Problematic Stuff

[Forty Two]

Livestreaming in a public place outside of a courthouse in the UK when Muslims are on trial. Very problematic.

Given the malignant carbuncle in question has an established history of pulling the same stunt for the express purpose of riling up like-minded goons (is in fact under a suspended sentence for that), I think the police were justified in taking action. However, there is a thread on this topic where you can rail against the injustice of it all.

Well, given what the malignant carbuncle was doing, which was quietly livestreaming, with no breach of the peace, inciting nobody, riling up nobody, it would seem that in this instance there was no particular "incitement" going on, and the "Honorable QC's" view that this constituted a breach of the peace seems to be rather a stretch, don't you think? Would the same conduct undertaken by someone other than a malignant carbuncle be similarly treated? Or, do malignant carbuncles have to toe-the-line a little better than benign carbuncles?

[Forty Two]

I notice the racist, xenophobic, white supremacist rag Breitbart ran that story on Tommy Robinson in the US.

I know, right? Foregoing the proper role of newspapers, which is to ignore such stories.... why report on the arrest and jailing of a citizen for recording in public place and upsetting nobody.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Livestreaming in a public place outside of a courthouse in the UK when Muslims are on trial. Very problematic.

Given the malignant carbuncle in question has an established history of pulling the same stunt for the express purpose of riling up like-minded goons (is in fact under a suspended sentence for that), I think the police were justified in taking action. However, there is a thread on this topic where you can rail against the injustice of it all.

Well, given what the malignant carbuncle was doing, which was quietly livestreaming, with no breach of the peace, inciting nobody, riling up nobody, it would seem that in this instance there was no particular "incitement" going on, and the "Honorable QC's" view that this constituted a breach of the peace seems to be rather a stretch, don't you think? Would the same conduct undertaken by someone other than a malignant carbuncle be similarly treated? Or, do malignant carbuncles have to toe-the-line a little better than benign carbuncles?

Aw, your google-fu isn't up to finding the ruling in the previous case? No problem. 'Robinson' was in effect on probation for his previous offense. His actions, no matter how innocuous they were in your opinion, were found to be in violation of that probation.

This contempt hearing is not about free speech. This is not about the freedom of the press. This is not about legitimate journalism; this is not about political correctness; this is not about whether one political viewpoint is right or another. It is about justice, and it is about ensuring that a trial can be carried out justly and fairly. It is about ensuring that a jury are not in any way inhibited from carrying out their important function. It is about being innocent until proven guilty. It is not about people prejudging a situation and going round to that court and publishing material, whether in print or online, referring to defendants as "Muslim paedophile rapists". A legitimate journalist would not be able to do that and under the strict liability rule there would be no defence to publication in those terms. It is pejorative language which prejudges the case, and it is language and reporting - if reporting indeed is what it is - that could have had the effect of substantially derailing the trial.

...

The sentence, therefore, that I pass upon you, taking into account all of those matters that have been placed before me and your admissions entered via Mr. Kovalevsky, is one of three months' imprisonment which will be suspended for a period of 18 months. That will be suspended. There will be no conditions that need to be attached to that suspended sentence, but you should be under no illusions that if you commit any further offence of any kind, and that would include, I would have thought a further contempt of court by similar actions, then that sentence of three months would be activated, and that would be on top of anything else that you were given by any other court. In short, Mr. Yaxley-Lennon, turn up at another court, refer to people as "Muslim paedophiles, Muslim rapists" and so on and so forth while trials are ongoing and before there has been a finding by a jury that that is what they are, and you will find yourself inside. Do you understand? Thank you very much.

[Forty Two]

Indeed, I was having trouble finding the ruling. That transcript is very helpful indeed.

Am I correct that the "contempt of court" in the first instance was not contempt of a "court order" per se, but of court under the statute section 41 referenced in the transcript, concerning photographs and videos inside courthouses? Also, was there another written order, signed by the judge in the first case (Norton) memorializing the decision, or is the transcript it?

The reason I ask is that in the US, typically a courts speaks through its written orders, and after a transcribed hearing took place, the court would write out its final contempt order with specific "findings of fact" and then directing very specifically the conduct to be avoided.

I would point out that the second arrest was for him being outside on the street, not inside the court (which is materially different), and he was more or less silently livestreaming, as I understand it. He wasn't calling anyone "Muslim rapists and pedophiles" and he wasn't hollering or yelling at all.

Am I correct that the cause for him being arrested the second time was that he was filming or livestreaming the defendants as they walked down the the public way to get to the court? If so, does the British statute or Contempt Law prohibit that expressly?

I ask that because under US law, a finding of contempt has to be very specific. If there is no notice to the defendant of the precise conduct that is forbidden, then contempt cannot issue. Typically, contempt must follow a court order to do or refrain from doing something, and it cannot be merely a direction to "follow the law."

Anyway, the judge's comments about what this is "not about" are nice, but it's self-serving. It is about those things. It's also about contempt and about the fair administration of justice, too. But, saying "you cannot speak or publish" is very much about speech and the press, and the rights of Englishmen in that regard. The judge can't just dismiss that. Well, they can in England, but in the US they could not as easily do so.

Thanks for posting the link to the transcript. It was quite helpful.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Another quote from the previously linked source:

When you were outside the court you were within the precincts of the court. When you were in the court building you were, of course, self-evidently in the court building.

'Robinson' was clearly instructed by the Canterbury court, and knew when he set out to perform this stunt that he would probably be arrested and almost certainly end up imprisoned. I think it was a calculated effort to enflame supporters and like-minded tools as well as garner sympathy from the gullible. No doubt he's well pleased with the result.

If you want to learn about contempt of court in British law as it would apply to this case, I can suggest 'Contempt of Court, Reporting Restrictions and Restrictions on Public Access to Hearings'.

[Forty Two]

Well, it seems to me that one of the main ideas of free speech is to motivate one's supporters.

I've been reading up on the contempt of court rule in Britain. I'm not surprised so many Brits are upset about it.

I have no sympathy for him. I'm concerned with the general principle involved, because the weapons than can be leveled against the worst dickheads among us, like Robinson, can be leveled against anyone.

He was imprisoned, as I understanding, under Section 4(2). A person is not guilty of contempt of court under the strict liability rule in respect of a fair and accurate report of legal proceedings held in public, published contemporaneously and in good faith – s.4(1). A further defence applies to publications made as or as part of a discussion in good faith of public affairs or other matters of general publication interest if the risk of impediment or prejudice is merely incidental to the discussion – s.(5).

I wonder, if his standing outside on the street, not saying anything, but livestreaming what the public could see if they were there in public and on the street, really constitutes a violation of section 4(2). Section 4(2) empowers the court, where it appears to be necessary for avoiding a substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice in those proceedings, or in any other proceedings pending or imminent, to order that the publication of any report of the proceedings, or any part of the proceedings, be postponed for such period as the court thinks necessary for that purpose. This provision is aimed at postponement of publication rather than a permanent ban - R (Press Association) v Cambridge Crown Court [2012] EWCA Crim 2434. It is most likely to be appropriate where there are due to be subsequent trials of the same offence, and reporting the outcome of the first trial might prejudice the jury in the later ones e.g. in the Victoria Station murder trials.

I would love to see the court's findings when they hauled him in, as to what actual facts supported a finding of substantial prejudice. And, by being outside on the street, is he actually streaming "any part of the PROCEEDINGS?" What's considered part of the "proceedings."

Great link on the british contempt law, by the way.

[laklak]

Well, the Brits don't have to kow-tow to some moldy Constitution written by old, cis, straight, misogynistic, slave-owning, rich, white men. Those things are a real impediment to the swift and progressive application and judicial reinterpretation of law. Who better to decide what "contempt of court" actually means than the presiding judge? His court, his rules. If you don't like it there's always transportation to the colonies.

[pErvinalia]

We need private courts. Let them test their judgments in the judicial free market!

[Seabass]

Those awful minorities and their identity politics!

Woman's racist road rage attack on Korean-American veteran caught on camera
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 70001.html

A woman who launched a racist tirade against a Korean-American veteran in California during a road rage incident was caught doing so on camera.

The woman was driving in Fremont, California, when she launched a verbal attack on James Ahn, a US Air Force veteran, yelling at him: “Go back to China, get out of my country”.

Mr Ahn posted on Facebook about the incident, writing that “this lady started the racial harassment while threatening me on the road only because I wasn't driving fast enough for her...I was driving at the posted speed limit of 35mph but she wanted me to move out of her way cause she was speeding”.

The person in his passenger seat began filming as Mr Ahn moved to one side of the road in order to let her pass because they were worried she would cause an accident or do something else dangerous. The unidentified woman can be seen pulling her eyes to the side in what appeared to be an insult to Mr Ahn’s Asian ethnicity.

“This is not your f****** country. This is my country. This is not Chinese. Oh my God. Chinese, ugly! Go back to f****** China you ugly chinese!,” the woman screamed in the video.

[pErvinalia]

She needs a punch in the face.

[laklak]

Her country? She a Navajo or something?

[Forty Two]

She's practicing the very identify politics I've been objecting to. It's why it's so pernicious. She's a member of a group, so she can tell the out-group what to do. It's the other side of the same coin.

[pErvinalia]

Yes, and that's what Ani and Seabass have been repeatedly trying to tell you every time you rail against minorities and/or SJW's practising identity politics. They weren't the first to use identity politics and they certainly aren't the worst group(s) out there doing it. It's cunts like this racist lady that are the real danger.

[Seabass]

She's practicing the very identify politics I've been objecting to. It's why it's so pernicious. She's a member of a group, so she can tell the out-group what to do. It's the other side of the same coin.

Jesus H. Motherfucking Christ on a Vespa. They're not even remotely the same, you dolt.

Do you seriously believe that persecuted minorities banding together to fight for equality is equivalent to the persecution of minorities by the white, hetero majority? How can you not see how stupid it is to equate the two? This level of stupidity is truly something to behold.

[pErvinalia]

There's good people on both sides, Seabass...