'Death Penalty' Anti-Gay Leaflet Suspects Convicted In U.K.

LONDON -- Three men were convicted Friday of distributing anti-gay leaflets, and prosecutors called it a landmark case regarding the prosecution of hate crimes regarding sexual orientation.

A jury found the men to have distributed leaflets calling for homosexuals to face the death penalty. Two others were acquitted of the same charge.

"Everyone has a right to be protected by the law and we regard homophobic crimes, along with all hate crimes, as particularly serious because they undermine people's right to feel safe," said Sue Hemming, chief of the Crown Prosecution Service special crime division.

She said in a statement that the leaflet showed a mannequin hanging from a noose and said gay people were destined to go to hell.

One witness testified he felt he was being targeted and feared he would be burned, Hemming said.

Ihjaz Ali, 42, Kabir Ahmed, 28, and Razwan Javed, 27, were found guilty in Derby Crown Court. Sentencing is set for Feb. 10.

The men were prosecuted under a relatively new law that took effect in 2010. It makes it a crime to promote hatred based on sexual orientation.

Related on HuffPost:

Comments

[LMPE]

11:28 PM on 01/22/2012

Ihjaz Ali, Kabir Ahmed and Razwan Javed sound exactly like the types who would vote for Rick Santorum in a heartbeat. Yes, the UK's very own Jim Bob Duggar clones.

[Freddie27]

01:53 PM on 01/22/2012

The UK is NOT the US, and should not be looked down upon because it doesn't have the First Amendment. The US went one way, the UK went another. The US has no more right to preach to other countries about adopting THEIR ideas regarding freedom of speech, than other countries have to lecture the US on American laws. The UK has decided to limit freedom of speech to not include threatening hate speech. Good for them. The US has decided not to. Good for the US.
Enough with the sanctimonious smugness!

[Valksy]

05:06 AM on 01/23/2012

The US does limit freedom of speech. See Chaplinsky v New Hampshire and the Patriot Act.

[SalesmanForLife]

02:19 PM on 01/23/2012

The US does limit free speech while constitutionally supporting free speech. Get it?

[sf1000000]

12:01 PM on 01/22/2012

I wish this Country had that law and people where prosucuted under it..and sentenced to jail...
Until we stop the hate mongers no one is safe..regardless of your sexual orientation...
There is a group that promotes the killing of doctors who perform abortions...what is to stop another group from promoting the killing of gays or perhaps what not promote the killing of blacks..or Mormons or Catholics..
Why is this country so full of hate and so full of RELIGION that promotes that hate including people who seek to run for high office..

[tishimself]

05:21 PM on 01/21/2012

You forfeit your right to participate in civil society when you call for the murder of the minorities within it.

This isn't a 'free speech' issue, this is an incitement to murder. It's point is to frighten, intimidate, marginalize and oppress.

[cwebster]

04:43 PM on 01/21/2012

A very good decision. Hate speech, inciting to violence, should NEVER be condoned.

[PorrickSF]

03:35 PM on 01/21/2012

My understand­ing after reading the article was that the flyer specifical­ly called for the death of gays and illustrate­d a method by which that "goal" could be accomplish­ed.

It is also not as casual or random as some people are making it out to be. You can still hate gays, disagree vehemently with everything about them, make disgusted faces and make vulgar gestures in their general direction. You just can't threaten to kill them in cold blood and then make drawings about how to do it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't seen any posts calling for conservative's murder or calling for the death of former President Bush in the comments here on HP. If you know of any, you should contact the Secret Service as it is still a crime to threaten the life of any sitting or former President.

[Jeff McConnell]

04:32 PM on 01/21/2012

They did not threaten to kill them, porrick, they said they SHOULD be executed. They expressed (what I will agree is) a despicable opinion, but they did not say "You all need to go get a rope and hang some gays. Here is how to do it."

If you have not seen the suggestions that George Bush should be killed on these forums, you have not been looking.

[CoffeeRebel]

05:19 PM on 01/21/2012

Apparently they were convicted so the jury which heard ALL the evidence must have felt they violated the law.
A lot of people felt that George Bush was guilty of war crimes and the punishment can be death and was for the loser in a conflict such as Sadam. The winner usually skates.
I AM NOT calling for George's death but punnishment water boarding, yes. Punnishment for locking up American servicemen and women because he did not want to admit he had order the enhanced torture interrogation techniques. yes.
Even though he got of people killed and lied like a dog to get us into the war, I agree it is absolutely wrong to call for his death

[PorrickSF]

05:43 PM on 01/21/2012

I don't mean to belabor the point, however, I have copied the pertinent facts and pasted them in this reply. I will, of course, provide the original link at the closing.

"A man accused of stirring up hatred by handing out leaflets demanding the death sentence for homosexuals believed that it was his duty as a Muslim to take part in the campaign to improve society, a court heard yesterday.

The leaflet shows an image of a mannequin hanging from a noose and says that homosexuality is punishable by the death penalty under Islam.

The leaflet stated: "The death sentence is the only way this immoral crime can be erased from corrupting society and act as a deterrent for any other ill person who is remotely inclined in this bent way."

It goes on: "The only dispute amongst the classical authorities was the method employed in carrying out the penal code," and then goes on to offer burning, being flung from a high point such as a mountain or building, or being stoned to death as suitable methods. "

I know you disagree but seemingly it's definitively advocating violence against gays.

Now I'm sure you'll rebut this saying something patronizing to adequately demonstrated your intellectual and moral superiority, however truthseekers might find the following link helpful:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/deathtogays-leaflets-were-for-good-of-society-says-accused-6290701.html

The graphic image can be seen here:

http://www.advocate.com/

[Jeff McConnell]

02:24 PM on 01/21/2012

I am glad that I live in America. Freedom of Speech, even very unpopular speech is guaranteed here. As much as my military oriented mind hates what the Westboro folks are spewing, I believe that they have the right to say it. The yahoos in England said that gays "should" face the death penalty, but did not advocate for people to go out and lynch them. We cannot decide FOS issues based on the popularity or the the political correctness of the issue.

[KaraC]

03:22 PM on 01/21/2012

So what happens to someone who threatens the life of, say, the president? Or (and I hate this example) falsely shouts "fire" in a crowded theater? That crosses the line in the USA and becomes illegal. Same thing with these people. They could have campaigned "against homosexuality" (whatever that is suposed to mean - it's kind of like campaigning against brown eyes, but there you go) but crossed the line when advocating death. There are similar laws here, and I would argue that in some wasy speech is more free in the UK, having lived in both places.

[Jeff McConnell]

03:40 PM on 01/21/2012

The difference is, Kara, is that in the "shouting fire in a crowded theater" example is that the Supreme Court was describing unacceptable speech in that proximate cause would reasonably follow that people would stampede, likely causing injury. I think the case was Louisiana v. Dick, if you want to look it up. In it, Mr. Dick was speaking in a park, and advocating violence. He was arrested, and tried to use Free speech as a defense. In denying that, the Court used the phrase you cited.

Proximate cause is the question here, IMO. In the US, simply saying that someone should be killed (opinion) is the same as advocating that they be killed (threat). It is the difference between Constitutionally protected free speech, and incitement to violence.

[Valksy]

03:39 PM on 01/21/2012

Chaplinsky v New Hampshire. Read it, understand it. And we are not talking about "unpopular" speech, we are talking about inciting violence - rather like your "fighting words" doctrine.

[Jeff McConnell]

04:18 PM on 01/21/2012

I am familiar with that case, but I read the brief on Lexis-Nexis again.

I would submit that this case proves my point. It discusses "fighting words", defined as words which are likely to provoke a violent response. From the brief:

"One difference may lie in the speaker’s intent. “Fighting words” are intended to inflict harm, bona-fide criticisms are intended to communicate ideas. Another difference may lie in the differing likely effects of each: “fighting words” are likely to provoke the average person to violence while bona fide criticisms are not."

Simply stating that gays should be hanged or distributing a flyer displaying a hanged mannequin is not "likely to provoke the average to violence." IMO.

Good discussion, I look forward to your response.

[cactis]

12:56 PM on 01/21/2012

Just what does promoting hatred and fear look like? Is it union thugs checking how you vote? Is it govt monitoring your internet views?

[CoffeeRebel]

02:38 PM on 01/21/2012

Get some help . Unions don't check how you vote unless your an elected official. On the internet you should assume you are being monitored and if fox news is interested, you better make the same assumption about your cell phone too.

[annalrichard]

12:40 PM on 01/21/2012

The Muslim men convicted of the "Anti-gay" leatlet distribution, were sufficiently, convicted and should serve their time. I see London has (almost)as many mental cases and biased idiots as the U. S. I cannot fathom, Muslims having the "guts" to show their hatred, in this manner. Gay people cannot help their plight, anymore, than Muslims can help being the "most hated" religion on earth. We must recognize that gays are BORN gay, Muslims, choose their religion(if one chooses to call it, RELIGION). Of the two predicaments, I'd choose the gay life, because Muslims are looked upon as Satanic, by most people, and terrorists by birth, really! Nothing is worse than terrorism. At least, gays hurt no one, the same, cannot be said, for Muslims who will forever be linked to terrorism! President Obama should received a huge chunk of CREDIT for having sent the Navy Seals to shoot bin Laden's eyes out, as well as the, place his heart, should have been, had he had one. As often happens, those who hate the most, are the ones who die the fastest. I can't explain my feeling of pay back, when our President gave the word to the Seals and "GOT" bin Laden. This is just one, reason, we need to re-elect, our President(Obama) to a second term...he's one, brilliant man, and I know I'll vote for him again, as I hate the LIARS and CHEATERS of the Republican party!

[arice664]

02:35 PM on 01/21/2012

Muslim has nothing to do with it. To say they are wrong because of their religion is a hate crime in itself. Muslim is a very peaceful religion, I would read up on it before you condemn it. Just like in all religions and groups of people, there are extremists who go against the fold. Do not punish everyone for their mistakes. This is not anti- gay, this is pro-acceptance.

[Ayesha Khan]

12:24 PM on 01/21/2012

If these IDIOTS think that LGBT is a crime, then they could have simply disagreed in a civilized manner and not to go to this extent. And why they did not get up for other crimes like Adultery, Fornication, Rape, and many others. Most likely cause they are involved in all these crimes themselves, and therefore do not consider them to be crimes or Sins--- If they are acting so pious then they should have raised their voice for other similar crimes or sins too...Hang the Culprits, Bloody Hypocrites !!!!!!!!

[elizlucinda]

11:24 AM on 01/22/2012

Atwill: what an idiotic, hate filled post. the Islamic religion is not a cult and Muslims are not taught to believe in rape and murder.

[scarywriter]

12:20 PM on 01/21/2012

So when will the first gays be put on trial for speaking badly about heterosexuality?

What with that being a hate crime and all...

[antigaychristianssuck]

01:56 PM on 01/21/2012

It's a pity you can't tell the difference between speaking badly about and urging violence/death against. Most people can make that distinction.

[Jeff McConnell]

02:41 PM on 01/21/2012

With due respect, anti, I think that it is you who fails to make the distinction. These men expressed a despicable notion, but did not actually advocate or instruct that people go out and kill gays.That is the difference beween FOS and inciting violence.

[Valksy]

03:40 PM on 01/21/2012

Your lack of basic knowledge of the law, and your attempt to assert victimhood, makes me feel embarrassed for you.

[Linda Wheeler Weigel]

12:15 PM on 01/21/2012

If that was a crime here in the US we could send the fine folks from Westboro Baptist church to jail!

[Atwill]

03:02 PM on 01/21/2012

They need to be in jail. The adults in the Westboro cult are all chuld abusers.

[Valksy]

03:42 PM on 01/21/2012

Ahh. But this is the point. They say they hate LGBT people and they are free to do so, that isn't what the case is about. If the WBC were to make a statement that implies or encourages violence, they would get slapped down. Because they are lawyers, and make a living off law suits on the matter, they know where the limits are.

[cwebster]

04:59 PM on 01/21/2012

We don't let them in our country:)

[southrange]

11:59 AM on 01/21/2012

It is against the law now in England to "promote hatred based on sexual orientation." I do not agree with what these people wrote but this is a very slippery slope. No longer is action against an individual necessary. Now, you can be put in jail for what you say or write even if it is directed broadly and not specifically. Checking articles on the internet there are many writers concerned this is coming to the US soon. With recent laws to allow indefinate detention of Americans without charge and the attempts to pass laws which would allow government to shut down internet sites without due process...the climate is such that this law coming to the US is entirely possible. Again, not defending these terrible people or what they wrote...but the implications are chilling!

[antigaychristianssuck]

02:04 PM on 01/21/2012

England has had this sort of law for a long time about inciting hatred and violence. It included race and religion. More recently sexual orientation has been added to it. That's all. Western Europe, after their experience with Nazi hate speech, has long had stricter rules on what people can say. Libel laws too are much stricter there. Most of the political ads in the US if they ran in Europe would wind up in court. Canada is the same way. Promoting hatred against an identifiable group can result in criminal charges.

[cwebster]

05:00 PM on 01/21/2012

We have the same laws here in Canada. In order to be prosecuted, someone has to file a complaint...it isn't the police or government watching you. Your fellow citizens will speak up if you go to far...and these men did.

[KaraC]

03:24 PM on 01/21/2012

Can you hear yourself: "what a sick place,,,,,­. I guess we are heading down this road,,, till we have a dictator"? Really? You want a dictator? And thought isn't a crime, advocating death is the crime.

[CoffeeRebel]

05:35 PM on 01/21/2012

You have not forgot Republicans who were shouting bullets over Ballots have you? There seem to be more than a few who would deprive us of free elections and free speech.
cdavecrz would seem to fit in nicely with that crowd

[cdavecrz]

12:24 AM on 01/22/2012

When we go broke from borrowing,,, what do you think will happen? we just get up in the morning and all will be the same? How about cops work for money? Doctors work for money? I work for money,,, farmers farm for money,,,,, no money,,, no cops, doctors plane rides, food,,,, S/S, medicare, teachers, get the picture? who rules? gangs,,, your neighbor with the big gun,,,,,all you nice thinkers,,,,,

[WheelsOnFire]

05:05 PM on 01/21/2012

You can say that you do not like gays. In fact, you just made that quite clear.

So, you disproved your own argument with your own rant. Sweet poetic justice.

But you cannot put in writing a call to kill or maim gays.

[Leon Holston Sr]

11:40 AM on 01/21/2012

i am up in the air on this one.i think everyone has rights and should not be persecuted for their life style,but while performing in vegas some people of a different skin color than myself and our group were called the n-word loud and clear and we notified the police they came and said no crime was committed and let the perps.go.i guess we should have handled it ourselves.

[annalrichard]

12:58 PM on 01/21/2012

OR, PERHAPS, REPUBLICANS SHOULD BE PROSECUTED FOR LYING ON DEMOCRATS AND CHEATING ON THEIR WIVES. INDIANA ELECTED A RESIDENT OF CARMEL, INDIANA, WHO TOOK AN APARTMENT AT BLOOMINGTON, SO HE COULD REPRESENT THE 9TH DISTRICT, IN WHICH BLOOMINGTON IS PART. I PERFERRED BARON HILL, BUT CARMEL IS KNOWN AS THE RICH 'BURB OF INDY, SO GUESS HIS MONEY, BOUGHT HIM THE SEAT IN CONGRESS AND AN APT. IN BLOOMINGTON, SO HE COULD QUALIFY TO RUN IN OUR DISTRICT, WHICH IS A LIE, OF COURSE! THOSE OF US IN THE 9TH DISTRICT DO NOT KNOW WHERE OUR REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN REALLY LIVES. THE NEWSPAPERS, STATE BOTH BLOOMINGTON AND CARMEL...WISH HE'D CHOOSE ONE OR THE OTHER.

[Leon Holston Sr]

09:19 AM on 01/22/2012

they created the situation by exporting blacks here by force.