By Colin Liddell:
Solon ‘the Wise’ earned his sobriquet when he repealed the laws of Draco in early 6th century Athens. Before then, the laws of Athens had decreed death even for minor offences.
Solon realized that if every crime meant death, then a criminal might reason that it would make sense to murder and steal rather than to just to steal; especially if murdering the victim improved the value of the theft and its chances of success. A similar impulse was behind the reformation of laws and punishments in 18th and 19th century Britain.
But now, thanks to multiculturalism and the dangerous stresses it creates in society, there is a growing tendency to return to Draconian methods in a desperate attempt to force things that are naturally repellent to each other to hang together.
This was driven home by the recent case in Edinburgh, Scotland, where anti-Muslim protester Wayne Stillwell was sentenced to 10 months in prison merely for attaching bacon to the handles of the main door at Edinburgh’s Central Mosque and throwing some of it inside the building.
Looked at from a purely legal point of view – rather than from an ideological one questioning the rapid growth of an antagonistic culture and community embedded within the heart of Scotland – some sort of public order case could be made against Mr. Stillwell, but ten months in prison is clearly Draconian by any reasonable standards. A £25 fine would perhaps have been merited.
Some idea of how Draconian can be gauged by considering other, comparative cases. In June this year, a Belfast man, Peter Mabbitt-Campbell, was arrested for urinating against a church, one moreover that was connected with Belfast’s Indian community. During his arrest he lashed out at police officers. Sentence: one month for urinating, four months for disorderly behaviour, both suspended.
It could be argued that Stillwell was being punished for specific intent to offend, whereas Mabbitt-Campbell’s offensiveness was simply random and drink-fuelled. Even if this is the logic, there is still a massive discrepancy.
But, of course, it’s simpler than that, because there are also cases of intentional desecration aimed at non-Muslim sites where the punishments have been negligible.
In 2002, three teenage boys vandalized a church in Soham left open so that locals could pray for two missing schoolgirls who were later found murdered. A crucifix, a wooden chest and the church’s public address system were damaged and human excrement was smeared over clerical garments. The cost of the damage was over a £1,000. The sentence? A non-custodial, six-month ‘referral order’, with each criminal paying £50 compensation to the church and apologizing to the vicar!
Here, again, it might be argued that the perpetrators were too young to be punished harshly, but, again, that’s not the real reason. In May, 2010, Tohseef Shah, a 21-year-old Muslim sprayed graffiti glorifying Osama bin Laden and predicting world domination for Islam on a war memorial. When tried he ended up walking free with a two-year conditional discharge and an order to pay the council £500 compensation.
Compared to sentences like these, Stillwell’s ten months seems more like a sentence for arson or GBH than one for an offense that at worst seems more like a tasteless schoolboy prank. But such legalistic overkill also hints at a future problem with enforcing multiculturalism in this way: it actually encourages more extreme acts.
We are likely to see a continuation of the trend of escalating sentences and punishments for any petty action that threatens the false and brittle state of peace between Britain’s increasingly discordant communities. This will include such acts as graffiti, fly posting, spitting, walking your dog, or leaving some disrespectful substance at ‘taboo’ sites and centres of multicultural identity. Now, of course, only British people are affected. But, inevitably, to justify such Draconian penalties, it will be necessary to extend Draconian penalties to all groups to maintain the myth of the ‘multicultural paradise’.
The problem here, however, is that if offenders are going to risk being locked up for months or years for some trivial act of defiance like Stillwell’s, then some offenders are going to make the rational calculation that it would make much more sense to attempt something bigger, bolder, and much more dangerous than a packet of misplaced rashers. After all, one might as well be hanged for a sheep as for lamb – whether it’s halal or not.
By Colin Liddell ©2013
# # # #
Steve
- Edit
This disparity also shows that there is no equality under the law, that a dual system exists & people who are not clued up, need to ask why would that be?
Michael Woodbridge
- Edit
I think it apposite to suggest that Common Law should take more of a lead over Statutory Law. At present we’re being swamped by statutory legislation much of which defies common sense or natural justice. If the Courts were able to decide how to sentence by precedent, each case could be argued more fully and justice would be seen to be done.
frederickdixon
- Edit
An enhanced penalty can be imposed where there is deemed to be a “racial motive” although, oddly, these seem only to be applied to ethnic minority offenders where the victim is also from an ethnic minority, e.g. Moslem/Jew. The CPS is very reluctant to charge the enhanced offence when the victim is white British, presumably because it would be “unhelpful to community relations”.
Anyway, no matter how the law is applied, it is surely wrong in principle that a person should be punished not for what he has done, but for the thoughts in his mind at the time. Is it less bad to have your nose broken by someone who dislikes your opinions than by someone who dislikes the colour of your skin? From the point of view of the victim I would have thought it made no difference.
Justice has lost her blindfold, now she must be anything but colour-blind.