On Friday 28^th April one of Britain’s most notorious grievance mongering taqiyya artists, Fiyaz Mughal founder of the Tell Mama organisation, scored a rare victory in court with the jailing for twelve weeks of Tim Burton, the patriot and writer. Mr Burton was jailed for ‘religiously’ harassing self-declared ‘non-practising’ Muslim Fiyaz Mughal because he sent in to Mughal’s organisation, the disgraced ‘Islamophobia’ monitors Tell Mama, a joke job application. Mr Burton then followed the joking job application up with a few insulting emails, that Mughal, in his highly subjective opinion, called ‘intimidating’ and which Mughal said ‘targeted him because of his religion’.

For those who are interested, a significant part of the email exchange between Mr Burton and Tell Mama can be found in this article from this site published in early April 2016 and entitled ‘poltroons‘. It will be noted by many readers that Tell Mama were very quick to get the police involved, which is not the sort of quick to anger, overly triggered behaviour we the taxpayer should expect from an organisation that is still in receipt of approximately £181,000 of our money. Publicly funded organisations should be accepting of public criticism, no matter how it is phrased.

Yes, there are arguments to be made over whether Mr Burton did the right thing in poking Mughal and Tell Mama in April 2016 and whether Tell Mama and their highly questionable founder Fiyaz Mughal could have been attacked in other, maybe better, ways. Some say that Mr Burton should have been satisfied with his victory over Mughal in 2014, when Fiyaz Mughal was trounced and Mr Burton found not guilty on a shaky and bullshit laden ‘racial harassment’ charge brought by Mughal. During that Birmingham trial, Mughal showed himself to be a person who was ‘angry, arrogant and shouty’ which were ‘qualities’ he showed in spades during the trial of Mr Burton at Southwark Crown Court in late March 2017. Whatever your opinion as to the wisdom of contacting Fiyaz Mughal or Tell Mama at this time, many will agree that Mr Burton does not deserve jail and this case could set a dangerous precedent when it comes to freedom of speech.

This case also underlines the great danger posed by anti ‘hate speech’ and ‘hate crime’ legislation. These laws may have been brought in for all the right and caring reasons, ostensibly to protect people from genuine assault, but have turned out to be a major impediment to freedom of speech and expression. When the definition of ‘offence’ or ‘intimidation’ or ‘harassment’ or ‘discrimination’ is so tied to an individual’s personal emotions and the terms are used are so subjective and broad, then almost anything can be ‘offensive’ or ‘harassing’ in anyone’s perception. These ‘hate speech’ and ‘hate crime’ laws are also a great boon to those who wish to shut down challenging discussion of their own particular political or religious ideology. These laws are used by the unscrupulous and the crooked and, in particular, politically motivated Islamic and Islamist groups as a form of lawfare. This is especially noticeable among those groups who use the ‘anti hate speech’ narrative, such as Tell Mama, to call for even more censorship to be imposed on those who criticise Islam, hence this group’s alignment with the left wing censorship fans of the Hacked Off group.

Now I have got over the preamble, it’s time to turn to the sentencing hearing itself. This blog had a court reporter present at the hearing and from here on in much of what you will read is based on their notes. There were some notable aspects of this hearing, apart from the disproportionate sentence, that should be flagged up to you early. This is the attempt by the prosecutor, Mr Benjamin Temple, to impose a draconian post release condition on Mr Burton that would have in effect, in the opinion of those present observing at the hearing, forbidden him from commenting on any aspect of Fiyaz Mughal or Tell Mama or any of Mughal’s front groups on any blog. The judge, Mr Recorder Alec Gordon, disagreed with this proposed condition on the grounds that it went too far. However, although this free speech stifling condition was not imposed on Mr Burton, it throws a light on the sort of anti-free speech mindset that is operating in the Crown Prosecution Service these days. As is usual policy for this blog, the words from this blog’s reporter’s account are in italics, whereas my comments are in plain text.

By the Fahrenheit 211 court correspondent

The prosecutor Mr Benjamin Temple, opened the sentencing hearing, which had been transferred from Southwark to Inner London Crown Court, and stated that both the defence and prosecution had produced pre-sentence reports for the court but these reports were not read out in their entirety to the court. Mr Temple said that the reports comprised an interview given at Southwark Crown Court following Mr Burton’s conviction, character references and a letter of explanation from Mr Burton. The prosecutor also said that there was a ‘victim impact statement’ from Fiyaz Mughal.

Editor’s note: Those who have seen Mughal’s behaviour at this trial and the 2014 trial and have read the contemporaneous notes taken at Southwark Crown Court during the 2017 proceedings, would see that Fiyaz Mughal’s attitude does not strike us as that of a typical ‘victim’. These sources and observers show that Mughal’s personal demeanour is not that of someone who is easily bullied or intimidated and much more that of a bully and an intimidator himself. Fiyaz Mughal’s conduct in the courtroom at Southwark is now part of the official court records and in my view these records should play a part in any future challenge to Mughal and his organisations, whether in connection to this case or any future cases where Fiyaz Mughal and his various front groups are concerned. Fiyaz Mughal’s claims of ‘victimhood’ are extremely subjective and should be taken with an extremely large pinch of salt, maybe a pinch about so big?

The court reporter continued:

One thing that I noted was an attempt by the prosecution counsel which seemed to be to impose a very harsh and draconian ban on Mr Burton commenting on any blog anywhere ever on the subject of Fiyaz Mughal, Tell Mama or any of the activities of any group connected with Fiyaz Mughal. The defence counsel Ms Olive Lycourgou said that the defence did not consent to this condition and the judge agreed. This suggestion that Mr Burton be stripped of all of his rights to criticise Fiyaz Mughal, Tell Mama or any other Fiyaz Mughal related group, came at the behest of the Crown Prosecution Service itself. The judge remarked that this suggestion by the prosecution was wrong and difficult to enforce bearing in mind the semi anonymous nature of the blogosphere and the use of pseudonyms.

Editor’s note: The fact that the attempt to completely silence Mr Burton on the subject of Fiyaz Mughal or Tell Mama came from the CPS itself should raise a lot of eyebrows, especially among those who are familiar with Tell Mama and Fiyaz Mughal himself. Fiyaz Mughal has managed to wangle himself a gig as an ‘advisor’ on Islamophobia to the Crown Prosecution Service and there have been increasing suspicions from a number of interested individuals and entities that Mughal is having undue and unwarranted influence on the CPS. Those contacts who are familiar with CPS and court procedure, have remarked that the case of Regina vs Burton, a case involving Fiyaz Mughal, has come before the court remarkably swiftly. From early April 2016 when the so-called offences were committed by Mr Burton and the first appearance at the Crown Court in November 2016 is pretty fast. Some of those who have remarked on such unusual swiftness have said that it looks like the CPS is doing favours for Fiyaz Mughal for some reason.

This case and its swiftness to come before the higher court along with the draconian request from the CPS to completely silence Mr Burton on the issue of Fiyaz Mughal and his organisations, looks really suspect. It will increase, solidify and give more credibility to speculation that the CPS is pulling out the stops to assist Mughal in various ways. This ‘help’ of course may not be something that Mughal himself requested, but may have been volunteered by Civil Servants at the CPS in order to burnish their ‘diversity’ and ‘anti Islamophobia’ credentials. Either way it’s not the way that we should expect our prosecution service to operate or behave. It’s bad for justice and it’s bad for freedom of speech and expression. The CPS has allowed itself to be placed in a situation where individuals, such as Fiyaz Mughal, who have formed groups of highly questionable probity are perceived, rightly or wrongly, by the public to have undue and unwarranted influence on the bringing of charges and the conduct of cases. As the CPS may have cases in progress where there is the possibility, whether remotely or not it doesn’t matter, that Mughal because of his prominence in the ‘hate crime’ field, could be called as a witness, in one or more trials, then it does look bad and will fuel speculation that Mughal’s alleged influence on the CPS is not good. In the UK, we should have prosecution by the proper authorities ie the Crown, without influence by shady individuals such as Fiyaz Mughal or anyone like him.

The Fahrenheit211 court reporter added:

The prosecution counsel Mr Temple said that Mr Burton’s words to Fiyaz Mughal had been ‘carefully selected’ to ‘maximise damage’ to Fiyaz Mughal and the Judge agreed with the prosecutor’s assessment. The prosecutor added that looking at the potential maximum sentence, two years imprisonment, was of little constructive use. He then quoted case law namely the 1999 R vs Liddler and R vs Hayes cases which have had an influence on sentencing in cases where harassment has been at the heart of the case. The previous cases, the prosecutor said, provided a framework for sentence in the Burton case. The Judge did not accept that and said that there was ‘no real established formula’ for dealing with cases such as that of Mr Burton. The prosecutor attempted to impose a very restrictive restraining order on Mr Burton as part of the punishment, the ban on speaking about Fiyaz Mughal or anything about him or his organisations which was mentioned before. The Judge refused this request and said: “I dismiss this type of restraining order as it’s important not to be unfair. Mr Burton should not lose his right to comment without good reason’.

The judge did say that he would give an uplift to the sentence because of the ‘religious’ factor of the communications. He said that without the religious element, there would have been no harassment.

The defence counsel Ms Lycourgou then got up to make mitigation statements that related to Mr Burton’s ill health and his personal and family circumstances. There was a character witness statement from Mr Burton’s family that said although they may have disagreed with his political views, Mr Burton was a valued and well respected member of the family. Ms Lycourgou stated that Mr Burton had written a letter stating that he had some ‘contrition and had he known that his words would end up here, he would not have written them‘. Mr Burton did not apologise for sharing articles, some from the Fahrenheit211 blog, or for forwarding the Danish ‘Reform, Renounce or Get the Hell Out of My Country‘ petition.

Although the defence stated as part of the mitigation that Mr Burton had been ‘whipped up into a frenzy by other people, some of whom attended the court at trial’ the judge didn’t accept this and said that Mr Burton had ‘whipped them up himself’ to which the defence counsel replied: ‘it works both ways’. The judge said that the number of these offences against Fiyaz Mughal were very much ones that are ‘of the bottom of the scale’ of seriousness and contained no hint of a ‘threat of violence’. Ms Lycourgou said that these factors, coupled with Mr Burton’s poor health and caring responsibilities should, ‘warrant a suspended sentence’.

The judge did not agree and imposed a twelve week custodial sentence on Mr Burton, along with a court order not to directly or indirectly contact Fiyaz Mughal or Faith Matters or Tell Mama or any employees of those organisations. Mr Burton is also to be considered ‘on licence’ from prison for one year after his release. Prior to sentence the Judge Mr Recorder Alec Gordon said that Mr Burton had elected for a Crown Court trial and the magistrates court could have dealt with this case. Mr Recorder Gordon said that the emails sent to Fiyaz Mughal had linked to ‘highly offensive’ things. The Judge added: ‘You were found guilty of sending grossly offensive emails to Tell Mama that were obviously for Fiyaz Mughal himself. You sent a link to an petition entitled ‘reform and renounce’ and linked to the site and to highly offensive emails’. The Judge continued: ‘You achieved your aim of harassing Fiyaz Mughal and showed extreme antipathy toward Muslims. You are incapable of distinguishing between violent extremists and ordinary Muslims and continued the contact with Fiyaz Mughal after you’d been asked to stop and after Tell Mama had told you that the police would be informed if it continued.’

Editor’s note: It’s obvious, at least to me reading the reporter’s notes, that what the prosecution may have wanted was some legal precedent not only for jailing people for insulting self-important Islamic grievance mongers like Fiyaz Mughal, but also a precedent for broad and easily exploitable and expandable court orders that stop people from commenting on particular subjects online. Although I disagree with the sentence given to Mr Burton and believe it to be disproportionate, especially when set against cases where Muslim nonces have walked free due to bullshit excuses such as ‘having a wife who doesn’t speak English’, I give the judge some credit for not caving in to this request by the CPS for a wide ranging comment ban on Mr Burton.

If this request by the CPS had been granted, then it would not just have affected Mr Burton but would have affected anyone brought before any court who admits or is convicted of any sort of real or imagined ‘hate crime’ and those who accept official cautions for ‘hate speech’ and similar related offences. In such cases with the sort of power that courts would have had to silence people had this request for a wide ranging ban been granted, any whiff of ‘hate speech’ or ‘hate crime’ could result in not just a criminal penalty, but also a ban on speaking or writing about certain specified issues. If there is anything that should propel you to think that maybe the Yanks have got it right when comes to free speech and that the First Amendment is one of the glories of Western civilisation, then it should be the prospect of government departments saying to you ‘you can’t talk about that or you’ll go to prison’. That’s what could happen if courts are given the power either by Parliament or by case law precedent to impose bans on people speaking or writing about particular issues or subjects.

There are observers of this case who suspect that the main reason it came to court in the first place was because of the connections and influence of the complainant Fiyaz Mughal within and on the Crown Prosecution Service. There are some others who believe that the whole point of this case was not merely to punish the giving of ‘offence’, or to punish genuine intimidation, but to attempt to shut down, silence and remove from circulation critics of Fiyaz Mughal and his various organisations.

I must admit, that having seen and heard a lot of the information that has been circulated both prior to the trial, which concerns both the trial and some of Fiyaz Mughal’s other activities, along with reports from the trial itself, I also find myself getting more and more suspicious of some form of malfeasance or the appearance of malfeasance where the CPS is concerned. I hope I’m wrong but things really don’t smell right to me, I’m convinced that this case would not have proceeded in the way that it did and end up in the higher courts so quickly without some strong influence behind the scenes either from Fiyaz Mughal and his supporters. Stuff like the time it took to come to court, along with how it proceeded in court, raise credible suspicions that all is not quite above board and proper regarding the relationships between Fiyaz Mughal, his various organisations and front groups and the Crown Prosecution Service. I’ve no wish to have Fiyaz Mughal wielding the blue pencil of censorship and I certainly don’t want our CPS dancing to this questionable man’s tune.