Britain's Political Pro-War Racism: Azhar Ahmed Arrested for a Facebook Comment.

5th.July 2012

update on this trial here;

http://www.pitkanary.com/

quote extract;

I’m sitting in a Café just around the corner from Huddersfield Magistrates Court, having observed proceedings today in the Azhar Ahmed case. Below are my (as near as possible) real time experiences:

unfortunate if defence had to find a new advocate.The case has been adjourned and relisted for the 14th Semptember. We are filed back out of the courtroom.

And that’s it. Maybe we can hope for a favourable judgment in the High Court Twitter Joke Trial appeal before then. Maybe the court is putting things off in order to wait for that judgement?  ….end

Azhar Ahmed Arrested for a Facebook Comment.

Richard Seymour of The Guardian wrote an article on the arrest and charging of Azhar Ahmed,initially for “racially agravated public disorder” in which he eloquently points out,
quote;

A spokesperson for Yorkshire police said: “He didn’t make his point very well and that is why he has landed himself in bother.” So, the penalty for not making a point “very well” is prosecution and potentially a sentence of up to six months in prison. The suggestion, though, is that aside from being “racially aggravated” this statement constitutes an incitement to disorder. Of course, it is considerably more even-tempered than some sentiments I have expressed myself in the past, though I won’t suffer arrest or prosecution for it….end

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2012/mar/15/azhar-ahmed-treason-army-facebook-comments?newsfeed=true

So, now in Britain, if the state doesn’t like the way you say something, you can be charged with some offence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTBlir1oGco

Azhar Ahmed is the latest victim of a concerted effort to redefine racism as “anything that could conceivably offend white people”. Ahmed is being prosecuted by police over a statement that appeared on his Facebook page. The police say it is a “racially aggravated public order offence”.

When the hearing commenced, people were informed that the prosecution were changing the charge from “racially aggravated public order offences”, to a charge under Section 127 of the Communications Act of “Sending a grossly offensive message” – anybody interested in social media law should be thoroughly familiar with the particular section of outdated and frequently abused law: this is the “catch-all” used by CPS to continue a case when the original charge of incitement or threat is clearly not going to stick. As we all saw in the Paul Chambers case, and one or two cases following the Summer riots of 2011.

    127Improper use of public electronic communications network(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
    (a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly    offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character;    ….

    (3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.

Let’s be clear on this: the communication we received today clearly falls under the above law, and numerous others as well, a comment from the officials of the court

The offending post was this;

“People gassin about the deaths of Soldiers! What about the innocent familys who have been brutally killed.. The women who have.been raped.. The children who have been sliced up..! Your enemy’s were the Taliban not innocent harmful familys. All soldiers should DIE & go to HELL! THE LOWLIFE FOKKIN SUM! gotta problem go cry at your soldiers grave & wish him hell because thats where he is going..”

I see this more as anti-war than racist, after all soldiers in the british army are all shades, not just white..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTBlir1oGco

Under this particular section, section 127 of the Communications Act,  “Sending a grossly offensive message” -  this can mean anything, anything at all. Therefore jounalists may have to give up their profession for a start, or, leave yourself open for them to pick you off, just as ACTA, SOPA, PIPA is likely to do, we are all to be criminalized, but not uniformally and equally as this other post on Facebook shows,

http://harrypaterson.co.uk/blog/a-tale-of-two-states-azhar-ahmed-and-scott-mchugh/

extract of comments made in return to Ahmed;

quote;
On March 12th, one Scott McHugh, who appears to be a serving soldier, posted on his Facebook wall, in response to Ahmed’s comments, “Azhar ahmed you sick horrible twisted paki bastard, how can you say that about our soldiers!” McHugh was joined by several of his friends, some of whom commented as follows…

Leighanne Gillott: ” He’s disgusting and should be fucking hanged!! He won’t get away with it, locked up or not somebody will get him, he will get what he deserves!!x”

Lee Crisculo: ”Fucking sick twat burn his eyes out smelly fukka”

Helen Massey Gordge:  ”Cheeky smelly pakki cunt wants tying to a tree n shooting …Smelly fukker..Lock him up n throw the key away ..Grrrhhhh….SKUM…!!”

Robbie Joedys Sampler: ” He’s nothing he’s gunner die veryy soon”

Danielle Lufc Harker: ”Dirty smelly greasy bastard needs fuking torturing the dirty paki bastard!!”

The comments were subsequently removed and it appears as though someone reported McHugh to Facebook administrators, as his defiant rejoinder, and that of a friend, seem to suggest…

Scott McHugh: “some body else had just reported my comment who ever it is Get back on ya Camel and f**k off!

Danny Wheeler: “probably a paki shagger lad fuck em there shitbags for not admitting who it is!”

Were all this not bad enough, try this on for size  https://www.facebook.com/AzharAhmedScum

Welcome to justice and democracy, UK style. Right about now, I doubt I’m the only one with a grim smile, fearing for the future while hearing  Joe Strummer intoning, ‘Know Your Rights’.

end quote

A soldiers rights; a Right to Refuse Illegal Orders
Identifying a manifestly unlawful order

When receiving an order from an officer, a soldier, as a reasoning agent, is obliged to respond not as a machine but as a person, as a human being. This means that instead of automatically responding to orders without thinking he must stop and think and use his reasoning ability to deliberate on the issue and decide for himself whether or not the order is lawful. In making high quality choices or decisions a soldier needs to undertake several distinct thought processes.

In the first place he needs to consider what an order entails, the actions and activities that he will be involved in.
Then he needs to consider the likely or expected outcome, the results or consequences of the order.
Then he needs to examine his conscience and establish whether or not the action he is being asked to take or the consequence he is being asked to bring about is right or wrong and complies with his own moral values and standards.
If it does, he then needs to consider whether or not the order and its likely consequences complies with his own understanding of the law and whether it is or is not a criminal offence.
If after thinking it through he is happy that his conscience is clear and that the consequences of his actions will be lawful then he has a duty to follow the order.
If however his thought processes have thrown up moral or legal questions or concerns then he is obliged in law to raise his questions and concerns with his ‘superior’ officers…..end

ref;  http://www.rightofchoice.com/warcrimes/warcrimes%20v1/legal%20obligations.html

SAS soldier refuses an illegal order & gets commended, definition of what constitutes an illegal order,

http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=53327 ….quote;

SAS Soldier Quits Over ‘illegal’ US Tactics in Iraq
Ben Griffith, who has served with the SAS for 2 years, refused to fight in Iraq and has left the Army after 3 months in Baghdad over the ‘illegal’ tactics of US troops and the policies of the coalition forces.

He says he has seen many illegal acts carried out by US troops, and claims the US troops view all Iraqis as “untermenschen” – a Nazi term used for races thought to be sub-human.Instead of facing a court martial and imprisonment, he was instead discharged with a testimonial describing him as a “balanced, honest, loyal and determined individual who possesses the strength of character to have the courage of his convictions.”

On the back of  Ahmed’s particular case,it has been reported that there are personalities and talk-show hosts in America such as Rush Limbaugh, saying better to stay away from Britain.

Across the former commonwealth and former colonies who looked upon the UK as the mother of “democracy” cases like these will leave a very negative impression and harm the UK’s perceived image across the world, possibly also harming our tourist trade for one.

Oh, and lest I forget, welcome to the London Olympics.