Tory councillor arrested for ‘hate crime’ after sharing video criticising police
A Conservative councillor was arrested for an alleged hate crime after re-tweeting a video criticising how the police treated a Christian street preacher.
Cllr Anthony Stevens, 50, from Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, told The Telegraph he was arrested at his home this month and escorted to a police station for questioning about tweets from his personal account, which has 76 followers.
One tweet involved a video showing how police had treated the arrest of Christian preacher Oluwole Ilisanmi in Southgate, London, in 2019.
A police officer snatched Mr Ilisanmi’s Bible after the preacher was accused of being Islamophobic. Mr Ilisanmi was later awarded £2,500 for wrongful arrest. The video, shared by Cllr Stevens in May, also showed footage of a police officer apparently stating that a Muslim preacher was allowed to preach on a high street.
So, let’s get this straight. Councillor Stevens was arrested for criticising the police for arresting Oluwole Ilisanmi, an arrest the police themselves have admitted was wrongful.
There’s more.
Police also questioned why the Tory councillor had tweeted his support for Cllr King Lawal, a fellow Northamptonshire councillor, who has been “cancelled” for expressing his Christian beliefs in relation to LGBT issues, according to Cllr Stevens.
Cllr Lawal, 31, who is the only black councillor in Northamptonshire, was suspended by his local Conservative group in July, after he responded to images of Pride parades organised by LGBT groups, writing: “When did pride become a thing to celebrate. Because of pride, Satan fell as an archangel. Pride is not a virtue but a sin. Those who have pride should repent of their sins and return to Jesus Christ. He can save you.”
In July, Cllr Stevens retweeted a petition calling for Cllr Lawal’s Conservative positions to be reinstated, writing: “If you value free speech please sign and share.”
He said that police officers showed him his tweets regarding Cllr Lawal and asked him why he supported the petition. Cllr Stevens said he stated that he is a “free speech absolutist” and that even if he does not agree with someone, he believes in their right to express their beliefs.
When the actions of the police prompt a former Director of Public Prosecutions to say, “It is essential that police officers are properly trained in the importance of free speech rights and the particularly strong protection that the law gives to political speech”, it is a safe bet that a second apology for wrongful arrest will eventually be issued by Northamptonshire police. They will make the apology late and with bad grace, making sure to put in a bit about how, “When a complaint is made, the police must investigate”. They will speak in injured tones of being “damned if you do, and damned if you don’t”.
Perhaps Plod has a point there. After the unprovoked racial murder of Stephen Lawrence in 1993, laws were rushed through that said that if anyone connected with an incident thought it was a “hate incident”, then a hate incident it was. I distinctly remember the Guardian‘s Hugo Young saying at the time that this definition was “intellectually absurd”, though I cannot find the quote online. Still, the police display definite preferences in which way they choose to be damned. The sort of damnation that comes your way months or years after you arrested a local elected official for hate crime is so mild that it might more accurately be described as paying for your pleasures.
And the truly damnable thing was this:
Cllr Stevens said he understood that he had been reported to the police by a local Labour Party member.
One thing that is interesting is that the councilor criticized the use of the word “pride” not really the homoxsexual advocacy that was considered “hate speech”. It seems you don’t even have to be hateful toward someone, just getting in the general area and not praising them is enough. It is a progression in the view on free speech — first it is “say anything you want”, then “it is rude to say that”, then “it is hateful to say that” then “it is criminal to say that”, then “silence is violence.” One wonders when the next step will happen, when we will be required to spout the left wing talking points because to not do so is criminal.
Welcome to British tyranny or should i say Anglosphere tyranny. it is much more dangerous than Russian/Soviet or Germanic ones because it is softer…
Very efficiently pointed out. I would say that it is to be tactically employed for the battlefield situation. If they feel they have very strong power “silence is violence” will be the slogan of a “Woke Youth Movement”. You could clear see it in various past instances. Note that the purity drive is also necessary for the combat within the movement and to define the pecking order and where the resources will be pointed out and who will be the main enemy. The movement is currently fighting actors like Trump and its allies, as soon as Trump is put out, they will turn against softer actors…
Our side is simply too slow or principled to make sufficient “hate” reports of our own to make it clear that only progressives get to nominate what hate means. We need to call them on their own scheme, using their own scheme. I hate being called a racist, so isn’t that a hate crime by their own definition? Or a homophobe? Transphobe? Fatphobe? Islamophobe? Hate, hate, hate . . .
“Because of pride, Satan fell as an archangel.”
You actually believe that? What, are you six years old? Religions declared pride to be a sin to make people easier to exploit.
Are you six years old? Clearly he does believe that, but how’s that relevant to the discussion? Atheist here but that’s a childish comment.
“Cllr Stevens said he understood that he had been reported to the police by a local Labour Party member.”
It’s just lawfare at a local level. Once you allow ‘hate crime’ based on the feelings of the perpetually offended you will find that *anything* can be used against you, even if it is nonsense.
If the Conservative councillor was reported to the police by a Labour councillor for his opinions, couldn’t the Conservative councillor likewise report the Labour councillor to the police for a hate crime?
That is, use their own tactics against them?
The procedure is the punishment. I have been criticised by a Police officer for “possibly” inciting transphobic violence . My ‘crime’ was to wear a T shirt displaying a Union flag below the words “This is my pride flag”. Now waiting for a possible knock on the door to be taken to my ‘local’ Police station, which happens to be 15 miles away.
Yes, i am afraid that you are in a dark place.
My theory about how you got there:
There were 2 factors.
First, British police were required to fill arrest quotas.
Second, they were supposed to fill such quotas mainly with natives, following the findings of “”institutional racism”” in the Stephen Lawrence report.
If British police have to arrest a quota of White people, what better way to fill the quota than by looking for “hate crimes”?
(BTW I capitalize ‘White’ because White people like me are not actually white, as i can see by placing my hand on a blank sheet of paper. The same goes for Black people, eg by petting a black cat.)
WRT ‘pride’, there was a debate in Germany some time ago, on whether it is now OK to be proud to be German. The German President at the time (Richard von Weizsäcker IIRC) said something quite sensible: you can only be proud of what you have achieved yourself.
SG:
Well, that’s the word fight, isn’t it? There are two concepts of “pride” being thrown about as if they were one.
Closest analogy I can think of is, there is a “pride” that is a shield, and a “pride” that is a sword.
Feeling self-satisfied, reasonably and rightly, for personal achievements or good character is the shield-pride. This pride is good. It is accurate.
Feeling an unjustified or unsupported pride – for “being” something, such as White, or Gay, or Black – as an assertive fight against what you see as disrespect – that’s the “sword” pride, and that’s not OK, and in fact is labeled as sinful by religions.
No one has really fought for the view that a quiet and accurate pride in an actual personal attainment is something that causes – goeth before – a fall.
Snorri:
I don’t think the British police have arrest quotas. They seem to spend most of their time making excuses for why they cannot do anything about crime. If someone steals goods worth less than £200 from a shop it is apparently not worth their time to investigate it. If victims of crime provide CCTV of the incident it is still too difficult for them to investigate. But if an ordinary person is reported for a “hate crime” then they are all to willing to “investigate”. There is very little danger to them in arresting an ordinary member of the public. Criminals often fight back, whereas “hate criminals” are an easy proposition.
Did you know we have had “Conservative” governments since 2010? No, I hadn’t noticed either.
“Religions declared pride to be a sin to make people easier to exploit.”
Spot-on. I recall Ayn Rand wrote many times that the idea of making “pride” a sin (in contrast to the Aristotelian idea of pride as a reward for accomplishment) is a way to control people. Make people carry a sense of unearned guilt, like the notion of Original Sin, and you have the power to sell people all manner of bullshit.
We see this today with parts of the Green movement, or those who are selling Critical Race Theory. Make white people guilty of their skin colour; make us guilty that we have modern, fossil fuel tech, an Industrial Revolution, etc. The language may be different at times, and less reliant on tropes from the Bible or other ancient religions, but the emotional fraud of this is the same.
Let’s not forget that pride is the major sin in “The Lord of the Rings”. Yes, I’m looking at you, Saruman! Pride can turn to haughtiness, and then to arrogance. And Hitler was quite proud of himself- so proud that he could never admit that he ever got things wrong. ‘Pride goeth before a fall.’
Sorry but I think that familiarity tends to blind us to how infantile most religious content really is. Some of these stories work as allegories but to actually cite such a story as if it is actually true in order to make a point is just silly. The relevance to the discussion is that the statement was contained in the original post.
Irrelevant. Ilisanmi is entitled to preach from the Bible, Cllr Lawal is entitled to his opinion and Cllr Stevens is entitled to say that. That the police should take any interest in any of them over this is disgusting. (I would like to say ‘shocking’ but unfortunately it isn’t any more.)
I see – so this is the man that King Lawal was referring to in a recent Tweet, he did not give the name of Town Councillor Stevens.
I do not understand why I have not been arrested yet, it is very puzzling (it is almost insulting not to be arrested yet).
Still, perhaps in the early hours of the morning I will be arrested.
“Why do you Conservative politicians not do XYZ?”
If we even speak out about XYZ, let alone do anything, we may well get arrested.
“In Office but not in Power?”
Councillor Stevens has more than 76 followers now – as for his writing style, his Twitter name is “Ant the Rant” – but then my own writings are a dyslexic ungrammatical mess.
Some people are implying that these Wellingborough area (King Lawal is really Rushden rather than Wellingborough) men are the only councillors to stand up for Freedom of Speech – the last time I checked Kettering was part of North Northamptonshire, I will not put up with this anti Kettering exclusion – it must be against DEI or something.
Stand by for the jokes about how we “up north” in Kettering (a full eight miles to the north of Wellingborough – I could walk it before I became old and fat) have to fight Polar Bears, and even Sabre Toothed Tigers and Woolly Mammoths.
They seem to spend most of their time making excuses for why they cannot do anything about crime.
And yet when somebody utters something that offends the Goodthinkful Class, they’re able to drop everything else to go arrest/caution that person.
In a rational world, the response to the police saying that they’re short of resources would be to laugh them off the stage while pointing out their utter hypocrisy. But to do that would probably result in having the police sent around to give you an official caution.
You’ve got it wrong, Stonyground. Whilst LOTR is an allegory, it seemed quite plausible that Saruman would be motivated by pride, and that would lead to his downfall. Hitler had such pride that he ordered his Generals to never retreat, no matter the cost.
Nicholas Gray.
Tolkien rejected the word “allegory” (holding that his work should stand on its own merits) – but he did accept “applicability”, the Pride of Saruman was indeed his downfall. As was, indeed, the pride of Adolf Hitler.
Why invade Poland in 1939? Germany did not really gain by this, rather the contrary (as it led to war with Britain and France – and removed a “buffer state” that helped guard against Soviet Marxist aggression) – but Hitler was filled with the sin of Pride and thus attacked anyway, seeking his own vain-glory. The help from the Soviet Union, they invaded Poland (and other countries as well) in 1939 – but Britain and France did NOT declare war on the Marxists, was an obvious trick – but Hitler did not see it (believing, in his arrogance, that he would conquer the vast lands of the east).
And why declare war on the United States in December 1941? Japan had not helped in the invasion of the Marxist Soviet Union – Japanese forces had sat on their hands in Manchuria remembering the bloody nose the Red Army had given them in August 1939. Mr Hitler had, therefore, no moral obligation to declare war on the United States and had he not done so (indeed had he declared war on Japan “our American brothers have been attacked by another race – therefore…”) it would have been very hard for the Roosevelt Administration to do anything other than concentrate on defeating Japan, as it was (with Hitler’s demented Declaration of War on the United States) Washington had the perfect excuse to downplay the war with Japan, leaving American forces to be slaughtered (or, worse, taken alive) by the Imperial Japanese Army in the early stages of the war – whilst America concentrated on pouring supplies into the Marxist Soviet Union (which key people in Washington privately served).
Mr Hitler was filled with Pride, with vain glory, and this led to the utter defeat of Germany.
Contrary to Mr Peter Hitchens and others, it was quite right for Britain and France to declare war on National Socialist Germany in response to their invasion of Poland – indeed Britain and France should have stood up against the Nazis long before.
Just as it would have been correct for Britain and France to declare war on the Marxist Soviet Union – for invading Poland (which they did), and for invading, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, taking land from Romania, launching a ruthless war against Finland, and-so-on. A lot of waffle is produced to justify us declaring war on National Socialist Germany, but not declaring war against the Marxist Soviet Union (for doing the same thing) – but the bitter truth is that the Western establishment was already infiltrated by pro Soviet agents-of-influence (especially in France), and that is the real reason we did not declare war on the Marxist Soviet Union.
“But the Soviet Marxists helped us against the German National Socialists” – no, from 1939 to 1941 the Soviet Marxists helped the German National Socialists against us. And from 1941 onward the Soviet Marxists stuck out the begging bowl – diverting vitally needed supplies (for example aircraft and anti tank weaponry – but also such basic things as trucks) from British forces in the Far East and American forces in the Pacific.
Much later President Nixon and his adviser Henry Kissinger, both men filled with false pride, thought they could manipulate Mao – perhaps the largest scale mass murderer in history.
Mao, of course, manipulated Mr Nixon and Mr Kissinger (rather than them manipulating him) and the People’s Republic of China has been manipulating the prideful and foolish United States, and the rest of the prideful and foolish West, ever since – working towards our destruction.
Bobby B
“Well, that’s the word fight, isn’t it? There are two concepts of “pride” being thrown about as if they were one.
Closest analogy I can think of is, there is a “pride” that is a shield, and a “pride” that is a sword.”
Simpler than that: It’s a classic Motte and Bailey fallacy.
@bobby b
Feeling an unjustified or unsupported pride – for “being” something, such as White, or Gay, or Black – as an assertive fight against what you see as disrespect – that’s the “sword” pride
I don’t think that is what is going on here. I think it is more asserting that that which is considered shameful in not at all shameful. It reminds me a lot of the trend where women are advertising with pride their abortion. Something that is considered by many shameful but which they do not consider so. In this context and the Gay Pride context, I think “proud” means “not ashamed”. I don’t think that is a bad thing at all, on the contrary, god bless ’em, they should certainly not be ashamed of being what god made them to be.
In a sense I think it is a bit anachronistic, and it is more a historical artifact than an actual thing in a world where the idea that being gay is something to be ashamed of has long since passed into the annals of “how could we possibly think that.” I see “gay pride” parades today more analogous to St. Patrick’s day parade — a celebration of one particular sub culture. I doubt anyone would condemn Paddy O’Leary for being proud to be Irish.
But the essence of your point is right. “Pride” means a lot of different things. Another would be when you say you are, for example, proud of your kid for getting an A in a subject they struggled with. You aren’t proud of your achievement, but proud of being associated with someone who should have such pride.
I don’t see Gay Pride as not being ashamed or celebrating how God made them as much as “we are going to flaunt this and there is nothing you can do about it because of the PC environment”
I’m all for tolerance, but we have gone from “we just want tolerance, to be tolerated and not beaten by police” to “we just want to be accepted and seen as a part of the fabric of society and not hidden in the shadows” to “we are going to use your own laws and sense of fair play to make you bake that cake” to “we demand you celebrate us and our lifestyles or else we will destroy your livelihoods and reputation” and I am not good with that.
I’m fine with people being allowed to do what they want in the privacy of their own bedrooms, but I don’t want to know about it, yet its insisted that I be told about it.
@Steven R
I don’t see Gay Pride as not being ashamed or celebrating how God made them as much as “we are going to flaunt this and there is nothing you can do about it because of the PC environment”
Those are the same things, if you substitute “free speech” for “PC Environment.” Attending a gay pride parade is not mandatory, if you don’t want to watch it change the channel.
I’m fine with people being allowed to do what they want in the privacy of their own bedrooms, but I don’t want to know about it, yet its insisted that I be told about it.
If you don’t like it change the channel.
I come from Britain and grew up in a time when the IRA constantly were bombing and killing innocent civilians in the name of Irish nationalism. So, much as I don’t like it about myself, Irish nationalism and Irish pride bring up ugly memories for me, and so I really don’t like St. Paddy’s day parades. I don’t want them banned though, I just don’t go to them.
It’s not as simple as “change the channel” when it is everywhere. Work, publicly funded crosswalks repainted in rainbows, police cars with rainbow livery, rainbow flags flanking the US flag in front of the white House, breakfast cereal boxes, candy packaging, should I go on?
@Steven R
It’s not as simple as “change the channel” when it is everywhere. Work, publicly funded crosswalks repainted in rainbows, police cars with rainbow livery, rainbow flags flanking the US flag in front of the white House, breakfast cereal boxes, candy packaging, should I go on?
And how exactly are you injured if your crosswalk is multicolored? Lucky Charms already has a rainbow on it, and that little Irish Leprechaun, that I can’t help but associate in my brain with IRA nail bombs killing innocent civilians. However, I somehow manage to nurse my trauma and get through life anyway. Sounds to me like you need a hug. 😀
I don’t think my tax dollars and public servants are supposed to be celebrating one particular group over another, which is exactly what all that pride stuff is: a celebration of the Alphabet Brigade. Not to mention repainting crosswalks is a violation of various codes and regulations governing things like signs and road markings. And we haven’t even gotten to arresting people for hate crimes for doing burnouts on said painted crosswalks. Nor should the White House be flying rainbow flags flanking the US flag just to celebrate one group over another. Where does it end?
So your concern is the council is spending fifty bucks on some paint, and minor changes to traffic signs that confuse no-one? If there are crimes (hate or not) for sure they should be prosecuted. But TBH, I doubt you’d care they dye the Chicago river green on St Paddy’s day, or that there is huge cost to the tax payer and great disruption to traffic whenever they have a parade that you like.
As to the Whitehouse flag, TBH, I didn’t much care for that myself, but I doubt you complained when Trump wondered why we don’t have more Norwegian immigrants than Hattians, even though that was clearly preferring one group over another, or when the Whitehouse has an easter egg hunt preferring the Christians (or is it the ancient Babylonians?) over poor persecuted atheists like me.
I suspect, though perhaps I am wrong, that your complaints about paint and taxes and flags are you dressing up some other discomfort. I wouldn’t even hazard a guess as to what it is, but it ain’t about multicolored flags. Again what harm is it doing to you exactly? What happened to live and let live? And regardless, I think adding a bit of color and panache is a good thing.
Can’t disagree with that. Had I lived most of my life with Norwegians being considered perverted and unclean and somehow evil, I would (if I were brave) probably be just as militant in loudly proclaiming my Norwegian-ness. So, while I do consider “pride” to be a sword in this case, it is a justifiable sword.
Justifiable, but probably a bit counter-productive. Better, really, to just melt in and become part of society.
I was always surprised that the black community never claimed the word “pride” as part of their heritage, not unreasonable as James Brown et al clearly got there first, or made strenuous efforts to prevent its use by other groups. Whoever sets their agenda clearly decided this was not a good move and as a result the word has been forfeited for good.
Natalie, here we go:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/jun/25/race.equality
Thanks for finding that, Peter – and nice to hear from you again.