits of self-righteousness.

    Does it not follow that it would be better to wait until there is a serious prospect of a law being applied before raising a stink? For example, a UK court recently found that it’s “illegal” to drive at 10mph along the motorway. Doubtless this “crime” has been tolerated and ignored by the police for years, but the requirement of consistency means that they will now be obliged to investigate accusations of slow driving made by any old busybody.

    At bottom, I’m suggesting we should not bring the crime of stirring up racial hatred into public debate. If a blogger is actually arrested – i.e. if the law begins to be actually applied and in an unreasonable manner, then by all means let slip the dogs of war. A full verbal assault on the law is justified. But until then, should we not simply ignore it?

    It follows from this, that if a blogger accidentally misquotes an e-mail from the police, he is bringing the topic of “inciting racial hatred” into public debate. This seems to me unfortunate, and potentially damaging to all those whose interest is freedom of expression.

    Well, I admit the above is convoluted and I may not have expressed it well. Comments and contradictions are welcome.

    Meanwhile, I think Perry’s desire for further reconnaissance before jumping to conclusions is wise…


  • Pa Annoyed

    It’s not even totally clear that it’s the blog that is the subject of the complaint. All we have is “Stir up Racial Hatred by displaying written material” which may be the blog, or may be something else entirely. Lionheart is somewhat partisan in this matter, I don’t know how much you would want to take on trust.

    As far as the legalities go, so far as I can see this is just a case of someone having made a complaint to the police and them being duty bound to investigate it, and to have him come to a police station to answer questions and make a statement. For crimes drawing maximum sentences beyond five years it is normal that this is not a purely voluntary matter, and is therefore by definition an “arrest”, but that doesn’t mean anything more than that. “We’ve been given this complaint and don’t know all the facts. Could you come down to the station and give us your side of the story, please.” For a paranoid having delusions about the police state persecuting them for their rebel politics, it’s a dream come true. Real, non-fantasy, Jackboots-at-4am, Princess-Leia-in-the-DeathStar stuff. On the whole, I would have thought that screaming about it on the blog is not going to get you a sympathetic hearing, if you think they really are thinking about prosecuting and you really are concerned about state persecution, so this is more about generating political martyrdom-cred than it is about civil liberties. If it’s the blog being investigated, no doubt the CPS will make no charges, and this will be declared a triumph for the internet support campaign who bravely backed down the state’s lackeys.

    There is a genuine question as to whether inciting racial hatred should be a crime with the potential for such a serious penalty, but given that it is, I don’t see that the police can be criticised for investigating alleged crimes or requiring people to assist them in doing so. But the point about whether inciting racial hatred should be a crime is lost in all the other shouting about this arrest.

    In this particular case, I there almost certainly wouldn’t be any case to answer, since insulting Islam isn’t covered by the law (it being a belief system rather than a race), and section 18(2) of the act of Parliament referred to specifically excludes discussion in private dwellings, which I imagine would cover blogs. This is either a simple investigative response to a complaint being made with no danger at all of it going anywhere, or is actually about some of Lionheart’s other non-blogging activities that he hasn’t chosen to tell us about.

    Since there are lots of other blogs about that say similar things about Islam (including this one) and since arrests for it are clearly not routine (unless the Samizdatistas have been told not to talk about it), I suspect something else is going on. Time will tell.

  • Pa Annoyed


    For those interested in UK law regarding what the police can arrest you for, I can clarify your point about the UK version of misdemeanor/felony. We used to have this distinction, with ‘schedule 1A’ offences being arrestable, but the list was getting so long and complicated with all our shiny new offences that Parliament simplified it in SOCPA. It allows arrest under a short list of circumstances including “To allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence or of the conduct of the person being arrested” and because of the broadness of this, additional guidelines have been published.

    The guidelines are apparently available in Code G here:
    I haven’t looked at it myself, but this is probably a rich seam for investigation if anyone is interested.

  • Nick M

    Whilst I can’t supply you with a green mink my uncle can sell you a pink rabbit.

  • countingcats

    my uncle can sell you a pink rabbit

    And I thought counting cats in Zanzibar was cool. I bet Thoreau never considered counting pink bunnies in Wettenhall.

    Are these things for real? Love em.

  • ian

    Regardless of the facts – and I am rapidly reaching the point where I believe the Brown/Cameron axis is capable of doing anything to keep themselves and their cronies in power – anyone who cites that loon Melanie Phillips as a credible source on anything has to do a lot of work to make me take them seriously.

    As others have said above, there is a serious discussion to be had about laws on the incitement of violence. I am however unconvinced by this case – but then again there is ample evidence that when the police are given powers they will use them, as in the extravagant use of anti-terrorism laws to curb anything from political hecklers to pedestrians on a cyclepath (I don’t have the links to hand but these are both well documented cases)

  • Lugundum

    Well I personally believe the threat against lionheart is a genuine one but I also prefer to wait for further evidence and development. We should keep in mind that there is a real drift towards authoritarianism and internet censorship as the result of symbiosis between Islam and some (many) often left-wing politicians.

    On the other hand it is still possible that lionheart himself is a victim of sick joke rather than of overzealous police.

    I’m on alert and will be following this case closely.

  • Pa Annoyed


    I don’t think many of us would dispute laws on inciting violence, but inciting racial hatred is a bit different.

  • Paul Marks

    Pa Annoyed it is not some sort of open “question” about whether expressing an opinion about race should be a crime, it is absurd that is is claimed to be a crime.

    And if anyone says that Parliament has the right to make anything a crime, how about the following:

    Incitement to hate rich people.

    After all the various people that engage in such incitement have been responsible for tens of millions of murders (mostly of people who were NOT rich) over the last century – so clearly anyone who expresses the opinion that rich people are bad and responsible for X, Y, Z, should be locked up.

    In the United States this would lead to the arrest and imprisonment of John Edwards and Mike Huckabee – oh wait, that might not be such a terrible idea.

    “By the way” Islam is not a race, it is a religion. So sorry, even with the “law” as it now is, the police asking questions about people who have spoken against Islam is both absurd – and evil. For the police should not make such implied threats.

    There were even such tactics of threats used by the powers-that-be when Channel Four made “Undercover Mosque”.

  • Paul Marks

    Ian b.

    Careful about the Assyrians.

    There is a group in Iraq who call themselves that, but whether they are really a continuation of the ancient Assyrians is debatable.

    The conventional story is that Assyrian civilization was destroyed by an alliance of the Babylonians (the 2nd Babylonians – the semitic Chaldeans) and the Medes (who some contect with the ancient Hurrians and others connect with the modern Kurds) and Persians – way back in 612 B.C. i.e. 12 centuries before the Muslims arrived.

    The second Babylonian civilization was later taken over by Cyrus the Great of Persia (who also took over the Medes and other civilzations) in 539 A.D.

    Babylon certainly survived under the Persians – but did anything that can really be called Assyrian civilization? It is hotly debated.

    Certainly Chistians in Iraq were (till the 19th century anyway) Nestorian Christians.

    A doctrine had fled to the second Persian Empire from the intolerance of the Byzantines.

    The fortunes of the Nestorians were mixed after the comming of Islam – but it was the Mongals who really broke their back when they sacked Baghdad in 1258.

  • Paul Marks

    Nick M.

    The reason that people turn to the V.B. in Flanders is that the other Flemish parties always seem to sell out.

    I can remember when the Flemish Liberal party was supposed to be very pro freedom and anti Welfare State.

    However, its leader turned out to be happy to continue with the Welfare State for the Walloons – as long as he could be Prime Minister.

    He turned out to be keen on censorship and de facto bans on polticial parties as well.

    And attacks on Home Schooling – even though it is formally protected in Belguim by the Constitution of 1830.

    The Flemish Liberal party lost the general election last June, but after six months or so of everyone pretending that “Belguim has no government” (which did not stop it signing the E.U. Constitution) the Prime Minister is formally back in office again.

    His supposed enemies the Flemish Christian Democrat party went along with it.

    Guess which was the only major party to vote “no”.

  • Pa Annoyed


    On inciting racial hatred: you and I might both think so, but many other people do not, and very firmly so. So it’s a question. I agree with you that opinions, no matter how odious or irrational, should not be legislated against, and I agree that the treatment of different forms of hatred is dealt with inconsistently. For what it’s worth, my understanding of the standard argument for it is that there is a strong causal relationship between hatred and violence in the case of race that doesn’t apply to many other hatreds, and so they bend the rule to prevent harm. Your example of rich-hatred vis-a-vis the Communist death toll is a fine counterexample, and if you applied the principle consistently would lead to an outlawing of Communism – but I don’t want to make this argument because it might lead people to ban rich-hatred for consistency as well.

    Islam is not a race. You’ll note I already said that in my 11:21 post. I think the police are well aware of that, so if they want to ask some questions it’s presumably about something else. This might be something in the complaint that was presumably made, or it might be about something this particular blogger isn’t telling us, but we have no information on which to draw any conclusions.

    It’s not impossible that this might happen. Mark Steyn is facing similar difficulties from the Canadian HRC, for example. But there’s no definite evidence for it, the blogger is acting like a paranoid fantasist, expressed anti-Islam sentiment is common (I do it myself) and arrests for it rare, and if the police are feeling inclined to be unfriendly about something they don’t generally make appointments six weeks in advance.

    Pending evidence to the contrary, I’m inclined to think that this is just routine enquiries following a complaint that’s been made, something that the police routinely do for all sorts of things, and nothing to get excited about. I would, at the very least, want to hear the police’s version of events before I leapt to any judgements.

  • KG

    Pa Annoyed wrote: “In this particular case, I there almost certainly wouldn’t be any case to answer, since insulting Islam isn’t covered by the law (it being a belief system rather than a race),”

    The Public Order Act of 1986 makes it an offense to “stir up racial hatred.” The act defines “racial hatred” as “hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins.”

  • The act defines “racial hatred” as “hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins.”

    Indeed, and Islam is none of those things.

  • Ian B

    Except it’s easy to argue convincingly that anyone talking about “muslims” is really talking about people of particular ethinc origins. For instance, from skimming the website, it appears that Lionheart’s primary focus is Pakistani muslims in Luton. Islam in a practical sense maps onto ethnicity. Although some gullible indigenous Europeans have been sucked into Islam, the overwhelming majority of European muslims are of non-European origin. Courts are likely to see it that way, regardless of the argument that Islam is not a race or ethnic origin.

  • Islam in a practical sense maps onto ethnicity.

    Which, like all induction, can be refuted. As a practical matter all you have to do is start saying nasty things about Cat Stevens 🙂

  • Ian B

    The exception doesn’t disprove the rule, because I said “in a practical sense”. There’s a close, if not perfect, identity between the two things.

    If somebody says “the muslim community in Luton” they effectively mean pakistani immigrants (presumably, I know bugger all about Luton, only been there once for a few hours).

    I’m not talking about what I or you believe, I’m talking about what the police, courts and other organs of state choose to believe- which is what matters in a court case.

  • Pa Annoyed

    Except that Parliament specifically tried to introduce a religious hatred bill to fill this gap, and it got rejected. The courts have a tendency towards bloody-minded literalism when it comes to the law, and you can only be done for racism on the basis of anti-Muslim sentiment if the prosecution can make the case that you were actually using it as code for Pakistani Asians. Unless you really are doing it for racist reasons, there will usually be some suitable references to Ayaan Hirsi Ali or the white dhimmi Eurocracy that can very effectively refute that. And even if there aren’t, the prosecution still need to make a positive case with evidence, they can’t just take it as read.

    They tried to prosecute Nick Griffin, who really is a racist, and the courts let him off because he had been sufficiently careful about how he phrased what he said.

    It is a standard point of the genuine opposition to Islam that race has nothing to do with it. Anyone who uses opposition to Islam as a way to encourage racism we want nothing to do with, as they are themselves dangerous and damaging enemies of the counter-Jihad – although I’d still disagree with them being prosecuted for merely expressing opinions. The courts do understand the distinction, at the moment.

    There is no identity between the things. ‘Islam’ is not the same thing as ‘Muslims’. And approximately 60% of Muslims here (as near as we can tell) don’t agree with the bad bits of Islam (a lot of them don’t even know about them – being as ignorant and deluded about the theological subtleties as everyday Christians are about the fruitier bits of the Bible), and a lot of Islam is stuff we shouldn’t have any problem with – faith, prayer, charity, pilgrimage, fasting. It is only (the intolerant aspects of) Islam we oppose, not Muslims. It’s by no means a tiny minority of extremists, but nor is it anything like an identity. We need to keep that clearly in mind, and tell the police and courts if they don’t already know. Anyone who thinks ‘Muslims’ is some sort of code for ‘Pakistanis’ is exactly the sort of racist that we are not.

  • Lee Kelly

    Ian B,

    There is no convincing case to be made, presuming that those who need convincing are capable of clear thought, and are not harbouring ulterior motives.

    Islam is not a race, and not all Pakistanis are Muslims, so Lionheart is not breaking the law. The fact that they are Pakistani is incidental, and just a method of categorisation. In other words, presumably, Lionheart does not hate Pakistani Christians, Pakistani Hindus, or Pakistani atheists. That someone is Pakistani has little to do with anything, other than that a large proportion of Pakistanis are Muslim, but Islam is not a race!

    I know little of Lionheart, but I presume it is Islam and Islamic-arab culture which he objects to, and quite understandably. This does not seem to fall foul of the list you cite. I do, however, agree that many people lack the capacity for clear thought, are often led by ulterior motives, and will likely be convinced for it. Oh well, seems like a good time to emigrate, eh?

  • I’m talking about what the police, courts and other organs of state choose to believe- which is what matters in a court case.

    Actually so am I. Criticise Cat Stevens and it becomes a great deal harder to impute racism as the source of your hostility to Islam. As the law does not specifically mention religion, they have to impute racism, which is a refutable contention… and dissing Cat Stevens prior to the allegation does that as a matter of provable fact. Likewise saying nice things about Pakistani Christians/Hindus/Satanists/Atheists does much the same thing.

    What the various organs of the state choose to believe is one thing, getting a conviction on that basis is quite another.

  • Ian B

    Except that Parliament specifically tried to introduce a religious hatred bill to fill this gap, and it got rejected.

    Apparently not…

    It was amended and weakened, but it’s on the books now. It’ll be easy to beef up to full strength at a future date.

  • Ian B


    There is no convincing case to be made, presuming that those who need convincing are capable of clear thought, and are not harbouring ulterior motives.

    What I’m saying here is that I don’t believe that either of those two qualifications can be in any way relied on.

    An additional point is that these laws are very effective deterrents even without convictions. The knowledge that the police may kick down your door at dawn, confiscate your computers, search your house, ruin your reputation and business and then keep you in suspense for a year or two before you’re (perhaps) acquitted has a remarkable chilling effect.

  • Sunfish

    Which, like all induction, can be refuted. As a practical matter all you have to do is start saying nasty things about Cat Stevens 🙂

    “Tea for the Tillerman” sucked! Now, I should have the bill knocking on my door in about two months…

    Tried to make sense out of the links you posted. No wonder the police over there never get anything done if that’s the law they have to work under.

    I’ve never been a fan of the “investigative arrest” that seems to be in vogue over there. Actually, that statement applies to all kinds of police practices over there that fall somewhere between ‘foreign’ and ‘WTF were they thinking???'[1]

    Sometimes race is given as an excuse for violence. I don’t buy it. My own experience has been that the perpetrators had some other motivation (anything from robbery to territorial conflict to a juvenile dickwaving contest, pardon the expression) and race is usually brought in either as an excuse (by the actor) or as a possible motivation (by the victim).

    [1] Working unarmed isn’t the top of that particular list either.

  • I am not so sure that dissing Cat Stevens alone would do the trick, unless the defendant could prove that he knew that Cat Stevens is not Asian before having dissed him. There would have to be more than one example, and they would have to be more, um, blond. But I could certainly be wrong, of course.

  • Nick M

    They tried to prosecute Nick Griffin, who really is a racist, and the courts let him off because he had been sufficiently careful about how he phrased what he said.

    Yes they did and it cost 1/2 million quid and he’d clearly said nothing illegal. I thought the prosecution was ludicrous. Mr Griffin is vile but that’s not against the law. What the West Yorkshire Dibble failed to spot is that he’s also a Cambridge law graduate so unlikely to drop himself in the shi’ite quite so easily. If on the otherhand they wanted to present a propaganda coup for the BNP then… Mission Accomplished!

    I fully support a law on incitement to religious hatred as long as it protects the sentiments of agnostics and Pastafarians, Satanists and the worshippers of the Goreacle.

    This is just bloody ridiculous. Am I to be hauled before the beak for stating that Muhammed was a kiddy-fiddling brigand, warlord and demagogue? My knowledge of English Common Law holds that (a)you can’t libel the dead and (b)it ain’t libel if it’s true.

    Cat Stevens is vile. When asked back in the 80s about the Pakistanis in Bradford burning effigies of Salman Rushdie he said he only wished they were burning the real thing. That was my second or third reality check from Unckie Mo’s Depraved Death Cult.

  • Alisa, I don’t think anyone in the UK thinks Cat Stevens is Asian. Most people think he is English (he is actually of Greek/Swedish ancestry).

  • Ian B

    Cat Stevens is vile. When asked back in the 80s about the Pakistanis in Bradford burning effigies of Salman Rushdie he said he only wished they were burning the real thing. That was my second or third reality check from Unckie Mo’s Depraved Death Cult.

    I think my first reality check was around the time of the Rushdie fatwa, chatting with a muslim cab driver. I was a lot more right-on PC multicultist then and was I guess hoping to further my understanding of the muslim community and that. So there we are toddling through North London and he calmly explained to me why the Jews, by being the Chosen People but then denying God’s prophets, had signed their own death warrant and deserved nothing but extermination. So far as he was concerned, one day everyone must convert to Islam, except the Jews who are beyond redemption. He wouldn’t countenance Jews being allowed to live even if they offered to convert to Islam. The eerie thing that stuck in my mind about that was that other than the chilling genocidal rhetoric he, well, seemed like a nice bloke, not a raving angry lunatic.

    This I think illustrates the problem. The official line that we’re told to believe is that such extremist views are the province merely of a tiny minority of terrorists and it’s “Islamophobic” to present them as views of muslims in general. But ordinary people have experience that that simply isn’t the right picture; rather that the faith is extremist in general even though it does include some “moderates”- even then the moderates tend to hold very puritanical views at odds with liberal western values (e.g. the supposedly moderate spokesman for the MCGB saying “I wouldn’t want my daughter to wear a burka, but I wouldn’t want her to wear a bikini either”. An Englishman who forbade his daughter from wearing swimwear would be considered an antiquated loon.)

    I genuinely think ordinary folks with their “Islamophobia” have a more accurate picture (if not entirely accurate) and the official line is little more than a fantasy of denial.

  • Perry: I am sure you know what you are talking about, as you live there. I would have thought that the younger generation would not even know who he was, let alone what his ancestry is. In fact I would hope this to be the case. I used to like his music a lot, and still do, but the guy is a real nutcase. Anyway, back on topic:-)

    Ian, I am curious, was the cabby an Arab or a Pakistani? It would be really weird if it was the latter.

  • Ian B

    I’m not sure what his ethnicity was, Alisa, though through the fogged glass of memory I think more likely some kind of middle eastern than indian. It’s usually difficult categorising people etnically anyway. The nice couple who run my local paper shop appear to be of some kind of “asian” ancestry, but my best guess is they’re from Birmingham.

    I can say with though that either the cabbie was a muslim, or for some obscure reason pretending to be one. 🙂

    Another personal anecdote would have been the one about the (Algerian) muslim I worked for when I was still doing agency maintenance work, who deluged me with Islamic pamphlets and rants about how all white women are dirty whores (I generally didn’t argue much as I didn’t want to get thrown off-site, but once I upset him mightily by saying I prefer them that way, thanks) and how we (the denizens of the dar-al-harb) are provable corrupt because we eat those dirty animals, pigs. I found that last one particularly interesting; what intrigued me was that he didn’t just see not eating pigs as a religious obligation, he had a genuine gut-level disgust at the practice, similar to how somebody else may consider the consumption of excrement.

  • …he had a genuine gut-level disgust at the practice, similar to how somebody else may consider the consumption of excrement.

    Many Jews (not just the religious ones) feel this way, but I don’t think that they would in any way see it as being corrupt. Jews really don’t care what non-Jews do, as long as it has nothing to do with them.

  • Nick M

    On the porcine front – that’s because it’s indoctrinated into them from a very early age. I once worked with a Muslim (Bangladeshi) and he was a really nice guy but was utterly convinced that having a beard and teaching part time in a Madrassah would get him on Allah’s A-list… It was really weird for me to put together the J I knew (from my BT telesales team) with the J who told me, whilst giving me a lift in his Peugeot, that Allah had promised him umpteen virgins and a palace in the heavens. You know what struck me? In Christianity virtue is often seen as it’s own reward, not so with Islam – the reward was essentially pornographic of the extent that shariah law would have you killed over. It was my fourth wake-up call.

    I left that job shortly before 9/11 and I guess that was my fifth call.

  • Lee Kelly

    The remarkable thing about opposition to Islam is that it is almost invariably a consequence of exposure to Islamic texts and Muslims. The more I researched Islam, and the more I sought the views of Muslims, the less I was inclined to see Islam as anything but an totalitarian death cult. The incredible thing is, that those who preach the gospel of multiculturalism, and mutual understanding, have typically made no effort to understand Islam or Muslims, since those who do almost invariably are Islamophobes, and quite rightly afraid of Islam.

    I never really had a wake-up call with regard to Islam, though did suffer a temporary lapse under the influence of our “eduction” system, which was corrected when I looked into the matter more. I remember, even at a young age, being utterly confused by the political mess that is the Isreali-Islam conflict. There were these leaders of the Muslim world, clerics, presidents, etc. quite clearly calling for death to Isreal, followed by copious racist and bigoted slurs, and encouragement of suicide bombers.

    In my “naive” little comic book world, these people were clearly the bad guys, in every way concievable. However, where I heard, “death to Isreal, death to America, death to the Infidel, we will not stop until you are all Muslim or crushed under our feet”, the pundits and newscasters seemed to hear, “we have some ligitimate complaints, and would like to invite you to our negotiating table so that we might discuss the matter, with the hope that we might all live in peaceful coexistence as people of the book”.

    I to this day, still think that the news, particularly the BBC News, is an eloborate parody for my sake, an extended April fools joke which the whole world is in on. So often, it is scarcely possible to believe that these people take themselves seriously.

  • RAB

    It makes you wonder how Cannibals ever got up the courage to eat Missionaries who invariably(In my experience)
    picked their nose and ate it.
    Doesn’t it?

  • Paul Marks

    Pa Annoyed.

    “The police must….”

    Sorry but the police “must” nothing.

    Any senior policeman who tried to block asking questions because “this is not against the law” and held that only law breaking should be asked about, would find his promotion prospects at an end.

    Read Peter Hitchins on what modern training and incentives lead to among Chief Constables and other top people.

    I do not have to.

    The last time the Chief Constable of Nothamptonshire came to see us in Kettering, a Councillor asked a question about how a crime against her had been handled.

    The response “I do not want to hear about all this Daily Mail stuff”.

    The lady was not talking about a story in the “Daily Mail” – she was talking about what happened to her.

    And it was a Labour Councillor.

    Not an evil Daily Mail reader.

  • Sunfish

    Paul Marks:

    Any senior policeman who tried to block asking questions because “this is not against the law” and held that only law breaking should be asked about, would find his promotion prospects at an end.

    There’s that. And then there’s another possibility. The investigator may need to conduct at least a little bit of a preliminary investigation to determine whether there’s anything worth investigating.

    I guess I’m lucky, in that I could give a damn about promotion boards. I can still get away with “I feel for you, but this just isn’t a police matter.”

    Read Peter Hitchins on what modern training and incentives lead to among Chief Constables and other top people.

    Are knighthoods really that big a deal?

    The last time the Chief Constable of Nothamptonshire came to see us in Kettering, a Councillor asked a question about how a crime against her had been handled.

    The response “I do not want to hear about all this Daily Mail stuff”.

    That, I can’t see. Even though the sheriff, or the commander of the Colorado State Patrol element covering my city doesn’t work for my city commission, I just can’t see them blowing off a city commissioner’s question. A weasel answer or an evasion, sure, but outright rudeness?

    It must be nice to not be accountable to anybody at all, other than the voters in whichever borough all the way across the country[1] spawned the Home Secretary. I’ll have to try it sometime.

    [1] Forgive my ignorance of English geography. I don’t even know who the Home Secretary is, never mind where he got elected from.[2]

    [2] It is the HS who appoints the Chief Cons, right?

  • countingcats

    em>I fully support a law on incitement to religious hatred as long as it protects the sentiments of agnostics and Pastafarians, Satanists and the worshippers of the Goreacle.

    One of the few occasions where I absolutely and unequivocally disagree with Nick M.

    Absolutely not.

    As a committed Southern Reformed Pastafarian I demand that I be free to dis all the others as I see fit, especially those who cling to the mistakes of the members of the Orthodox Pasta Church, the so called Kitchen Set.

    Seriously, no protection for ANY belief set. None.

  • .
    Thanks for posting on this. GoV didn’t jump the gun, LGF did. None of the Counterjihad groups are arguing to control the Jews. They are not scared of the Jews. The Jews haven’t committed over 10,300 acts of terrorism since 9/11, the Islamfascists have.

    We can’t stop, WE MUST NOT STOP fighting for Free Speech and Justice! We will fight for Lionheart!

    The ‘Bushies’ would never advocate these legal shenanigans but some of the PIAPS people and Dhimmicrats do and would.

    This ‘Racial & Religious Hatred Act’ is a load of crap. Hopefully it will be scrapped someday when the lawyers start being pressured to use it against Islam’s obvious and much more virulent hate speech.

    This planned arrest is terrible news for Lionheart, Britain and the world.
    Probably the Luton Pakistani Muslim Heroin and crack gang (which is also involved with forcing non-Muslim teen girls into sex-slavery) who he has helped expose pressured the dhimmi pigs to arrest him.

    Too many in the dhimmidiot government in Britain are pathetic and corrupt.
    The EU is showing itself to be very evil in practice as well as most misguided and extremely stupid and ignorant of reality.

    This suppression of free speech will actually cause more violence and hatred of course.
    This case will also serve to educate the masses even more about the evils of Sharia and the importance of standing up to Islam.

    This must be made very public, we should all tell all our friends about this. Spread the word! God bless Lionheart, I believe he will prevail.
    The lawyers on the Right MUST be supported to start fighting this BS more.

    Both ‘The Left’ and ‘The Right’ should be ticked off about this.

    We should tell all the Radio Gods about this. Maybe they’ll rant about it on their shows.

    absurd thought –
    God of the Universe says
    outlaw most bloggers

    license all the rest
    monitor their writing

    absurd thought –
    God of the Universe says
    eliminate FREE speech

    the truth may not be spoken
    if criminals are exposed

    absurd thought –
    God of the Universe says
    outlaw self-defense

    exposing violent crimes
    shall be deemed hate speech

    absurd thought –
    God of the Universe loves
    corrupt politicians

    offer immigrants welfare
    get their votes to keep your jobs

    absurd thought –
    God of the Universe says
    be traitorous garbage

    just destroy your country
    screw your great-granddaughter





  • ian

    You should be able to say what you like about any belief system. I have noted however that on the odd occasion someone does that here about Christianity they don’t get much support. That aside, incitement to violence because someone holds to a particular belief (or doesn’t for that matter as with Islam) is not acceptable.

    We already had laws about incitement to violence. We didn’t need to add laws about the motives of the person inciting – they don’t clarify, they obfuscate. In particular they make it much harder to identify the point at which incitement to hatred (hate speech) shades into incitement to violence.

  • Jason

    On first inspection, a disingenuous bout of hysteria in service to a barely concealed agenda. Witness the images of the man wearing a white shirt depicting a (very small) English football team logo – presumably intended as a Crusader motif – outside the Dome of the Rock. Pitiful. I wonder if he knows his namesake spoke only French and barely visited Britain?

    Too much Dan Brown and not enough socialising possibly, but there’s a serious side to it. Many of the issues touched upon do urgently need clear-headed discussion at a national level and of course this shouldn’t be discouraged through ill-conceived legislation. But there exist sophisticated groups with vested interests who would seek to stifle such discussion and ‘Lionheart’ gives them all the ammunition they need. The man is damaging his own cause and I’d guess doesn’t have the nous to realise it. Of course nobody should be arrested for their opinions, but this chap would profit from a quiet word to the wise from someone sympathetic to his views.

    Unless of course there is a triple-bluff going on, and this is a deliberate feint by the Jews/Templars/Rosicricians/Masons etc.

  • renminbi

    Why should any country issue visas to anyone from a Moslem majority country? What do these people have to offer except trouble? US colleges like the tuition money from Arabs but, that cost us dearly. Our State Department is determined to learn nothing,but isn’t that true of gov’t in general?

  • Paul Marks

    Sunfish – I was there, you were not.

    It may help you to understand the situation if I told you that there is nothing the County Council (let alone Kettering Council) can do against the man.

    Oh sure they could kick up a stink about the extra money demanded for the force – but that would be seen as being against law and order.

    And Chief Constables are not elected, they are appointed – and appointed by CENTRAL government.

    Why should any of them care what a few local councillors on four thousand pounds a year think?

    The man is more likely to get four thousand a month – not a year.

    We are well below his pay grade.

  • Midwesterner

    Peel must be spinning.

  • Sunfish

    Sunfish – I was there, you were not.

    Didn’t say it wasn’t true. If you say that’s how it happened, I don’t doubt it. When I say “un-****ing-believable” that’s an expression of shock rather than distrust.

    And Chief Constables are not elected, they are appointed – and appointed by CENTRAL government.

    Exactly what I thought: if they’re accountable to any voters at all, it’s the voters who elected the few in the government. Specifically, it sounds like this clownshoes answers indirectly to the voters in Redditch[1] and not at all to anybody else.

    [1] HS is still Jacqui Smith, right?

  • Here’s a promo with links to two blog talk radio shows featuring Lionheart. Everyone, put your ears on, and feel free to call in!

    Lionheart Interview 1/17/08 Political Vindication Radio, 1/18/08 The Gathering Storm

    Note that the date of the interview on The Gathering Storm has been changed from 1/11/08 to 1/18/08.