Various press outlets are reporting that the internet comedian Count Dankula, real name Mark Meechan aged 30, has been fined £800 after being convicted in a marathon two year trial for teaching his dog to make a Nazi right arm salute. The video was not designed to ‘spread hatred’ or anything like that but merely so Count Dankula, who is not in any way any form of ‘Nazi’, could wind up his girlfriend.
The video, which you can find via the links below, was plainly and obviously made as a joke in order to make the cutest thing he had around (his girlfriend’s pug dog), do things which were monstrous, such as give a Nazi right arm salute. I’ve seen the video, it’s not my type of humour but so what, people should not be arrested for mere jokes, especially ones that are essentially victimless ones like this was. Neither the dog, Count Dankula’s girlfriend or any Jews were harmed in the making of this video, it was basically nothing more than a joke.
Unfortunately the video came to the attention of Police Scotland, who are notoriously politicised and politically correct and Count Dankula was arrested. Police Scotland who led this case with a degree of tenacity that should really be reserved for real crimes, even dragged in the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities (SCJC). It appears that Police Scotland approached this group in order that they could supply a witness who would hand-wring about how ‘offended’ they were and SCJC dutifully complied. Although I have to stress that SCJC did not initiate this prosecution, they still assisted it and there are some Jews, such as myself, who feel that they should have stayed out of this controversial case and not given the false impression that their organisation, and by extension the wider Jewish community, are against freedom of speech.
The BBC (their words in italics) in reporting the sentencing of Count Dankula said:
A man who filmed a pet dog giving Nazi salutes before putting the footage on YouTube has been fined £800.
Mark Meechan, 30, recorded his girlfriend’s pug, Buddha, responding to statements such as “Sieg Heil” by raising its paw.
The clip was viewed more than three million times on YouTube.
Meechan, of Coatbridge, North Lanarkshire, was sentenced at Airdrie Sheriff Court after being found guilty of committing a hate crime last month.
This case shows that ‘hate speech’ laws, which Count Dankula was convicted under, are a threat to one of the major freedoms that were won for us by previous generations, the right to speak freely and even tell offensive jokes.
He had denied any wrong-doing and insisted he made the video, which was posted in April 2016, to annoy his girlfriend.
This is indeed the true context of this video, but owing to this verdict, somewhat of a precedent has been set for the State rather than the individual creator of the work, whether it be writing, video or anything else, deciding what the context something should be seen in. This is not freedom as anyone would recognise it, this is tyranny.
Count Dankula has suffered greatly through the course of this trial, a trial that one wag said went on longer than the original Nuremberg trials of the actual Nazis following World War II. I would urge you if you can to support Count Dankula in any way you possibly can but especially if you can help him financially as this case must have been seriously draining in terms of legal fees and knock on costs. He’s been the ‘canary in the coalmine’ when it comes to freedom of speech and what has happened to him, or maybe something worse, could happen to anyone else tomorrow who accidentally ‘offends’ some member of some capriciously designated ‘protected class’ of person. Tomorrow we could see people arrested for jokes about transgender, religion, women or nationality or whatever, and I find the prospect of such a humourless world with every opinion controlled by the law, utterly abhorrent.
We must continue to protest not only the fact that a man has been convicted of telling a joke, but how the whole legal structure of ‘hate speech’ is robbing Britons, of all races, creeds and religions, of their right to be free to express an opinion.
Links
Other stories from Fahrenheit211 regarding the Dankula case
The criminalisation of humour in the United Kingdom
Count Dankula convicted of ‘hate speech’
An open letter to the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities about their unwise involvement in the Dankula case.
The Scottish Court’s decision to ignore context in Mark Meechan’s trial seems to fly in the face not only of justice but also of the intentions of our legal system! Here is some relevant material by the Crown Prosecution Service (https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/social-media-guidelines-prosecuting-cases-involving-communications-sent-social-media). I would draw attention to the section on the case of Chambers v DPP [2012], where “the Lord Chief Justice made it clear that:
“‘Satirical, or iconoclastic, or rude comment, the expression of unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, banter or humour, even if distasteful to some or painful to those subjected to it should and no doubt will continue at their customary level, quite undiminished by [section 127 of the Communications Act 2003].’
“Prosecutors are reminded that what is prohibited under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 is the sending of a communication that is grossly offensive. A communication sent has to be more than simply offensive to be contrary to the criminal law. Just because the content expressed in the communication is in bad taste, controversial or unpopular, and may cause offence to individuals or a specific community, this is not in itself sufficient reason to engage the criminal law. As Lord Bingham made clear in DPP v Collins:
“• ‘There can be no yardstick of gross offensiveness otherwise than by the application of reasonably enlightened, but not perfectionist, contemporary standards to the particular message sent in its particular context. The test is whether a message is couched in terms liable to cause gross offence to those to whom it relates.’
“• ‘The Justices must apply the standards of an open and just multi-racial society’.
“• ‘The question is whether … [the defendant] used language which is beyond the pale of what is tolerable in our society’.
“• ‘[Is there anything] in the content or tenor of [the] messages to soften or mitigate the effect of [the] language in any way’?”
…And…
“[P]rosecutors should only proceed with cases under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 where they are satisfied there is sufficient evidence that the communication in question is more than:
“• Offensive, shocking or disturbing; or
“• Satirical, iconoclastic or rude comment; or
“• The expression of unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, or banter or humour, even if distasteful to some or painful to those subjected to it.”
I sent details of this to Mark Meechan via message to his “Count Dankula” YouTube channel some weeks ago. Whether or not he read the message, I would have hoped his legal support would be familiar with it; as they probably were but to no avail.)