• Why Jihad Watch?
  • About Robert Spencer and Staff Writers
  • FAQ
  • Books
  • Muhammad
  • Islam 101
  • Privacy

Jihad Watch

Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

UK: Muslim judge convicts Christian preacher of hate speech

Mar 30, 2015 10:56 pm By Robert Spencer

Mike-OverdJudge Shamim Qureshi, who heard this case, is also a judge at a Sharia court: “Overd’s case is being heard by a Muslim, Judge Shamim Qureshi, who also serves as the presiding judge at the Sharia law-based Muslim Arbitration Tribunal.” — Christian News, March 13, 2015

Qureshi complained that Overd “happily shouts out the negative points in any other religion.” When will he be bringing Anjem Choudary up on similar charges?

“Taunton street preacher convicted for homophobic sermon,” BBC, March 23, 2015:

A Christian street preacher has been convicted of delivering homophobic sermons in the middle of a high street.

Michael Overd, from Creech St Michael, made the remarks over loudspeakers in Taunton, Somerset, last summer.

He was cleared of a second similar charge and another of causing “racially-aggravated” harassment aimed at Muslims.

What race is Islam again? I keep forgetting.

Overd, 50, was fined £200 and ordered to pay compensation and costs totalling £1,200 at Bristol Crown Court.

Sentencing, judge Shamim Qureshi told Overd he “knew full well the power of words to hurt”.
‘Double standards’

After being told he would have to pay £250 to his victim, Overd initially refused but was threatened with a 45-day prison sentence if he did not.

He agreed to pay, but said the judgement was “flawed” and told the judge he would have to “answer to the same god”.

Judge Qureshi told the preacher he seemed to enjoy testing the laws on free speech to their limits.

He said: “In my view he enjoys coaxing people into asking him questions so that he can reply loudly into the microphone to answer them.

“The only semblance of civilised conversation is when they commend him, if they disagree he shouts them down.”

However, Overd had “double standards”, the judge said, believing he was right and everyone else was wrong.

During sentencing he said Overd “does not display any scholarly approach to the topics but merely preaches whatever little he had learnt, regardless of being rude or bullying to others.

“He happily shouts out the negative points in any other religion.”

Asked after the case whether he would tone down his sermons, Mr Overd said: “I follow my Lord and leader, so I won’t tone down.”…

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

Follow me on Facebook

Filed Under: Featured, free speech, United Kingdom Tagged With: Michael Overd, Shamim Qureshi


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. Don McKellar says

    Mar 30, 2015 at 11:09 pm

    Convicted of delivering homophobic sermons in the middle of a high street over loud speakers.

    Yes, he should be fined. Judgement correct. Keep it in your church, if that’s what you believe in. Don’t spew your hate in public on loud speakers.

    He was cleared of “similar” charges with regards to moslems.

    Yes, he should be cleared of that, and it was clearly not “racially-aggravated”. Judgement correct. You can say anything you want about anybody else’s religious beliefs in public.

    So what’s wrong with this story? The only things wrong I see is that it notes that there is such a thing as a sharia court in the UK — which is something which should be illegal for many clear reasons. And that Anjem Choudary should be facing the same charges.

    Otherwise, we’re seeing a ranting, raving religious zealot who is getting what he deserves in a court of law.

    • Westman says

      Mar 31, 2015 at 2:53 am

      Don, if you want your freedom of expression to remain there cannot be such laws no matter how distasteful homophobic speech might be.

      America, thankfully, is a place where, short of yelling fire or making direct threats, you can say what is on your mind.

      The EU has gone to wussy speech laws, depriving them of a means to counter Jihad. I doubt we will ever accept laws here that are intended to make compliant cannon fodder. We see the EU capitulating to absorption. This next presidential election will be a litmus test, for us, of frustration levels with the left.

      I have two gay close relatives that are tough enough to ignore the haters and strong enough to speak their own minds.

      • Don McKellar says

        Mar 31, 2015 at 10:36 am

        Are the strong enough to ignore haters screeching at them from a PA system in a public place, telling them how they’re going to hell and how god hates them? I really don’t think so. Nor do I think they should have to endure that. Period.

        • Scott says

          Mar 31, 2015 at 10:44 am

          Don,
          If you think that is un-endurable?…..
          Check out this blog and see what Jewish students in the USA are subjected too!

          We can only combat their tactics with the truth.

          http://www.jewhatredoncampus.org

        • Scott says

          Mar 31, 2015 at 10:46 am

          And I’m pro Gay Rights/Marriage and Pro Choice (within reason)….. So no need to go there.

        • Don McKellar says

          Mar 31, 2015 at 10:56 am

          One chooses to be Jewish or not Jewish. It is a religion.

          On the other hand, no university which has any public funding should be allowed to operate the very moment it is shown to discriminate against a person because of their religious beliefs, as that is unconstitutional. The government must operate under different restrictions than individuals and be brought to heel if they do not. That website is a good example of how, under Obama, the government has been operating. What are you going to do about it?

        • Bezelel says

          Mar 31, 2015 at 11:58 am

          Since I’m not a big fan of street preaching out of anyone regardless of their cause for the disruption to people who have other plans for their daily experience, it is borderline disturbing the peace. With that being said, Overd is not delivering a hate message. No way. His message is likened to a warning to a blind man who is about to step in front of speeding bus. He is desperately trying to save people’s lives from certain destruction. Hate him if you want, it will not change the facts.
          The Judge should recuse himself in such cases as he is obviously prejudiced against Christians.

    • Charli Main says

      Mar 31, 2015 at 5:01 am

      Jesus was a street preacher who would no doubt have used loud speakers if they were available to HIM.
      British law allows a person to be judged by his peers. NO Muslim is or will ever be my peer.

    • Marko says

      Mar 31, 2015 at 6:43 am

      Well Don, you won’t mind if I correctly identify you as a moral idiot. Nothing personal. But it’s not against the law to be stupid, or make stupid posts. With respect to ‘homophobia’, your word, not many reasonable people would support lynching gays, but some people find homosexuality distasteful, or believe it’s proscribed by their God or religion. Dude, you better have made some loud and bold comments on Islamic websites condemning ISIS throwing gay guys off buildings, merely because they were gay. If not you are a Class A hypocrite, as well as a moral idiot.

      • Don McKellar says

        Mar 31, 2015 at 10:47 am

        Dear Dude,

        I had “better” not have done anything.

        Try and think logically about this:

        Does somebody have the right (and moral obligation) to denounce neo-Nazis in a public space? Is it okay to do that? If it is, then it is okay to denounce Islam in a public space. They are both belief systems. The members of those two evil ideologies choose to subscribe to them. You are not promoting hate against a group.

        Now, does somebody have the right (and moral obligation) to denounce people who are black in a public space? Is it okay to do that? If it is, then it is okay to denounce gays in a public space. But NEITHER thing is okay. Both are biological realities that the individual can’t change — they people who are black or gay or both do not choose to subscribe to being these things, they simply are. Therefore you are promoting hate against a group.

        I hope that helps you out.

      • RonaldB says

        Mar 31, 2015 at 11:01 am

        In the first place, ad hominem attacks are not an argument. They are simply invective, best ignored by logical contributors.

        In the second place, by US standards, anyone has the right to attack anyone in general. We have the right to denounce blacks as such, gays, or anyone, as long as we’re not harassing individuals or advocating violence or illegal actions.

        In the third place, a biological imperative is not a reason to tolerate actions. Researchers find a strong heritability component for at least certain criminal behaviors, but that doesn’t mean we should tolerate them. The unfortunate people driven by such a genetic component still need to be locked up, although perhaps we ought to reserve a certain amount of moral judgement on them.

        Similarly, whether being gay is inherited or not should not be a factor in prohibiting anti-gay speech. It doesn’t need to make sense. The general freedom of speech is sacrosanct in US law, as long as individuals are not being personally harassed, or libeled.

        • Don McKellar says

          Mar 31, 2015 at 11:20 am

          Thank you, RonaldB, for pointing out the logical fallacy in Marko’s post.

          “… a biological imperative is not a reason to tolerate actions. Researchers find a strong heritability component for at least certain criminal behaviors, but that doesn’t mean we should tolerate them. The unfortunate people driven by such a genetic component still need to be locked up, although perhaps we ought to reserve a certain amount of moral judgement on them…”

          Huh? We lock them up because they are harming others by their actions, and we must logically outlaw theft and murder and violence against others to maintain a civil society. Who do gays harm? There is no connection here. In logical argument we call that a non sequitur. Unless you believe that gays should be locked up because we should not tolerate their actions. Is that what you’re saying?

          I say we have no reason not to tolerate gays and their biological imperative. Other than a bunch of religious gobbily-gook written over a thousand years ago, which has been proven as nothing but nonsense.

      • Marko says

        Mar 31, 2015 at 6:30 pm

        Ron and Don- it was invective, indeed, and not meant as a logical argument; I apologise for my rudeness. The biological underpinning of gayness is a contested concept. Free speech needs to be able to be disagreeable, and promotion of violence or true vilification is not acceptable, but causing offence or being insulting (mea culpa) cannot be. That’s why exactly what he was saying was the issue- but ‘homophobia’ is just way too wide of a net to cast

      • RonaldB says

        Apr 1, 2015 at 10:04 am

        “Free speech needs to be able to be disagreeable, and promotion of violence or true vilification is not acceptable, but causing offence or being insulting (mea culpa) cannot be. ”

        I’m sorry to disagree, Marko. Being offensive or insulting is exactly what it’s about. US citizens have the right to be as insulting and offensive as they wish, up to advocating illegal actions, violence or actually lying. It may not be polite, but it’s legal.

        The journalism of the 19th century, like capitalism, was often raw and could be extremely personal and offensive. The trade-off is that we live in a free country, with a wide berth for the expression of ideas. The most insidious rule I can think of is for speech to be forbidden which gives offense. That puts the rule of censorship squarely on the listener. Muslims consider criticism of Muhammad or of Islam to be trampling on their rights, as indeed it is in sharia law. I knew a Muslim for 10 years…a very decent guy. But, after decades in the United States, he still didn’t understand the distinction between the right of free speech and his right to not have his Muhammad insulted.

        I’ll say it again: there is NO right to not be insulted or to not have your favorite idols insulted. Gays have no right to not be insulted. Blacks, browns, yellows, and whites…no right to not be insulted.

        Now, to have some guy with a bullhorn or loudspeaker hectoring you individually on the street: that’s a different matter altogether.

        • Marko says

          Apr 1, 2015 at 8:11 pm

          Totally agree Ronald and it was my poor phrasing with a double negative: ‘cannot be… not acceptable’ i.e. must be accepted. Clearly free speech needs to be able to be offensive or insulting, or it’s not free speech.

          It may be impolite to wilfully insult or offend, and therefore in a way ‘wrong’, but it just can’t be illegal to do so. I disagree with Don in posts above on this matter.

          However, there is an infamous law in Australia at the moment (‘section 18c’) which outlaws speech that offends or insults on the basis of race, as well as vilification or intimidation. This means that the usual onus of proof is reversed- the speaker has the nigh impossible task of proving that the recipient was NOT insulted. It has been used to silence a well-known conservative commentator, and it’s an outrage- the current Government promised to remove the ‘offend or insult’ element when in election mode, but backed down afterwards in order not to alienate a certain section of the population: yes indeed, adherents of the Religion of Peace.

    • Babs says

      Mar 31, 2015 at 9:15 am

      That being the case every Islamic/Islamist da’wah operative who sets up a stall in a marketplace or shopping mall should be arrested too. The message of Christianity is one of peace and love – excepting of course the Tutus of this world and Sabeel, written about elsewhere – and as such is harmless.

      Islam, on the other hand, makes no secret of its wish to undermine society and “invite” (and for that you may read “force” people to Islam) and I have seen leaflets from da’wah stalls which discourage Muslims from voting and taking part in the democratic process or from co-operating with the poiice.

      I trust that the next Musliim accused of and arrested for (some hopes!) hate speech or other insulting behaviour towards Christianity, Judaism, Sikhism, Hinduism or any other faith or belief system than Islam will be tried by a judge from the belief system he insulted, After all fair’s fair.

      This provides yet another reason, as if I needed one, NOT to vote back in any of the main 2.5 parties in the UK general election.

      • Babs says

        Mar 31, 2015 at 9:17 am

        Actually, meant to write “the belief system he ALLEGEDLY insulted.” Islam has taking offence at thin air down to a fine art. Apols.

    • Shane says

      Mar 31, 2015 at 9:50 am

      We don’t know what he was saying about gays, it could have been nothing really to bad like, you are going to hell. The left no longer supports freedom of speech and religion as they believe in supporting Islamic blasphemy laws.

    • RonaldB says

      Mar 31, 2015 at 10:50 am

      There are actually several issues involved here which are being confounded:
      1) Overd was denigrating gays (or perhaps homosexuality)
      2) Overd was denigrating Muslims
      3) Overd was using a loudspeaker on a highly-traveled street
      4) Overd was sentenced by a judge who also is a judge in Sharia court. Sharia courts go by laws which are totally incompatible with British (or American) laws.

      Now, I personally am in agreement with any laws limiting the use of loudspeakers on public streets. Loudspeakers are an extreme infringement on my personal space.

      However, this judgement brought in homophobia, lack of academic credentials, public hectoring, and loud, obnoxious argumentation using a loudspeaker. In other words, the judgement was as much on the content of the speech as on the manner of its delivery. People from the US would find this sort of judgement abhorrent to their rights as Americans. Britain needs an explicit bill of rights.

      I support the right of establishments to refuse to cater to gay events for religious reasons. The reason is that I think we all gain more by allowing religious-based actions. However, it must be remembered that gays comprise 10% or so of the population, and that establishments use public services such as police, fire, sanitation, and the like, all of which are supported by taxes that gays pay. It makes sense to me that establishments that choose to pursue discriminatory policies towards gays for religious reasons should pay a 10% “discrimination” tax on their public taxes and fees to make up for the subsidy they receive from gay taxpayers.

      • Don McKellar says

        Mar 31, 2015 at 11:08 am

        As people are gay by physiology and brain structure — basically, under scientific testing, the brain of a gay man reacts to stimulus like a woman’s brain does, and the gay female’s brain reacts to stimulus like a man’s brain does — there is no choice being made by the individual. They are what they are biologically. The same with somebody who is, let’s say, black.

        So, in your opinion, it is okay for somebody to get on the loud speaker in a public space and denounce blacks in a public space, because it is the American way?

        I say it is wrong and promoting hate against a group and there should be laws against it.

        I also say it is okay, and indeed a moral obligation, to publicly denounce neo-Nazis, Islam, and any other evil ideology. That is the American way.

        • RonaldB says

          Mar 31, 2015 at 11:46 am

          “I say it is wrong and promoting hate against a group and there should be laws against it.”

          Sorry, Don McKellar. I totally disagree with you. It is the right of any American to promote hatred and irrational thoughts. You are in the wrong country, my friend, if you are a US citizen. Britain is more fertile ground for control over the content of speech.

          The foundation of US liberties is that there is no censorship of the content of speech, that it is left to the judgement of the listeners to sort the valid from the invalid. When you forbid certain speech, you’re saying in effect that you have a superior intellect, that you can decide what is harmful and what is not, that you can decide what other people can hear. You’re saying that hearing hateful speech doesn’t affect your judgement, but the others who might hear it are not as impervious to irrational speech as you are, so you have the right to limit what they hear.

          Gay, blacks, atheists, Catholics, Jehovah’s Witnesses…all have to endure the stress of
          having to encounter some criticism or even hatred occasionally. It’s not the job of the government to protect people from unpleasant ideas: just to protect them from physical threats or harassment.

          I don’t know how you can get off, thinking yourself qualified to say what other people can hear and what they can’t.

        • Western Canadian says

          Mar 31, 2015 at 9:35 pm

          Oh, by the way, I find your ignorant rants towards Judeo-Christian traditions and texts to be at least as offensive as any form of gay bashing…… As for your cut and paste defence of homosexuality…… To this point in time, there is NO, repeat NO genetic basis for being homosexual. Studies of identical twins are alone enough to blow that canard out of the water……. And for your use of the made up non-word of ‘homophobia’, in a better educated, more literate era, the word would never have been tolerated, let alone used by bigots (like you) to silence anyone who dares question you shoving your belief system down everyone’s throat.

    • Tommo says

      Mar 31, 2015 at 5:22 pm

      What is wrong with this story is that a Muslim judge is allowed to try a case which he has a personal and religious interest in seeing that free speech regarding Islam is disallowed. The result was a forgone conclusion.

    • Bill says

      Mar 31, 2015 at 10:24 pm

      Don: “Hate speech” is the price we pay for “freedom of speech.” You obviously have no love for liberty. What’s worse, enduring speech you disagree with and find reprehensible or having an authoritarian like you or others stifling and punish those who have the audacity to disagree with you.

  2. Jay Boo says

    Mar 30, 2015 at 11:51 pm

    Yet Anjem Choudary says gays should be stoned to death.

    Pat Condell comments on this early in the video below
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQSJae6RuCk

    I guess that we are to assume that when MUSLIMS say such things they — mean it in a ‘nice way’.

    • Westman says

      Mar 31, 2015 at 3:07 am

      Yes, Choudary just makes you warm and fuzzy all over; so sweet and Christlike. To express his humanitarian feelings he will use larger stones at the next stoning to shorten the suffering period.

      Of course, if asked, he would say those unbelievers he just stoned are now roasting in hell with boiling water pouring on their heads, repaceable skins melting off, and sadistic “angels” taunting them. Just like Allah, he is merciful, all forgiving, and sadistic.

    • Bezelel says

      Mar 31, 2015 at 2:11 pm

      JB, Your point is what exposes the Judge as prejudiced toward Christians. He is two faced.

  3. Joseph says

    Mar 31, 2015 at 12:14 am

    ““He happily shouts out the negative points in any other religion.”

    And in Islam they simply kill them(other religions).

    • rightrightright says

      Mar 31, 2015 at 3:02 am

      When Moslems kill, they regard it as a positive, not a negative point.

  4. Carlos Malleum says

    Mar 31, 2015 at 4:49 am

    The judge in question leads the Sharia Court in the UK.

  5. Bob Pike says

    Mar 31, 2015 at 5:32 am

    If that were me, I would have gone to prison and served the sentence. I will not submit to an Islamic kangaroo court set up in my country and no one else should. This is a Christian country and hundreds of English people were burnt to make so.

    • Eric York says

      Mar 31, 2015 at 2:57 pm

      Absolutely!

    • Reg Johnston says

      Mar 31, 2015 at 4:03 pm

      Why, in Gods name is a muslim judge allowed to work in the UK at all?

      • Lynette says

        Mar 31, 2015 at 8:38 pm

        Because UK parliamentarians are extremely weak and allowed shariah law into Britain to appease muslims and gain their votes to remain in power, for their personal gain.
        That’s why voting for UKIP is imperative in the next election. Only party that will stop islamic by stealth creeping further into our land and laws.

    • Mirren10 says

      Mar 31, 2015 at 5:01 pm

      ” This is a Christian country and hundreds of English people were burnt to make so.”

      Actually, hundreds of English people were burnt to make it a **Catholic** country.

  6. Kepha says

    Mar 31, 2015 at 5:52 am

    Between the Left’s support of the sexual revolution and Islam, there is a great danger for Christians all over the North Atlantic world. Overd, like the florist Barronelle Stutzman in Washington State, belongs to a group that the Left loves to hate, and against which it is attempting “lawfare”. That free exercise and free speech rights may be sacrificed doesn’t matter–it only matters whose ox is being gored.

    On the one hand, judges trained in the Common Law tradition are starting to enforce Sharia provisions concerning blasphemy (understood strictly as attacks on Islam); on the other, traditional Christians are being asked, if in the catering, floral, or wedding industries, to celebrate homosexual behaviors that are ethically, spiritually, morally, and physically repugnant to them. Yet would these same judges allow a suit against a halal caterer who refuses to barbecue a whole hog for someone’s occasion (“But, Your Honor, he makes the meanest humus this side of Detroit!”)?

    My guess is that Michael Overd probably preached a little too forcefully that certain things are indeed sin, and repugnant to God. May God bless him for suffering for his witness.

    • RonaldB says

      Mar 31, 2015 at 12:12 pm

      Hi Kepha,

      I think at this point we need to give the religious people an opportunity to live their beliefs. Part of the anti-culture movement is to dissolve all beliefs and actions into a homogeneous gray goo that takes away any individual identity from people. As such, I support the right of the floral establishment not to cater to gay weddings, not because I oppose gay weddings but because I think we need to stop the witch hunt of penalizing any expression of individual belief.

      On the other hand, as I mentioned above, it seems unfair to ask gays to subsidize an establishment that discriminates against them. I would ask for consideration of a “license to discriminate”, pegged at a surcharge of about 10% of the normal taxes and fees an establishment pays.

      My main objection to the preacher was no the forcefulness of his expression, but his use of loudspeakers on a public street. I think a government has the right to enforce a certain civility in the public streets. The decision, however, thoroughly confounded civility with content of speech.

      • Kepha says

        Apr 1, 2015 at 8:59 pm

        So, how many Leftists do they arrest for the use of bullhorns in their demonstrations, or how often to they go after a mosque for broadcasting the adhan over loudspeakers?

  7. John Duffin says

    Mar 31, 2015 at 6:57 am

    The U.K.: A Failed State. Maybe they can look at examples such as Nigeria to make there job complete.

    • ECAW says

      Mar 31, 2015 at 7:38 am

      No, we look to America with its Muslim sympathiser (at least) president, its particularly powerful branch of the Muslim Brotherhood CAIR, and its politicians, press and academia as stupified as our own.

  8. torino390 says

    Mar 31, 2015 at 7:00 am

    While I disagree with any religious message delivered in a public place, all we want is a level playing field. Not much to ask I don’t think. Fine this man if you must, but come on, he’s done no more wrong than many many Muslim hate preachers up and down the country. These kind of double standards are finally getting peoples backs up in this country. Don’t push it or something might snap before long.

  9. citycat says

    Mar 31, 2015 at 7:06 am

    Muslim judge?
    Convicts Christian?

    A Muslim judge?
    In England?

    That’s a big shock
    I didn’t know

    Ok

    Sudden view change
    Anything goes
    It’s a free for all
    Law? I thought it was one for the rich and one for the poor.
    Now it’s gone just too bad
    It may as well be folklore

    Wake up England you f**k

    words fail

    Michael Overd had to shout, like a girl getting raped has to shout, or anyone who is being secretly abused like most of the world by Islam, shout it out,

    scream it out

    ah! but the silence!
    was it king crimson? When silence drowns the screams?
    He could have been more sussed though, unless he wanted to get caught to go to court to expose Islam,
    at least someone is making a move, good for him
    There’s too many watchers and not enough
    workers/shouters/performers in this world.

    Jeez

  10. AnneCrockett says

    Mar 31, 2015 at 7:18 am

    To fine him on the basis of using a loudspeaker would be correct assuming that a law against such behavior exists.
    To fine him on the basis of the content of the speech is utterly wrong. To say that Britain has no first amendment is not an argument against the moral evil of such a judgement; it is the position of the US Constitution that the First Amendment gives no rights but rather recognizes rights.

    • RonaldB says

      Mar 31, 2015 at 12:16 pm

      Exactly right!

  11. duh_swami says

    Mar 31, 2015 at 7:21 am

    You don’t think that judge was bias do you? Maybe he was just putting into practice UN resolution 1618, that criminalizes slander of Islam…’Slander as in, ‘The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam’…Rasool Obama…Hillary signed on to this as SOS, but no one asks her about that,…

  12. ECAW says

    Mar 31, 2015 at 7:28 am

    More details here from Liberty GB:

    http://libertygb.org.uk/v1/index.php/news-libertygb/6748-muslim-judge-finds-christian-guilty-in-britain

    Note the helpful suggestions about testing the impartiality of the hate speech legislation made in the comments by CC Frews, and by his alter ego here:

    https://ecawblog.wordpress.com/2014/11/07/hate-speech/

    • Mirren10 says

      Mar 31, 2015 at 8:15 am

      ”He was cleared of a second similar charge and another of causing **“racially-aggravated” harassment aimed at Muslims.”**

      Translation: He quoted from the koran ?

      I note Mr Overd was a para ! Utrinque Paratus !

  13. AJ Liberphile says

    Mar 31, 2015 at 8:05 am

    Doesn’t everyone have a right to a jury trial?

    • Joe Shmo says

      Mar 31, 2015 at 8:59 am

      Only for a criminal trial in the circuit court, this judge is probably a magistrate, which in most other common law territories is called the district court. These courts have no juries, they mostly deal with minor offences and misdemeamours.

  14. thomas pellow says

    Mar 31, 2015 at 8:17 am

    U.K society is being Islamized rapidly.

    The inevitable consequence: more power to Muslims at all levels of society, and their advocacy of the implementation of Sharia law in Britain.

  15. Joe Shmo says

    Mar 31, 2015 at 8:56 am

    “However, Overd had “double standards”, the judge said, believing he was right and everyone else was wrong.”

    well, seeing as this Muslim judge presides over a sharia court, he’s obviously not a secular man and knowing what we know about followers of Islam believing they’re right and everyone else wrong, this man wins the “pot calling kettle black” award of the month.

    • Sam Hawkins says

      Mar 31, 2015 at 9:38 am

      Haha, yes you’ve hit the nail on its head.

  16. St. Michael Defend Us says

    Mar 31, 2015 at 10:05 am

    Isn’t the same judge presiding over a sharia court AND a British civil court a clear conflict of interest?

  17. Jose Allen says

    Mar 31, 2015 at 10:07 am

    The “judge ” should have recused himself. He should not be trying people according to a foreign law. British law is the law of the land.The British have freedom of speech. He cannot dispense punishment for something that is not illegal under British law. His remark that he “would arrest ” this man is against the law. He does not have the power to arrest anybody…except as a “citizens arrest if he witnesses someone breaking the law.This man should be prosecuted and removed from any function within British law IMMEDIATELY.

    • RonaldB says

      Mar 31, 2015 at 12:27 pm

      “The “judge ” should have recused himself. ”

      Yes. He has no business representing two contradictory systems of law.

      But, notice the clever way he went about it. It would have been too obvious to find Overd guilty of inciting hatred towards Muslims. Any 3-year old could see through that. So, what the judge did was find him innocent of inciting hatred of Muslims, but found him guilty of expressing hatred of gays. In other words, unlimited powers give a government lots of ways to harass you when you do something they don’t like…or, if you’re just in their way. It’s obvious that Overd was being prosecuted for anti-Muslim speech. What would a Muslim judge care about the sensibilities of gays?

  18. Tom says

    Mar 31, 2015 at 10:11 am

    Britain is indeed “stick a fork in it” done. Expect a wave of Christian conservative refugees on our shores within 10 years unless Nigel Farage can turn things around.

    • Kepha says

      Apr 1, 2015 at 9:03 pm

      And with the Christian conservative (regardless of color, and Jewish) refugees, we’d also find a horde of pervs and Leftists knocking on our doors–exactly the sort of people who softened up Britain for the kill. Just think of all the “independent Marxists” Federal Germany let in during the Cold War, and how they repaid by terrorist cells and a surrender-minded “peace” movement.

  19. mustafa says

    Mar 31, 2015 at 10:23 am

    Two comments.

    Firstly, this yet again shows the genius and divine providence at work within the founding fathers,re importance of the 1st Amendment in particular.

    Secondly, this shows how fall the UK has fallen. Partly, that the guy could be charged for his religious views and free speech. And partly that we actually have posters from the UK who believe it was right for him to be charged.

  20. Papa Whiskey says

    Mar 31, 2015 at 12:49 pm

    The ranting of Christian street preachers is analogous to the muezzin’s call to prayer. Neither should be imposed on the public spaces of a free people.

  21. ronald says

    Mar 31, 2015 at 5:58 pm

    in my opinion islam is a cult, nothing more.,.they do not start with the tenants of a religion. they changed the meaning of what they say constantly. they never stand by what they say and mean and get caught telling lies to cover it up,.,Utube A Critique of islam by jay smith..learn the facts..

  22. Alice says

    Mar 31, 2015 at 10:05 pm

    Persecuted, just like Jesus.

FacebookYoutubeTwitterLog in

Subscribe to the Jihad Watch Daily Digest

You will receive a daily mailing containing links to the stories posted at Jihad Watch in the last 24 hours.
Enter your email address to subscribe.

Please wait...

Thank you for signing up!
If you are forwarding to a friend, please remove the unsubscribe buttons first, as they my accidentally click it.

Subscribe to all Jihad Watch posts

You will receive immediate notification.
Enter your email address to subscribe.
Note: This may be up to 15 emails a day.

Donate to JihadWatch
FrontPage Mag

Search Site

Translate

The Team

Robert Spencer in FrontPageMag
Robert Spencer in PJ Media

Articles at Jihad Watch by
Robert Spencer
Hugh Fitzgerald
Christine Douglass-Williams
Andrew Harrod
Jamie Glazov
Daniel Greenfield

Contact Us

Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Archives

  • 2020
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2019
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2018
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2017
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2016
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2015
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2014
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2013
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2012
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2011
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2010
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2009
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2008
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2007
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2006
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2005
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2004
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2003
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • March

All Categories

You Might Like

Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Recent Comments

  • Apathy Rules the World on EU Parliament members call for firing of border agency director for preventing illegal migrants from entering Europe
  • tim gallagher on Iranian Kurdistan: Muslim brothers behead their sister in honor killing over her romantic relationship
  • Keith O on Iranian Kurdistan: Muslim brothers behead their sister in honor killing over her romantic relationship
  • Mount Zion on Iranian Kurdistan: Muslim brothers behead their sister in honor killing over her romantic relationship
  • James Lincoln on Islamic Republic of Iran: Turkey’s Erdogan champions Islam only as a tool to further his own interests

Popular Categories

dhimmitude Sharia Jihad in the U.S ISIS / Islamic State / ISIL Iran Free Speech

Robert Spencer FaceBook Page

Robert Spencer Twitter

Robert Spencer twitter

Robert Spencer YouTube Channel

Books by Robert Spencer

Jihad Watch® is a registered trademark of Robert Spencer in the United States and/or other countries - Site Developed and Managed by Free Speech Defense

Content copyright Jihad Watch, Jihad Watch claims no credit for any images posted on this site unless otherwise noted. Images on this blog are copyright to their respective owners. If there is an image appearing on this blog that belongs to you and you do not wish for it appear on this site, please E-mail with a link to said image and it will be promptly removed.

Our mailing address is: David Horowitz Freedom Center, P.O. Box 55089, Sherman Oaks, CA 91499-1964

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.