Five Muslim men who screamed insults at soldiers during an Iraq homecoming parade today escaped with a slap on the wrist.

The five men had already been found guilty of calling the returning soldiers 'murderers', 'terrorists' and 'rapists' as they marched through Luton in March last year.

But today the men, who all come from Luton, were freed with a two-year conditional discharge and ordered to pay contributions towards costs of just £500 each.

The men's lawyer has complained that the media coverage of the protest led to them being prosecuted, even though their placards had been approved by local police.

Munim Abdul, 28, Jalal Ahmed, 21, Yousaf Bashir, 29, Shajjadar Choudhury, 31, and Ziaur Rahman, 32, were convicted at Luton Magistrates' Court today of using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress.

Jubair Ahmed, 19, and Ibrahim Anderson, 32, also from Luton, were acquitted of the same charge.

A large crowd lined the streets of the Bedfordshire town to celebrate the return of the local regiment, who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But a group of protesters also attended carrying placards and shouting slogans about the soldiers, prosecutor Avirup Chaudhuri said.

Among these were the jeers: 'British Army: murderers'; 'British soldiers burn in hel_l'; 'Baby killers'; and 'British soldiers you will pay'.

Protesters also denounced the troops as terrorists.

'Islam will dominate the world - Freedom can go to hel_l': A supporter of the seven Muslim protesters arrives at Luton Magistrates' Court today

Lawyers defending the men said their clients discussed their plans to protest with police beforehand, had agreed to a time and a place to do so with them, had complied with police throughout and officers had not objected at the time to their slogans.

This implied consent by the police and to prosecute them retrospectively was not right, the lawyers said.

But District Judge Carolyn Mellanby rejected their argument.

Giving her judgment, she said: 'I find that a criminal prosecution and conviction of five of the seven defendants is a proportionate response to the legitimate aim of protection of society and maintenance of public order, not only for the future but to ensure there is sufficient public confidence and support in the peace-keeping responsibilities of the police and the courts.'

The incident provoked a public outcry, she added.

Lawyers defending the men said their clients discussed their plans to protest with police beforehand, had agreed to a time and a place to do so with them, had complied with police throughout and officers had not objected at the time to their slogans.

This implied consent by the police and to prosecute them retrospectively was not right, the lawyers have argued.

The men could have sworn or made gestures during the protest but did not, Ms Dashani told the court on the sixth day of the trial.

The fact that Muslims do not do these things could indicate that these men were not being threatening or abusive, she said.

'This would fall foul of the religion that they are protesting under the banner of,' she said.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - in which the regiment has served - are a legitimate subject for public debate, the lawyers have said.

Acquitted: Ibrahim Anderson (l) and Shajjadar Choudhury ® arrive at court today

Their clients were expressing their views on this subject, as they were entitled to do under the Human Rights Act, which includes the right to freedom of expression, they said.

If the war in Iraq is found to be illegal, then some might feel that the soldiers who fought in it are indeed murderers, Ms Dashani said.

Kyri Argyropoulos, defending Choudhury, said the prosecution was seeking to 'criminalise, perhaps even demonise' men who complied with police throughout their protest.

He suggested that the men may have been prosecuted due to the widespread media coverage of the protest.

He said: '(The prosecution) ... seems to have catalogued almost every press article relating to the incident, somewhat unusually.

'Could it be in hindsight that somebody somewhere regretted the fact that Choudhury and his fellow protesters had been allowed to protest at all, given how extensively it was reported, then prosecuted on what was ... the easiest to prove?

'Someone somewhere perhaps needing to save face?'

The words 'easiest to prove' appear in police notes in unused material gathered during the investigation, he has told the court.

He added: 'If I can use the mixed metaphor of closing the gate after the horse has bolted and then using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, I wouldn't be doing justice to how misguided and unfair this prosecution was.'

The Muslim protesters brandished banners calling British soldiers 'butchers' during the parade

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1242335/Muslims-called-British-soldiers-rapists-cowards-scum-exercising-freedom-speech-court-hears.html#ixzz0cLP9qgQF

what got me on this one , is during the interview after the court case

They stated

The Soliders are murders in ' Our Land ' and ' Our Home Land ' , referring to Afganistan.

Well i aint being racist or anything, but they stay in the uk to claim benefits, why dont they just bugger off back to ' there homeland ' if they dont like the uk..

And the Judge, what was with sentance ! ..... Could you imagine if you did similar in Thailand , as a brit , against the Thais ...... well i would dread to think

I remember watching video of the protests in the UK against those Danish cartoons. The UK condemned the cartoons but the protesters still carried anti-UK signs. The lesson is that it doesn't matter what you say or do, these radicals will still hate you. Unless of course all of you convert to Islam and submit yourselves to Sharia law.

In my observation, it seems that many extremist Muslims use western sensitivities (in the lengths western societies go to avoid raising perceptions of anti-Muslim bias) against those same societies. Perhaps it could be said they are preying on western weakness in this regard. IMO, the law in most (if not all) western societies is simply not tough enough. It's okay to say they should be deported (and so they should), but what do you do with the ones that are home bred? Tougher laws need to be enacted before the spiral becomes irreversible.

Tougher laws need to be enacted before the spiral becomes irreversible

i belive this has alrady started

I am not an expert in UK laws regarding free speech.  And while I think these men are rather deplorable for what they did, I would chalk that up to freedom of speech and the freedom to make complete asses of themselves.

I do agree with the sentiment, though, that when they refer to the soldiers are murders in "our land," then what the heck are they doing in the UK?  Are they just tourists?  If so, maybe it is time to go back "home."  If they are not tourists and want to be UK citizens, then the UK is their "home."

And at what point does it go beyond free speech and move into traitorous speech when certain individuals advocate a scrapping of democracy and human rights and a move, by violence, if necessary, to an Islamic theocracy in the UK?

Tough situation. 

And should we tell them to 'go home', then we would be branded as racist.

Hypocritical c*nts.

And should we tell them to 'go home', then we would be branded as racist.

Hypocritical c*nts.

Yeah its so typical....SCABS!

And should we tell them to 'go home', then we would be branded as racist.

Hypocritical c*nts.

Despite personally being a civil libertarian, I am not so sure I wouldn't take the opportunity to expel non-citizens given a certain, agreed upon and perhaps legislated line-in-the-sand being crossed.

As far as a British-born citizen making the same statements and taking the same actions, well, I sure don't have an answer for that.

And should we tell them to 'go home', then we would be branded as racist.

Hypocritical c*nts.

Despite personally being a civil libertarian, I am not so sure I wouldn't take the opportunity to expel non-citizens given a certain, agreed upon and perhaps legislated line-in-the-sand being crossed.

As far as a British-born citizen making the same statements and taking the same actions, well, I sure don't have an answer for that.

One of their group, whose name escapes me now and is not a Brit, has been expelled and banned from entering the country already.

As for the rest (the British citizens), they are coming very close to inciting racial hatred which I believe is a crime in the UK. If Choudray continues to act as he is then I would not be surprised to see criminal charges bought against him at some point.

In my observation, it seems that many extremist Muslims use western sensitivities (in the lengths western societies go to avoid raising perceptions of anti-Muslim bias) against those same societies. Perhaps it could be said they are preying on western weakness in this regard. IMO, the law in most (if not all) western societies is simply not tough enough. It's okay to say they should be deported (and so they should), but what do you do with the ones that are home bred? Tougher laws need to be enacted before the spiral becomes irreversible.

I suggest that the irreversible spiral is the instituting of laws that inhibit free speech and freedom of religion.

You then become one of the repressive states that we in the West so often condem.

I believe that hate speech laws have been instituted in many Western countries now....and depending on how these laws are worded and executed (it's a very fine line balancing those laws with maintaining freedoms)..... hate speech laws are enough. Although, again depending on wording and execution, it could be the thin edge of the wedge at the top of a slippery slope (to mix metaphores).

My personal observation of this phenomena is that the soldiers themselves are generally indifferent to it. They have enough sense to see that fundamentalists have an agenda to keep anti Muslim sentiments running high by provoking violent incidents and ignore protesters.

I do recall a piece written by one of my favourite American authors Pat Conroy, the son of a war hero who was raised and educated in the military, where he remarked that if returning Vietnam veterans had allowed themselves to be spat on by anti war demonstrators then he wasn't surprised they had lost.

(Conroy was actually doubting that this had ever happened at the time).

I am not an expert in UK laws regarding free speech. And while I think these men are rather deplorable for what they did, I would chalk that up to freedom of speech and the freedom to make complete asses of themselves.

I do agree with the sentiment, though, that when they refer to the soldiers are murders in "our land," then what the heck are they doing in the UK? Are they just tourists? If so, maybe it is time to go back "home." If they are not tourists and want to be UK citizens, then the UK is their "home."

And at what point does it go beyond free speech and move into traitorous speech when certain individuals advocate a scrapping of democracy and human rights and a move, by violence, if necessary, to an Islamic theocracy in the UK?

Tough situation.

Bonobo, there is free speech in the uk but the issue was one of breach of public order.

No one raised the point about traitors. Whatever one personally thinks about their motive, there was not enough to prosecute under UK treason laws and that was not attempted. It is not traitorous under UK law to advocate a move away from democracy or human rights, or a move towards a theocracy. Violence would be dealt with under the criminal law.

The police having approved the placards was a lame excuse for the defence to raise. The police had NOT approved the public disorder which then ensued because of the incitement raised by the protesters.

The media reports occured after the event so that was deemed - correctly in my view - as irrelevant by the judge. But again a defence expected to be raised by the lawyers.

The judge held no store with either point of defence, which the defence lawyers probably expected anyway.

The sentencing personally does not seem tough enough, but the judge is limited by the sentencing guidelines. Uk judges do not have the discretion that they would have for example in Thailand where as one poster commented the penalty would have been more severe.

caf

ps venturalaw may wish to comment as an american lawyer.

In my observation, it seems that many extremist Muslims use western sensitivities (in the lengths western societies go to avoid raising perceptions of anti-Muslim bias) against those same societies. Perhaps it could be said they are preying on western weakness in this regard. IMO, the law in most (if not all) western societies is simply not tough enough. It's okay to say they should be deported (and so they should), but what do you do with the ones that are home bred? Tougher laws need to be enacted before the spiral becomes irreversible.

I suggest that the irreversible spiral is the instituting of laws that inhibit free speech and freedom of religion.

You then become one of the repressive states that we in the West so often condem.

I believe that hate speech laws have been instituted in many Western countries now....and depending on how these laws are worded and executed (it's a very fine line balancing those laws with maintaining freedoms)..... hate speech laws are enough. Although, again depending on wording and execution, it could be the thin edge of the wedge at the top of a slippery slope (to mix metaphores).

I agree and well summarised.

It would have taken me a lot more words ( and more mixed metaphors ) to say what you eloquently said.

caf

I am not an expert in UK laws regarding free speech. And while I think these men are rather deplorable for what they did, I would chalk that up to freedom of speech and the freedom to make complete asses of themselves.

I do agree with the sentiment, though, that when they refer to the soldiers are murders in "our land," then what the heck are they doing in the UK? Are they just tourists? If so, maybe it is time to go back "home." If they are not tourists and want to be UK citizens, then the UK is their "home."

And at what point does it go beyond free speech and move into traitorous speech when certain individuals advocate a scrapping of democracy and human rights and a move, by violence, if necessary, to an Islamic theocracy in the UK?

Tough situation.

Bonobo, there is free speech in the uk but the issue was one of breach of public order.

No one raised the point about traitors. Whatever one personally thinks about their motive, there was not enough to prosecute under UK treason laws and that was not attempted. It is not traitorous under UK law to advocate a move away from democracy or human rights, or a move towards a theocracy. Violence would be dealt with under the criminal law.

The police having approved the placards was a lame excuse for the defence to raise. The police had NOT approved the public disorder which then ensued because of the incitement raised by the protesters.

The media reports occured after the event so that was deemed - correctly in my view - as irrelevant by the judge. But again a defence expected to be raised by the lawyers.

The judge held no store with either point of defence, which the defence lawyers probably expected anyway.

The sentencing personally does not seem tough enough, but the judge is limited by the sentencing guidelines. Uk judges do not have the discretion that they would have for example in Thailand where as one poster commented the penalty would have been more severe.

caf

ps venturalaw may wish to comment as an american lawyer.

Thanks for the explanation. I am glad I understand it a little better now.

While in court they refused to stand in the presence of the judge, no charge of contempt of court either!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If any non-muslim had tried that they'd have been done straight away for contempt but these people get off scott free

In my observation, it seems that many extremist Muslims use western sensitivities (in the lengths western societies go to avoid raising perceptions of anti-Muslim bias) against those same societies. Perhaps it could be said they are preying on western weakness in this regard. IMO, the law in most (if not all) western societies is simply not tough enough. It's okay to say they should be deported (and so they should), but what do you do with the ones that are home bred? Tougher laws need to be enacted before the spiral becomes irreversible.

I suggest that the irreversible spiral is the instituting of laws that inhibit free speech and freedom of religion.

You then become one of the repressive states that we in the West so often condem.

I believe that hate speech laws have been instituted in many Western countries now....and depending on how these laws are worded and executed (it's a very fine line balancing those laws with maintaining freedoms)..... hate speech laws are enough. Although, again depending on wording and execution, it could be the thin edge of the wedge at the top of a slippery slope (to mix metaphores).

Yes it's a fine line, but in my view the line is currently too libertarian. Therein lies the root of the problem - conservatives would tend to support my viewpoint and liberals would tend to support yours. (And the twains will never rarely meet.)