So I just read two very recent stories that are completely unrelated, but when looked at together, make the British justice system, look like an absolute farce.
The first case, involves a 46 year old Saudi millionaire who was tried, and acquitted, for the rape of an 18 year old British woman. The reason why he was acquitted? Well…
A Saudi millionaire has been cleared of raping a teenager after claiming he might have accidentally penetrated the 18-year-old when he tripped and fell on her.
Property developer Ehsan Abdulaziz, 46, was accused of forcing himself on the girl as she slept off a night of drinking on the sofa of his Maida Vale flat.
He had already had sex with her 24-year-old friend and said his penis might have been poking out of his underwear after that sexual encounter when he tripped on the 18-year-old
The 18-year-old met Abdulaziz in the exclusive Cirque le Soir nightclub in the West End on 7 August last year where she had been spending the evening with her friend, who was known to the businessman.
He invited them to join him at his £1,000-per-night table and then offered them a ride home in his Aston Martin.
The three went back to his apartment, where he offered them designer Roberto Cavalli vodka before taking the second girl into the bedroom for sex.
The teenager claimed she woke in the early hours with Abdulaziz on top of her forcing himself inside her.
Abdulaziz said he had accidentally fallen on the youngster as she tried to seduce him, and that was how traces of his DNA came to be in her vagina.
He said he had gone to wake her to offer her a T-shirt to sleep in or a taxi ride home, but she had pulled him on top of her and placed his hand between her legs.
The jury acquitted Abdulaziz of one count of rape after just 30 minutes of deliberations.
In his evidence, Abdulaziz demonstrated how the complainant had put her hand behind his head to pull her towards him, causing him to fall down.
“I’m fragile, I fell down but nothing ever happened, between me and this girl nothing ever happened,” he insisted.
He said it was possible he had semen on his hands after the sexual encounter with her friend.
Abdulaziz, of Nightingale Lodge, Admiral Walk, Maida Vale, was cleared of one count of rape.
During the trial, Judge Martin Griffiths permitted the rare step of allowing 20 minutes of Abdulaziz’s evidence to be heard in private.
Just read the above, and pay particular attention to the sections that I bolded. Have you ever heard such stupidity in your life? Keep in mind, that this wasn’t a Saudi Arabian court, where you would expect this sort of thing. This was a British court. It’s absolute insanity that in a first world democracy, where universal human rights and law and order are supposed to be recognised, that the guy could be acquitted with a story as fucking ridiculous as that.
So a couple of days later, I hear about another trial that occurred in Britain at roughly the same time. The “crime” it dealt with, the racial demographics of the defendant and “victims”, and the verdict, were all very different in this case.
A far right activist who posted “vile, anti-Semitic material” online ahead of a planned neo-Nazi rally in London has been jailed for more than three years.
Earlier, Joshua Bonehill-Paine, 23, of Yeovil, was found guilty of inciting racial hatred at Southwark Crown Court.
He posted links to offensive material on Twitter in June before a rally planned in Golders Green, north London, an area with a large Jewish population.
The event was later moved and held in central London.
‘Free from fear’
Bonehill-Paine, who has described himself as “a rising star of the right-wing community” was arrested at his Yeovil home in Hudson Road on 26 June.
He was jailed for three years and four months and ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £120 and £1,200 in court costs.
Det Ch Insp Andy Barnes of the Met Police, who led the investigation, said Bonehill-Paine “posted vile, anti-Semitic material online”.
He added: “There are challenges in attributing such material posted online to the originator but our digital forensic examiners worked tirelessly, carrying out extensive analysis of the material, phone data and online activity to prove that Bonehill-Paine posted the material from his laptop.
“The Met fully understands the hurt that is felt in communities affected by this type of crime.
“It is only by continually working with communities that we can ensure they are safe and free from fear.”
In 2014 Bonehill-Paine admitted posting hoax messages about a pub in Leicester banning military personnel in a bid to generate racial tension.
He was given 180 hours of community service and a two-year supervision order for malicious communication.
Again, this is absolute insanity. All this guy did, was post an offensive image with an offensive caption on Twitter. I won’t post it here myself, but I have seen it. The image showed “Le Happy Merchant” (an evil looking caricature of a Jewish man, for those unfamilar with it) in Auschwitz, and the text advertised the time and location of the planned rally, and said that the event “will be gas” (a double entendre that the event would be fun, while linking back to the image of the Auschwitz gas chambers).
While I don’t condone what he posted, I am ultimately a firm believer that freedom of speech is a human right that should be protected no matter what. The whole point behind freedom of speech is that some speech may not be palatable to everybody, but a person should be free to say whatever they want, present any opinion, any point of view, without fear of being persecuted legally for doing so. Freedom of speech laws exist entirely for the purpose of protecting controversial speech, which may cause offence to some (or indeed many) people. Speech that doesn’t offend, doesn’t need protection.
There was a time in the past, when speaking out in favour of equal rights for gay people, would have been offensive to the majority. Does that mean, that anyone who campaigned to legalise it, should have been put in prison for it? Lets imagine they had been, and we lived in a society, where it had always been against the law to speak out in favour of gay equality, to the point where no progress on that issue had ever been made, because anytime someone tried to advance that cause, they were put in prison for opening their mouth. Anyone with gay friends or family should see the point I’m trying to make here…I hope.
Joshua Bonehill-Paine may not have said the nicest thing in the world, but that doesn’t mean he should be put in prison for it. He should be free to express whatever he wants, and people have a right to be offended by it, but they shouldn’t have the right to see the man imprisoned for it. They should either learn to ignore what he’s saying, and get over themselves or, they should tell him exactly what they think of him, and his beliefs. Instead, we behave in a manner similar to your typical totalitarian dictatorship, and imprison people who say “ungood” things.
I also just want to point out the general hypocrisy of the charge. Inciting racial hatred? Why is it, that a white guy saying mean thing to the Jews is considered to be this, but all those Muslims in Britain, who march through the streets, demanding Sharia Law, telling white women to cover themselves from head to toe, and threatening to behead anyone who doesn’t follow their belief system, aren’t being charged with this same crime?
I think it’s very interesting to compare these two cases. In one case, you have a wealthy non-white defendant who committed one of the worst possible crimes against a white victim, and he’s acquitted after using one of the most stupid excuses imaginable. In the other case, you have a working class white defendant, who committed a trivial offence (I find it ridiculous to even call it a crime) with no clear victim at all, and he gets more than three years in prison for it. Unfortunately, this is what happens, when you insult the Jew, who is currently number one on the oppression pyramid. And seeing as the defendant was a straight, white, male, the class at the very bottom of the pyramid (seeing as supposedly, we have all these privileges that we abuse, to oppress all other demographics in vague, unspecified ways), it only makes it worse. In the modern, politically correct, totalitarian dystopia that we live in, the second crime, was far worse than the first one, so the sentences reflect that reality.