It boils down to the British government enforcing Sharia law on non-Muslims for the "crime" of insulting Islam.
This must be challenged for to allow this travesty to stand is to muzzle any and all criticism of Islam.
Tuesday, June 05, 2012
Imprisoned for criticizing Islam - and we not allowed to know why
In March I blogged about the astonishing case of Darren Conway who was sentenced to a year in prison for posting 'anti-Islamic materials' in the window of his ground-floor apartment in Gainsborough, Lincolnshire. http://edgar1981.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/imprisoned-in-uk-for-criticising-islam.html
No information about the actual posters was provided in any news reports. There were concerns that the material was simply standard factual information about Islam and Mohammed (including the fact that, by having sex with the 9-year old Aisha, Muhammad would be classified as a pedophile in any Western society).
In order to find out exactly what the posters were I filed a Freedom of Information Request to the Crown Prosection Service.
I have now had a response from The Crown Prosecution Service. They have refused the request for information about the posters on the grounds that it is 'not in the public interest'. Here is their justification:
There is a substantial public interest in many circumstances in protecting from disclosure information gathered for the purposes of a criminal case. The defendant in this case was prosecuted as he publically displayed the offensive posters referred to in your request. As displaying this material was proven to be a criminal offence in a criminal court, and the graphic and violent images depicted in these posters caused offence in the neighbourhood in which they were displayed, there is a very strong public interest in these articles not being distributed any further.
This is truly Kafkaesque. Because it was deemed to be criminal we are not allowed to know why even though that was the very reason for my request. I was not even asking for a copy of the posters. All I asked for was information about their content. If we are not allowed to know precisely what was 'illegal' about them, then how is that possibly in the 'public interest'?
Article continues HERE.