The headline in the Daily Mail is misleading, because it says “not racially motivated”.
Spencer picks up on it, correctly:
Racially motivated? No. Islam is not a race. Religiously motivated? Yes, and very obviously so. But craven fear drives authorities to outdo Orwell himself, and sweep this affair under the rug as being merely “political” in nature. “Muslim daubs war memorial with ‘Islam will dominate the world’ – but walks free afterÂ CPSÂ says he wasÂ NOTÂ racially motivated,” from theÂ Daily Mail.
Its worse than you think:
True to form, theÂ Burton Mail only called the East Staffordshire Racial Equality Council for comment. A Mr Dennis Fletcher from that organisation was then quoted as saying that he “suspected someone from the far right was responsible.”
He said: “Graffiti of any type is terrible but when it includes racist material it has to be considered utterly unacceptable.”
In other words, theÂ Burton Mail tried its very best to completely invert the memorial desecration by innuendo to imply that it was the work of the “far right” and that it was “racist” as well.
There is, of course, no evidence as to who was responsible for this outrageous act. It is therefore highly irregular and irresponsible for the Race Police and theÂ Burton Mail to go naming the “far right.” More/thanks to Mullah
The CPS said Shah’s offence could not be charged as a hate crime because the law requires that damage must target a particular religious or racial group.
(That’s right! Rembember: we had another judgement last week that said the grey mass of unbelievers is not a “particular religious or racial group”, but if you say the same thing about Muslims, you go into the can because THEY ARE a particular Â religious or racial group./ed)
It said: ‘While it was appreciated that what was sprayed on the memorial may have been perceived by some to be part of a racial or religious incident, no racial or religious group can be shown to have been targeted.’
The case comes after a senior judge ruled on Thursday that Christian beliefs had no right to protection by the courts.
Lord Justice Laws told Christian counsellor Gary McFarlane he had no right to appeal after he was sacked for refusing to give sex therapy to a gay couple.
The judge said legal protection for views held purely on religious grounds would be ‘irrational’.
Just an ordinary Muslim guy:
Defending, Mumtaz Chaudry said Shah did not hold extremist views. ‘This is nothing to do with his religious beliefs, his family’s beliefs or his cultural beliefs,’ he said. ‘He is just an ordinary guy.
‘He is remorseful, but at the time of his interview he was simply answering questions and didn’t realise that was the right time to show remorse.’
Translation: he didn’t need to pretend. He got off the hook anyhow…..
Then, of course, some of us might remember this:
The UK seems to be full of useful idiots like him.