In a High Court ruling this week, Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) lost a judicial review attempting to force the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to prosecute a pro-Palestinian leader, Nazim Ali, for a speech given by Ali after the Grenfell Tower fire. Possibly a determining factor in the outcome of my appeal next month, the full ruling can be read here.
CAA’s case against Ali and the CPS raises several questions regards the authorities’ decisions in both my own case and that of Jez Turner (who was recently released from prison and is now in a bail hostel under strict licence terms). Firstly, CAA wished to prosecute Ali privately. Readers will know that it was also a private prosecution brought by CAA against my songs which was then taken over by the CPS, leading to my conviction last May. Ali’s lawyers – like mine – had asked for the CPS to take over and discontinue. In Ali’s case, his legal team’s plea was heard and granted, hence CAA’s decision to then move forward with a judicial review. In my own case, however, the CPS were forced to discontinue CAA’s original charge owing to jurisdiction issues. Usually granted 14 days to decide whether to discontinue, the CPS needed 90 days to reach their decision: after discontinuing the original charge, they then laid four further charges relating to two songs.
CAA’s initial private prosecution charges against Ali were sought under the Public Order Act 1986 for racial incitement – not under the Communications Act as was the case with my songs. CAA’s attempt to prosecute Ali was a repeat scenario of CAA’s case against Jez Turner, with the exception that for some reason CAA did not attempt to bring a private prosecution against Turner. Asides CAA being the complainant in all three cases, the other common factor is that the CPS had originally not sought to bring charges against any of us. Whereas CAA first sought to have Ali and myself prosecuted privately, CAA forewent this stage in Turner’s case and instead sought a judicial review which they won and which led to Turner’s conviction.
CAA’s defeat in the High Court is of course good news, resulting in loss of resources and denying them yet another chance to gloat on their website. However, speaking as one of CAA’s victims and looking objectively at both Turner’s and Ali’s cases, it would appear that the authorities’ decisions have been wholly inconsistent. Would it be reasonable to conclude that inflammatory rhetoric about “Zionist power” spoken by a non-white Muslim activist carries less risk than similar rhetoric coming from White Britons? Does this High Court ruling suggest that non-White UK citizens are permitted greater freedom of expression than the indigenous population, many of whom are deeply concerned about the way mass weaponised non-white immigration is rapidly transforming this small island? Does this High Court ruling imply that our rulers and puppet authorities are again visibly engaging in anti-White discrimination?
In other unrelated yet relevant news, a black French rapper faces a fine for a YouTube video in which the rapper states he will kill White babies and hang their parents. Thank goodness he didn’t mention the Shoah…
You must be logged in to post a comment.