As you may know the leader of the BNP and a side-kick of his were let off this week at their trail for making speeches demonising Islam (check the BBC if you dont know about it).
The jury was entirely White. In a case such as this, which revolves around race, should the jury have been made up of people from different races and/or religions?
2006-11-11 22:58:57 · 31 answers · asked by huvgj 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Civic Participation
Yes i think they should be leading by example. If this is truly a multi-cultural country and so dedicated to equality then why can't we see evidence of this in society at large. However, i think the decision not to gag the BNP for speaking their views was right. In mathematics the rule is what u do on 1 side of the equation must be done on the other side of the equation. So to limit their right to free speech will effect us all. Also they represent a vast amount of white peoples views, so lets deal with the issues rather than pushing it underground. Being a person of colour i know that racism comes from all quarters of society not just the BNP, but they are the only ones brave enough to admit it.
2006-11-12 22:26:54 · answer #1 · answered by Convince Pete 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Wow, that is an interesting statistic.
And enough to spark a new conspiracy theory.
It is very difficult to say that the jury should have a quota of 50% non-white or more, as then it would have been no tiral at all - he would have been hung before the trial begun.
Please do not assume that there is some sort of pan-whiteism going on ... that we somehow pledge to support each other over people of other races - there isn't.
And these men may yet be arrested again - they are already working on changing the law to make it more likely that they will end up in prison. They were to lucky to get off this time - full stop.
2006-11-12 12:58:33 · answer #2 · answered by Wise Kai 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
a jury as far as i know is picked from the voting registry list at random,and checked against a police computer for criminal convictions .when a jury is sat it has to follow guidelines and the current law as it stands is followed,therefore a black member or asian member of the jury cannot decide someone is guilty because they are a member of a opposing political party,or dislike someone because of their political views,democracy in most part is a good thing,but that means everytype of political party opinions can be made in a law abiding manner,which the law in this case has decided the bnp has done.a lot of weighing up of the situation is made before the verdict is reached by a jury and this involves numerous decision making guidelines.taken in to consideration.
2006-11-12 11:17:42 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The onlt reason that they were aacquitted was that they didn't actually break any laws due to a loophole. Religions are NOT covered in race hatred laws, the only ones are where a nation and faith are one, such as the Sihk nation is made up only of Sikhs, and the Jewish nation is composed of Jews, Muslims have no specific national base, and race hatred laws do NOT cover religions. The government is now going to change the laws so that the type of thing preached by the leader of the BNP would be against the law. It seems, even if the jury had found him guilty, he would have got off on appeal due to this loophole.
2006-11-12 07:29:31 · answer #4 · answered by mike-from-spain 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋
If I were a voter in England, I would definately vote for the BNP solely because all of the other political parties have disowned the caucasians that live there. Only arabs and asians are being looked after today which is ridiculous.
Extreme policies from stupid governments brings with it, opposition that hold some rather extreme policies but with all things comes an opposite to form a balance.
Freedom of speech is for all, not for the selected few or you become what you claim to detest; Dictatorship.
2006-11-12 18:28:19 · answer #5 · answered by Earth 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
No. To do so would imply that all non-white people are racist or are unable to empathise with racial issues. You can have a White Muslim, an Asian athiest, Black racist and an all-white jury of many different races and religions.
To tamper with the jury system will just lead to more people saying that everyone has to bend over backwards for minorities and the white population is no longer listened to.
2006-11-12 11:03:37 · answer #6 · answered by Ms Bleu 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
A jury is technically supposed to be made of your peers so white people on the jury was correct in a way. I don't agree that they got off tho so the jury didn't get it right. I was hoping they would've had more sense. And so there should've been more black jurors, maybe they wouldv'e got what they desrved. BNP are W***ERS.
2006-11-13 11:14:12 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Seems to me that BOTH sides have the chance to vett and veto potential jurors (oftentimes based on NOTHING other than their color). If you're hoping for a mistrial, I'd start looking elsewhere unless it can be proven that the defense lawyers were completely incompetent. At least this is how it is in the US.
2006-11-13 16:15:05 · answer #8 · answered by Goose&Tonic 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Since all the so called evidence was collected in clear breach of the Data Protection Act its the BBC that should have been on trial and not the BNP for exercising our hard fought for right of free speech.
2006-11-12 11:03:09 · answer #9 · answered by DAVID M 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
By posing this question are you saying that he may have been found guilty by a black jury.
If so you are being racist as this country has survived for ages with freedom of speech and you should know this because the placard wielding demonstrators have banked on this for years.
2006-11-13 12:05:04 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋