I have often said that ‘hate speech’ and ‘hate crime’ laws are wrong in and of themselves. I hold this view primarily because by their very nature, they create classes of people who are advantaged by law and those who are disadvantaged by law. A person of one group can avail themselves of extra legal protection under these types of legislation whilst those outside of that group cannot do so.

In Britain these ‘anti hate’ laws have created advantaged and privileged groups. Some of the privileges that ‘anti hate’ laws give to some groups but not others is that members of the favoured group can, amongst other things, the ability to suppress any expression of dislike for a minority groups lifestyle or belief system, to intimidate large numbers of people into silence and to treat one group differently in criminal law to another. None of these inequities can be said to be good for any society which allows such legislation. If you wanted to create a society where some animals are more equal than others, then ‘hate crime’ legislation, that treats one group more advantageously than another, would be a very effective place to start.

‘Hate crime’ by its very nature is both divisive and helps to create a legal and social double standard with one group being able to hold the big stick of the law over others whilst depriving their opponents of the same weapons. The propensity for ‘hate crime’ legislation to build double standards increases when those involved in policing and prosecuting crimes, have sympathies for one group over another. For me this was most starkly illustrated by a case I wrote about a few years back when a Jewish man living in a heavily Islamised London borough, had numerous complaints about harassment from local Muslims either ignored or not properly dealt with by the Metropolitan Police.

Unfortunately such biased policing and prosecuting has not been reduced and, as can be seen below, seemingly getting worse with a ne’er do well from one group walking free from an incident that,if aimed at Muslims, would probably see the offender gaoled. I read this story that I received recently in the form of a Press Release from the British Pakistani Christian Association and if found myself boiling with anger at the sheer injustice of it all. We should be living in a society where everyone is equal under the law, but we are not, we seem to be living in a society where Muslims in particular are legally privileged.

The British Pakistani Christian Association (BPCA), have become involved in the case of a Muslim man who was making violent threats against ex Muslims who have converted to Christianity. The case was quite high profile for a while and logic and justice should have suggested that the offender be treated with the same degree of harshness as the State would mete out to someone who said similar things to or about a particular Muslim. Sadly that has not been the case. The alleged offender is being allowed to go free with no charges, not even lesser charges, being brought against him. What’s even worse about this case is that the police and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) have taken this action despite officers meeting with representatives of the BPCA to discuss the offence. It also looks bad that this case, which is a number of degrees more serious than offences that have seen non-Muslims gaoled for ‘hate speech’ had severe negative implications on the Christian converts and their families. One man had to go through emergency relocation because of the threats of violence coming from the more rancid members of the British Muslim community.

The BPCA said after police and prosecutors announced that the alleged offender will not be brought before the courts:

BACA though disappointed with the result commend Lancashire Police for their due diligence in an investigation of the hate-filled rant by Zaheer Hussain. After initially being advised that there was no chance for a prosecution under existing hate crime legislation, progress was made after BPCA representatives attended an invite-only meeting held at Preston Police Station with Chief Inspector Sansbury, in July. CI Sansbury maintained communication with BPCA after the meeting and explained that attempts were being made to challenge the CPS to register charges under a lesser offence. You can learn more about this (here)

Today after a conversation with BACA CI Sansbury, shared a press statement with us:

“In December last year we were made aware of a video widely circulating on social media which showed a man in a car in Preston making a number of offensive comments.

“As soon as this video came to our attention we launched an investigation and we arrested a 41-year-old man from Preston on suspicion of religiously aggravated harassment. Four further men, all from Preston, voluntarily attended at a police station and were also questioned under caution in connection with the incident.

“We have conducted detailed and wide ranging enquiries in relation to what happened, including the use of our digital specialists. We have also considered a number of possible offences. However, after liaising with the Crown Prosecution Service, the decision has been made by them that no further action will be taken.

“We understand the significant upset the comments in the video have caused to many people in Preston and beyond. However, our primary role is to investigate whether any criminal offences have occurred and it is therefore important to clarify how this decision has been reached.

“The video was initially posted into a private WhatsApp group containing a very small number of people. There is evidence to support the 41-year-old man’s claim that he did not intend for the video to be shared beyond that small number of people and despite numerous exhaustive enquiries, we are unable to determine how it was distributed beyond that group and by whom. There is therefore no evidence to prove that the arrested man had any intention to incite or stir up religious hatred amongst the general public.

“A separate offence of sending a grossly offensive/indecent or menacing message by a public communication network was also put to the Crown Prosecution Service, but it was decided by them that it did not meet the evidential test for a criminal offence.”

I must say that the behaviour of the police and the CPS and in particular the statement by the police stinks to high heaven. The decision to stop this case and use the ‘evidential test’ excuse despite other similar Communications Act offences going to court, looks fishier than Billingsgate to me.

The Comms Act and similar instruments have been used to prosecute or attempt to prosecute teenagers who quote rap lyrics containing the word ‘Nigga’, people who burn effigies of Grenfell Tower and the YouTuber Count Dankula for teaching is fiancées pug dog to give a Nazi salute. This act has been used extremely widely and capriciously so I find it surprising and worrying that the CPS did not try harder to use this sort of legislation in this case. If the Communications Act can be used so often against non-Muslims then it raises questions about double standards if the CPS is not willing to use similar legislation against Muslims. This is especially the case when the Muslim has created so many problems for the new Christian whereas many of the cases mentioned above, Dankula et al, were totally and completely victimless and just involved certain people taking offence or being prodded to take offence. Are the CPS and our police forces inherently biased towards Islam either through political motivation or because there is a desire by those in the police and justice system to pander to Islam in order to stop Muslims rioting and demanding their ‘rights’? This case certain points to the possibility of bias and its a bias that needs to end and end soon if we are to clean up the mess that has been made of our police and justice systems.