[Shasown]

A Muslim extremist has been fined £50 for burning poppies and chanting hate slogans on Armistice Day.

Emdadur Choudhury, 26, was part of a demonstration by members of Muslims Against Crusaders who protested at the end of a march celebrating the UK's armed forces.

The group chanted through a two-minute silence with slogans such as: "British soldiers, burn in hell."

Choudhury waved a protest flag and then set fire to two large plastic poppies.

Witness Tony Kibble, whose grandfather was a WW2 veteran, said he felt "sick inside".

The incident caused scuffles with members of the right-wing English Defence League who had been kept apart from police.

An officer was hurt during the arrest of Choudhury and fellow protestor Mohammed Haque, who was found not guilty.

Choudhury was convicted of actions "likely to cause harassment, harm or distress."

Chief magistrate Howard Riddle described it as "behaviour that is bound to be seen as insulting".

He said: "It insults the memory of the dead. It insults those that commemorate the dead.

"It insults those who have lost loved ones. It insults those who use this occasion publicly to show their gratitude for lives sacrificed."

Mr Riddle said he had considered Choudhury's human rights of free speech, but "freedom of expression is not unlimited".

The Royal British Legion said it did not want to give the protestors more publicity, but a spokesman added: "The poppy is a symbol of sacrifice and valour.

"The two-minute silence is a time for reflection, not political protest."

Choudhury was not in court to hear his sentence.

His £50 fine was means tested after his lawyer said he earned £480 a month from part-time work and got £792 a month benefits.

The maximum fine for his offence - the least serious of public order crimes - is £1,000.

I think the £50 fine is laughable. He has over £1200 coming in, nearly £800 of which is benefits from a system that was and is defended by those who he wants to "burn in hell".

Would love to know why he was charged with the least serious public order offence.

[Tom4784]

It's rather ridiculous, he should have got a prison sentence as I remember something similar happening before when a student pissed on a monument and got sentenced to prison time (I think), as they're similar crimes they should carry the same vein of punishment.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

It's rather ridiculous, he should have got a prison sentence as I remember something similar happening before when a student pissed on a monument and got sentenced to prison time (I think).

You are right Dezzy and I also agree this £50 fine is ridiculous.One rule for one and a different rule for another.

[Scarlett.]

Saw the guy on the news, he didn't seem sorry for it at all, the ignorant son of a bitch

[MTVN]

I dont think he should have got a prison sentance, as insulting and offensive as they might have been they were exercising their right to free speech and to freedom of assembly

[InOne]

Deport him to his country of decent.

[Novo]

Sounds like a Celtic fan

[Lee.]

Originally Posted by Novo

Sounds like a Celtic fan

Get on with your work

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Shasown

I think the £50 fine is laughable. He has over £1200 coming in, nearly £800 of which is benefits from a system that was and is defended by those who he wants to "burn in hell".

Originally Posted by Dezzy

It's rather ridiculous, he should have got a prison sentence as I remember something similar happening before when a student pissed on a monument and got sentenced to prison time (I think).

Originally Posted by joeysteele

You are right Dezzy and I also agree this £50 fine is ridiculous.One rule for one and a different rule for another.

Originally Posted by InOne

Deport him to his country of descent.

Yeah, a fine is laughable and prison would make him a martyr, so deportation should have been the punishment .....

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by MTVN

I dont think he should have got a prison sentance, as insulting and offensive as they might have been they were exercising their right to free speech and to freedom of assembly

Whilst I agree a prison sentence would be a bit OTT, a punitive fine of £50 isnt any great punishment by any stretch of the imagination. Means testing of income is simply to determine what the rate of repayment of any fine is not the extent of punishment.

As to his expression of free speech, the time, place and manner of his expression was chosen to be as offensive and insulting as possible.

I wonder if he and his chums would mind if a group called "Christians Against Paedophiles" assembled near some peaceful muslim gathering and started chanting "Your Prophet's a Paedo"?

Or a group of militant feminists called "Women Against Oppression" gathered outside a mosque and started burning copies of the Qur'an because of the way women are repressed in the islamic world?

Wonder what he and his chums would call for then? One of those fatwa things?

And if either group did carry out those actions and were then prosecuted for their actions would if they had similar incomes be let off in the same court with only a £50 fine?

After all they would only be expressing their rights to a peaceful assembly and freedom of speech.

[InOne]

They should make a total example of him. Go ridiculously over the top and show the others it's not right. I'm sure he's had a good laugh about the £50. If only the goverment had the balls

[Lee.]

I can't even be bothered writing out a post regarding my feelings on this so I'll just summarise;

It's nothing but a joke, a ****ing farce and a disgrace!

Put him on the first boat/plane out of here, regardless of where he's from.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Whilst I agree a prison sentence would be a bit OTT, a punitive fine of £50 isnt any great punishment by any stretch of the imagination. Means testing of income is simply to determine what the rate of repayment of any fine is not the extent of punishment.

As to his expression of free speech, the time, place and manner of his expression was chosen to be as offensive and insulting as possible.

I wonder if he and his chums would mind if a group called "Christians Against Paedophiles" assembled near some peaceful muslim gathering and started chanting "Your Prophet's a Paedo"?

Or a group of militant feminists called "Women Against Oppression" gathered outside a mosque and started burning copies of the Qur'an because of the way women are repressed in the islamic world?

Wonder what he and his chums would call for then? One of those fatwa things?

And if either group did carry out those actions and were then prosecuted for their actions would if they had similar incomes be let off in the same court with only a £50 fine?

After all they would only be expressing their rights to a peaceful assembly and freedom of speech.

I'm sure they wouldnt like it, I'm sure they're as hypocritical as they come when promoting free speech, but I wouldnt criminalise any of the above for voicing their opinion. Don't get me wrong, I'm disgusted at what they did and I would consider it incredibly disrespectful but I dont think it should be illegal.

They're not the only ones who stage offensive demonstrations, when the EDL march through a heavily populated Muslim area calling for no more Mosques it could be argued they are trying to be as offensive and insulting as possible. But they are allowed to go ahead, one of the drawbacks of freedom of expression I guess

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by MTVN

I'm sure they wouldnt like it, I'm sure they're as hypocritical as they come when promoting free speech, but I wouldnt criminalise any of the above for voicing their opinion. Don't get me wrong, I'm disgusted at what they did and I would consider it incredibly disrespectful but I dont think it should be illegal.

Its not illegal to voice any opinion.

Its illegal to do it in a way that offends or insults others. By offending or insulting you are provoking or inciting and thats the key point of the law.

They could have had their own little march on a different day etc. not a problem. They could have quietly stood there brandishing placards with Troops out slogans etc again not a problem. Instead they choose to chant during the two minutes silence and burn poppies.

However they wanted to offend in order to generate maximum publicity for themselves and their cause. And in all fairness probably would have been more than happy if some sort of fight or violence occured, just so they play the martyrs.

If they want so much to play the martyrs etc why dont they sod off in a little gang and protest on street corners over there. Lets see how long their heads remain attached to their bodies.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Its not illegal to voice any opinion.

Its illegal to do it in a way that offends or insults others. By offending or insulting you are provoking or inciting and thats the key point of the law.

They could have had their own little march on a different day etc. not a problem. They could have quietly stood there brandishing placards with Troops out slogans etc again not a problem. Instead they choose to chant during the two minutes silence and burn poppies.

However they wanted to offend in order to generate maximum publicity for themselves and their cause. And in all fairness probably would have been more than happy if some sort of fight or violence occured, just so they play the martyrs.

If they want so much to play the martyrs etc why dont they sod off in a little gang and protest on street corners over there. Lets see how long their heads remain attached to their bodies.

Guess you missed my edit, what about when the EDL march through a heavily populated Muslim area calling for no more Mosques and carrying signs saying "Ban the Burkha"? Surely that is unnecessarily increasing the offence that people are inevitably going to feel. There was also that case in America where some pastor was planning to burn the Qur'an, I dont think he went through with it but as far as I know there wasnt going to be legal action taken against him. I know we have incitement laws but I still dont agree with making people criminals because others are offended at the message they are promoting. It's a bit odd that one of the protestors has now been fined considering they were staging an authorised demonstration which was even given a police guard.

I know my position on this isnt exactly a popular one, but I do believe that freedom of expression is absolute (as far as possible_ and shouldnt be subject to limitations and restrictions so long as you do not harm others, that they are causing offence is not a good reason to prosecute them in my opinion. Such behaviour should be condemned, discredited and not be given a platform but I wouldnt have it made illegal

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Shasown

I think the £50 fine is laughable. He has over £1200 coming in, nearly £800 of which is benefits from a system that was and is defended by those who he wants to "burn in hell".

Would love to know why he was charged with the least serious public order offence.

The justice system in this country is a bloody joke.

I'd like to see this guy going over to the country where his roots are - and trying the same thing on a level that would insult that countrys citizens.......... but I guess he'd not have the balls to do that. Only here in Britain where our laws are so pathetically weak and allow these things to happen with a paltry fine.

[Boothy]

Youtube video

"Poppies have no relevence to me, they're too commercialised, just like Christmas."

What kind of a fucktard comment is that to make?! Many things that he respects mean nothing to me but that doesn't give me the right to go and burn them.

I'd deport the deluded tosser if it was up to me.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Boothy

Youtube video

"Poppies have no relevence to me, they're too commercialised, just like Christmas."

What kind of a fucktard comment is that to make?! Many things that he respects mean nothing to me but that doesn't give me the right to go and burn them.

I'd deport the deluded tosser if it was up to me.

Remind me to utter the very same thing at the weekend, as I stand outside the local mosque, castigating Eid and of it's commercialism and for good measure, I'll burn a stack of the Koran and cite that it's of no relevance to me.

Think I'd get away with a mere £50 fine?

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Guess you missed my edit, what about when the EDL march through a heavily populated Muslim area calling for no more Mosques and carrying signs saying "Ban the Burkha"? Surely that is unnecessarily increasing the offence that people are inevitably going to feel. There was also that case in America where some pastor was planning to burn the Qur'an, I dont think he went through with it but as far as I know there wasnt going to be legal action taken against him. I know we have incitement laws but I still dont agree with making people criminals because others are offended at the message they are promoting. It's a bit odd that one of the protestors has now been fined considering they were staging an authorised demonstration which was even given a police guard.

I know my position on this isnt exactly a popular one, but I do believe that freedom of expression is absolute and shouldnt be subject to limitations and restrictions. Such behaviour should be condemned, discredited and not be given a platform but I wouldnt have it made illegal

First off the pastor is a US citizen he lives in the US that means he is subject to US laws not UK laws. If he had gone ahead with his threat he may or may not have been prosecuted, but it wouldn't have been under UK law.

If it had been a UK citizen, given the same circumstances he would probably have been warned not to carry out his threat by the police and could have been prosecuted afterwards if they deemed an offence may have been committed.

A march by the EDL proclaiming "ban the burqa". something most moderate muslims would not have a problem with? How is that upsetting?

Its not so much the message that people get offended it, its the way the messenger delivers it.

If the method used is designed to be offensive it will also provoke who you intend to offend into possibly carrying out retaliatory actions. Thats the point of laws concerning public order, to prevent situations worsening.

As for the placards saying "no more mosques", its not particularly offensive, its not as if they are inciting to burn mosques down with muslims inside.

In a way the EDL message about no more mosques is due to the Muslim Community not being seen to condemn islamic fundamentalism or deal with extremists within their midst.

After all most of the home grown islamic terrorists were recruited in UK mosques, not the playing fields of the local comp were they?

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

The justice system in this country is a bloody joke.

I'd like to see this guy going over to the country where his roots are - and trying the same thing on a level that would insult that countrys citizens.......... but I guess he'd not have the balls to do that. Only here in Britain where our laws are so pathetically weak and allow these things to happen with a paltry fine.

Yeah the justice system does seem to let some people off with a slap on the wrist sometimes.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Shasown

First off the pastor is a US citizen he lives in the US that means he is subject to US laws not UK laws. If he had gone ahead with his threat he may or may not have been prosecuted, but it wouldn't have been under UK law.

If it had been a UK citizen, given the same circumstances he would probably have been warned not to carry out his threat by the police and could have been prosecuted afterwards if they deemed an offence may have been committed.

A march by the EDL proclaiming "ban the burqa". something most moderate muslims would not have a problem with? How is that upsetting?

Its not so much the message that people get offended it, its the way the messenger delivers it.

If the method used is designed to be offensive it will also provoke who you intend to offend into possibly carrying out retaliatory actions. Thats the point of laws concerning public order, to prevent situations worsening.

As for the placards saying "no more mosques", its not particularly offensive, its not as if they are inciting to burn mosques down with muslims inside.

In a way the EDL message about no more mosques is due to the Muslim Community not being seen to condemn islamic fundamentalism or deal with extremists within their midst.

After all most of the home grown islamic terrorists were recruited in UK mosques, not the playing fields of the local comp were they?

I know he is but the two cases do seem to share certain similarities yet our justice system seems to be a lot more keen to impose restrictions on freedom of expression. The Westboro Baptish Church did in fact proceed with burning the Qur'an and were not prosecuted. I also considered it relevant because a lot of support came out for the man promoting his right to free speech and it also inspired a case of men in this country burning the book and posting it on youtube but the furor over this poppy burning has been far greater than that was, and this was just 30 Muslims out of 2 and a half million who have recieved far more publicity than they deserve.

Do you not think the EDL's actions could be considered provocative and offensive? They've also been all too happy to use violence as well, both them and UAF have in fairness. But anyway what I'm trying to say is that free speech and freedom of assembly can often lead to certain people feeling insulted and offended but that is not in itself enough reason to criminalise them in my eyes. So long as they are not actually harming anyone they deserve to have the same right to free speech as we all do, no matter how immoral we consider the way they promote their message to be

[bananarama]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Its not illegal to voice any opinion.

Its illegal to do it in a way that offends or insults others. By offending or insulting you are provoking or inciting and thats the key point of the law.

They could have had their own little march on a different day etc. not a problem. They could have quietly stood there brandishing placards with Troops out slogans etc again not a problem. Instead they choose to chant during the two minutes silence and burn poppies.

However they wanted to offend in order to generate maximum publicity for themselves and their cause. And in all fairness probably would have been more than happy if some sort of fight or violence occured, just so they play the martyrs.

If they want so much to play the martyrs etc why dont they sod off in a little gang and protest on street corners over there. Lets see how long their heads remain attached to their bodies.

A seriously flawed answer........Must not express an opinion that offends others in some way.......In that case all opposing opinions would be banned according to your logic.

Whenever one offers an opposing expression there is always the risk of offence. Someone some where will be offended come what may......

You cannot on one hand support freedom of expression and then in the other hand invent a load of if's and but's.........Freedom of expression then becomes the victim of those who choose to be offended and choose to want to censor others.

I detest what the guy did as much as any one else would. But I detest even more the corrosion of free expression in this country using the argument that to express an extreme belief is in itself incitement..........No its its not its just an expression that some people weak in the head interprete as incitement and use that anger to justify the censorship of others.


You either have free speach/expression or you don't......You cannot have free speech and then invent a load of if's and but's and rules for this or that for interpritation..............Freedom of expression is freedom of expression....End of........

The modern generation have betrayed eveything our brave servicemen faught for in the last two major conflicts....

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by bananarama

A seriously flawed answer........Must not express an opinion that offends others in some way.......In that case all opposing opinions would be banned according to your logic.

Whenever one offers an opposing expression there is always the risk of offence. Someone some where will be offended come what may......

You cannot on one hand support freedom of expression and then in the other hand invent a load of if's and but's.........Freedom of expression then becomes the victim of those who choose to be offended and choose to want to censor others.

I detest what the guy did as much as any one else would. But I detest even more the corrosion of free expression in this country using the argument that to express an extreme belief is in itself incitement..........No its its not its just an expression that some people weak in the head interprete as incitement and use that anger to justify the censorship of others.


You either have free speach/expression or you don't......You cannot have free speech and then invent a load of if's and but's and rules for this or that for interpritation..............Freedom of expression is freedom of expression....End of........

The modern generation have betrayed eveything our brave servicemen faught for in the last two major conflicts....

I hate to break it to you, its not my logic, its called the rule of law.

Anyone can express an opinion, its the manner of that expression that is tested in a court of law should the expresser of that opinion be complained about and get charged for it.

As for choosing to be offended, yes people can complain however throughout the investigation and potential prosecution of said offence the test of law is whether a reasonable person would be seriously offended by the expression.

Or if the the alleged offender carried out the expression with the knowledge it would seriously offend others and with the intent to do so.

Wasnt it your beloved Labour Party that introduced not only these public order laws but also the overall situation where they felt it necessary to further restrict our freedoms?

[karezza]

Mohammed was an epileptic who was married to a 7-year-old girl.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by karezza

Mohammed was an epileptic who was married to a 7-year-old girl.

I dare all the "freedom of speech at any cost" advocates on this thread to stand outside any mosque with a loudspeaker and chant the above. Any takers? No I thought not - and the reason? Because the law would come down on you like a ton of bricks - you'd be inside so fast your feet wouldn't touch the ground. So just spare us all your muddle headed, perverse PC bull****, wake up and smell the coffee - there is one law for some and another for the rest of us. No such thing as freedom of speech for all - never has been and never will be.

[Lee.]

Originally Posted by angus58

I dare all the "freedom of speech at any cost" advocates on this thread to stand outside any mosque with a loudspeaker and chant the above. Any takers? No I thought not - and the reason? Because the law would come down on you like a ton of bricks - you'd be inside so fast your feet wouldn't touch the ground. So just spare us all your muddle headed, perverse PC bull****, wake up and smell the coffee - there is one law for some and another for the rest of us. No such thing as freedom of speech for all - never has been and never will be.

Agree 100%