‘Hate speech’ laws are the sick joke of Britain’s legal system. They are, by their very nature, unjust, as they protect some groups from negative comments whilst leaving others completely unprotected. These laws are inimical to any society that aspires to treat everyone, no matter what their race, religion, sexuality or political ideology, in the same way. ‘Hate speech’ laws also, because of their often vague wording, broad reach and their ability to be used and abused by those with an agenda to silence critics, are an attack on the right of British subjects to speak freely on whatever subject they choose.

We have seen numerous examples in Britain of the use and misuse of ‘hate speech’ laws. There has, for example, been a growing number of transgender activists who are now using these laws to gag critics of the ideology of transgenderism and prevent debate about this controversial and challenging issue. ‘Hate speech’ laws have been a boon to police officers who behave more like political activists than impartial police officers, which is something we saw very clearly in the Count Dankula ‘Nazi Pug dog’ case. In this case officers went out trawling for people who the police could claim were ‘offended’ and use their tame witnesses, who may have been unaware of the ‘Nazi Pug’ video until the police brought it to their attention, to convict Count Dankula of a ‘hate speech’ ‘crime’.

However it seems by far the greatest use of ‘hate speech’ laws to silence free expression appears to come from Islamic activists and their handmaidens on the political Left. They use ‘hate speech’ laws to attempt to silence critics of Islam and even to gaol those who engage in Islam critical banter. Anything and everything that is critical of Islam can, despite the free speech amendment inserted by the House of Lords into the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, be classified as a crime. These ‘hate speech’ laws, also whilst they protect Muslims and Islam from verbal and textual criticism and from debate, never seem to be used against those who criticise Christianity in a similar manner. In addition, ‘Hate speech’ laws are rarely used against Muslims who don’t just criticise Judaism as an ideology, but ally themselves with groups that desire the extermination of Jews, groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah for example. When on the odd occasion, normally because of a public outcry by members of another group protected under ‘hate speech’ laws, a Muslim is punished for breaching these laws, the penalties handed out by the courts are so lenient as to invite complete derision. We saw this in the case of the ‘Gay Free Zone’ stickers case in Tower Hamlets where a Muslim got off with a £100 fine for an offence that may well have seen a non Muslim gaoled if they’d done something similar.

Because of ‘hate speech’ laws, laws that incidentally are becoming increasingly hated by the public because of their negative effect on free speech, we in Britain now live in a nation where the mocking of high profile Muslims is treated as a crime. The fact that people can be given criminal penalties for making jokes is something that I find constantly shocks and saddens my American friends. This is because unlike Britons, Americans are protected by the First Amendment of their constitution which forbids the government from interfering in the right of the citizen to speak freely.

I have found that the concept of a government bringing in unjust, oppressive and capricious ‘hate speech’ laws to be something that is anathema to the free thinking and knowledgable Americans I have encountered. Humour is a valuable debate tactic, political campaign tool and social safety valve, it is shameful that Britain has become a nation where the use of humour in these ways is becoming criminalised.

There is a good example of how ‘hate speech’ laws can be abused, how humour as a political tool has been criminalised and how high profile Muslims are over protected from mockery in a case that recently came before the courts. This is the case of Neil Froggat aka Anti Jihadi Frog a man who produced a set of hilarious stickers spoofing Pokemon cards, featuring high profile Muslims along with various terrorists. These cards were called ‘Pakemon’ cards and had the tagline ‘Gotta deport them all’.

They were very very popular on Twitter when they came out in 2016 but they annoyed the Left and various Islamic grievance mongers such as the Tell Mama organisation. Some of those mocked were so ‘offended’ that they got Mr Froggat’s UK based website taken down and eventually Mr Froggat was arrested on a ‘hate crime’ charge. However, by then it was too late and the ‘Pakemon’ cards went a little viral inspiring others to create their own versions of the cards. During this period I made an archive of both the original cards and those additional cards that were inspired by them and put them up on this site. You can find them via this link and I shall post them up in this piece at intervals so that people can know that these are obviously jokes and so that they can marvel and weep, at the knowledge that Britain is now aping the old Soviet Union by selectively criminalising mockery.

One thing that is notable about this case is the length of time it has taken to prosecute what is really little more than a very minor criminal damage offence. The case has dragged on for well over two years now. This is becoming very standard in these ‘hate speech’ cases now with many of those I speak to about these matters believing that there is a unspoken policy among police and prosecutors to make the process of prosecution part of the punishment. We’ve seen this in the Dankula case, the case of Tim Burton who was gaoled for mocking Tell Mama’s founder Fiyaz Mughal and in the case of Chelsea Russell a British teenager who was penalised for republishing a rap song lyric. All these cases, cases that in my view should never have come before the criminal courts in the first place, took at least six months before they were tried.

Another thing that is notable about this case is that if these stickers, which technically were criminal damage because they take effort to clean off, may well not have been prosecuted had it not been for the Muslim angle. I regularly go to see friends in North London and in places like Seven Sisters for example there are masses and masses of stickers mostly from left wing organisations and from club promoters. They are on bus stops, lampposts, street furniture and sometimes stuck on advertising hoardings and boards on public transport. To my knowledge nobody has ever been arrested let alone charged with criminal damage in these cases. It’s seemingly only when the ‘M’ word comes into play that the police have a fit of the vapours, drop any other more important investigations and come down heavy on the ‘Islamophobe’. Another example of the capricious way that sticker related criminal damage is prosecuted is the ‘Palestine will be free’ stickers that I’ve seen turn up stuck over legitimate advertisments for Israeli goods and Israeli holidays. Are those who produce and stick up these items being prosecuted? No they are not. It is often only those who make stickers or produce other publicity items that mock or criticise Islam that are punished.

Britain’s ‘hate speech’ laws are a sick joke that targets those who engage in the sort of mockery that would not raise an eyebrow in societies that have not, by being apathetic about them, abandoned their rights to freedom of speech. It is no laughing matter that in Britain we run the risk of being gaoled for jokes.

The case of Neil Froggat and the ‘Pakemon’ stickers is a worthless case, one unworthy of the expenditure of police, prosecution and court resources that has been made on it. It is a bad case, using bad law and was more than likely pushed for behind the scenes by some very bad people.

As a person who is somewhat familiar with this case, I would now like to turn my attention to how this case is being reported in the mainstream media. I will use as an example the report from the Daily Mail but the rest of the MSM reporting of this case was similarly lazy and somewhat biased. I will examine the Mail report and comment on it. As is the usual policy for this blog the original text from the Mail is in italics whereas my comments are in plain text.

Darren Boyle of The Daily Mail said:

A commuter placed racially-offensive Pokemon-themed stickers demanding the deportation of Muslims as he travelled around London, a court heard yesterday.

First off, what ‘race’ is Islam? Islam is plainly not an immutable thing like a race but an ideology that individuals can choose to adhere to or not. If you can convert to it or apostatise from it, then it is plainly not a ‘race’. It is not possible for example for a white person to convert to being black nor vice versa. Islam is not, no matter how much certain dubious Islamic activists may desire it, a race.

Secondly on this opening sentence of the piece, these stickers were obviously a joke even though they were a joke at particular high profile Muslims and Islamic terrorist stereotypes.

Company director Neil Froggatt, 48, admitted sticking them on London Underground walls as well as local noticeboards and other locations around the capital.

I’m normally in favour of people pleading not guilty when confronted with these oppressive ‘hate speech’ laws but in this case I can see the logic that may have come into play here with regards to the guilty plea. It would have been difficult to deny intent to cause criminal damage as he was so closely connected to the spoof.

‘You pleaded guilty to these matters, which the court considers serious,’ Blackfriars Crown Court Judge Ian Darling told the first-time offender, who was bailed until March 11 for sentencing.

This sentencing hearing is worth paying attention to. It looks distinctly like Judge Darling is considering an exemplary sentence in order to discourage others from using humour to mock the ideology of Islam. Let’s hope and pray that this is not the case and that common sense, and a respect for freedom of speech prevails in the judge’s mind. This is because there is little doubt in my mind that the obvious intention of these stickers was not to incite violence against Muslims, but to mock the self important, arrogant and dangerous members of that community.

A previous hearing was told one sticker read: ‘Gotta catch and deport them all.’

This is a reporting inaccuracy from Mr Boyle of the Daily Mail. The reality is EVERY sticker read ‘Gotta catch and deport them all’, as you will see from the examples that I have included here.

Froggatt, of Kingston-upon-Thames pleaded guilty to racially and religiously-aggravated criminal damage between November 16 and November 29, 2016.

The management consultant also pleaded guilty to possessing articles, namely the stickers, with intent to destroy property between November 16 and December 2, 2016.

The offences that Mr Froggat has admitted to are classic examples of how ‘hate speech’ laws do blunt force trauma to Britain’s legal system and to our rights to freedom of speech. Whilst I concur that the use of a sticker does legally constitute criminal damage, because they are not easily removed, it’s an offence that is far lower in severity than graffiti, or keying a car, or deliberately breaking someone’s window. It is only because the ‘M’ word has been mentioned in these stickers that the matter has come before the courts at all. A person could produce and distribute thousands and thousands of stickers attacking Christianity or Israel or capitalism or the use of fossil fuels and nobody in the criminal justice establishment would bat an eyelid. However, mention the ‘M’ word or mock high profile Muslims who possess a hair trigger sense of personal offence, and you can be assured that the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Courts will completely lose their shit over the matter.

‘There is clearly going to have to be reports. All options are open,’ added the judge.

This is an ominous statement that doesn’t appear to exclude the imposition of a custodial sentence. This would be an outrageously unjust sentence bearing in mind that a Muslim who committed a much worse sticker related offence, walked from court with a mere £100 fine. Mohammed Hasnath’s offence, which involved distributing ‘gay free zone’ stickers that could, bearing in mind the heavily Islamic demographic of Tower Hamlets, have credibly incited violence. It would be both just and show even-handedness if a similar low level penalty was imposed on Mr Froggat.

The court heard Froggatt placed the stickers on a wall and stairway at Kennington Underground Station; a Tesco’s cashpoint in Worcester Park; a Sutton council noticeboard; the Plough Inn pub, Kingston and a Martins Newsagents noticeboard in Old Malden.

At the end of 2016 there were reports of racist Pokemon-themed stickers being plastered on tubes, trains and buses all over London.

One featured former US president Barack Obama, described as: ‘USA’s Muslim in Chief who has protected Islamic causes over those of the rest of the world.’

Another was of ‘Ginger Jihadi’ Jordan Horner, dubbed on the stickers as: ‘Gingermo’, whose weakness was being ‘allergic to sunlight.’

Also featured on the cards was London Mayor Sadiq Khan – worth the maximum 200 ‘terror points’ – and convicted hate preacher Anjem Choudary.

Despite the ‘shock-horror’ tone of the Mail piece and similar pieces out there in the mainstream media, what this case really boils down to was a agitprop campaign that is no different from hundreds of others for a multitude of different causes that take place every year. There was no credible violence incited by these stickers, all they really incited was laughter and debate. Sadly Britain is becoming a nation where laughter and debate are matters that are becoming increasingly controlled both by the government and individuals and groups who go out of their way to be both professionally and personally ‘offended’.

A website openly sought recruits to distribute the stickers, which were also seen in West Berkshire and at an M6 service station near Knutsford, Cheshire.

Sounds like this campaign was getting quite successful, which is probably what the Left and various Islamic activists became concerned about. They, for reasons for furthering their own agendas, don’t want debate on contentious issues like Islam’s place in Britain and the West, they don’t want their chosen Islamic pets mocked and those who adhere to these leftist and Islamic religious currents often do not want debate that they cannot control and dominate.

This is a scandalous case. It is scandalous that it was prosecuted at all. It is scandalous that Mr Froggat has been subjected to a long length of having the process of prosecution being the punishment. It is also particularly scandalous the amount of money and other resources that have been wasted on a case that if it had not mentioned the ‘M’ word, would have been laughed out by many of those in the criminal justice system.

We have a criminal justice and policing system whose management screams loudly that they are skint and cannot properly investigate or prosecute real crimes, the sort of crimes that really contribute to fear and a sense of a lack of security and safety. To see resources that should have been spent on preventing, investigating and prosecuting real crimes yet having the state waste our money on a guff case like this should both sicken and disturb Britons. In Britain we now live have a legal system that too often does the square root of bugger all for those who’ve been burgled or been subjected to violence, or consistent threats. Such people are often treated like a nuisance by the authorities. However, when it comes to a Muslim proclaiming that they are ‘offended’, the state suddenly finds vast resources to prosecute whoever has said or published the ‘offensive’ words.

We should be sickened by this state of affairs, we should protest it and we should vote for those electoral candidates who promise to abolish Britain’s increasingly hated ‘hate speech’ and ‘hate crime’ laws. Britain needs legislation that gives Britons, no matter of whatever race, religion or political viewpoint we may have, the right to speak freely, just as the American’s have. We should remove the censors jackboot, whether that boot be worn by an individual of the social justice warrior variety or by well connected Muslim activists, from its current position, which is on our necks.