Harry's Place

Assuming this is satire, and not part of the ‘new regime’ re Israel at HP? (cf S.O. Muffin’s piece last week).

No, I agree.

My wife and I both thought this a very dubious case, legally.

Bashing up people with the law, just because they’re bastards, isn’t the way to do this. Object to such a man advising on foreign policy – sure. But a criminal record for this? I don’t think so.

I hope his appeal succeeds.

If Laxton had used the words “Pakistan” and “Muslims” in his rant would you defend his right to say what he did?

I hope his appeal results in a bigger fine.

If you want to be a libertine about what we can say about racial and religious groups then I expect that no-one will be called an Islamaphobe or Antisemite when they post here.

Let’s sentence Lxton to the user-friendly “You will do six weeks community service in a Kibbutz”

What utter nonsense. It’s a shame Harry’s Place is turning into a satire blog, I agree, Chas.

Just to take this post at face value:

He was in a gym, apparently ‘on his own’ in a gallery which overlooks the main gym floor. The gym is a public place (in fact this gym is for LBS alumni or associates, but it certainly is not Laxton’s own private space for practising antisemitic shouting). If I were in the gym, even if there was nobody around me in the cardio area, I would not think it acceptable to shout ‘fucking blacks’ at a TV screen. I doubt many people would think that was OK. Nor would they do it. It is a public area.

Furthermore, whatever the detail of this law and whatever you think of it, it is what it is. two people heard him, and felt threatened and offended. One of them said he challenged Laxton directly, and says he continued the abuse directly to his face. Did he think he was alone then, as well?

Even putting the law aside, to find out that somebody working in his job holds those views and expresses them that way is not a good indicator of suitability for the job. At the very least, it demonstrates lack of diplomacy, discretion and common sense. So if it took this case to expose him and have him face the consequences, so be it.

Or to put it another way, If a civil servant shouts racist remarks in the woods, and there’s nobody there to hear him, is he still racist?

From the JC

Giving his reasons in writing, the judge said Laxton’s outburst was “not a legitimate protest; it was an emotional reaction” and that it was hard to imagine when saying “f—— Jews” in an gym used by other people could be considered reasonable.

Well it is hard to imagine, isn’t it?

Are we still paying his salary, or has he been sacked?

Sorry, just to make it clear, I agree he should not have been prosecuted.

But he should be sacked.

Has the reverse happened?

He should certainly be moved to another department. Quite possibly he should go work for Conflicts Forum or some such outfit, where his perspectives will be appreciated.

However this was not a fit case for prosecution.

Of course, Laxton should have been sacked at once (after accelerated administrative procedure). It is absolutely wrong to employ racists in government service, least of all in the FCO. This is true even if the racism came to light in, e.g., an email not for general consumption. The very fact of provable racism should have been sufficient.

Should he have been tried? Well, he did shout racist obscenities in the public domain. Unless law legislation is repealed in this country altogether, I don’t see why he should be treated any more leniently than a BNP thug shouting, say, anti-Black obscenities in the public domain.

What is a sauce for the goose is a sauce for the gander, whether the gander is goose-stepping or not.

Do I take it then that he has *not* been sacked?

Amazing.

“He should certainly be moved to another department.”

Please tell me you are joking, David? In what department of government or civil service would it be acceptable or right to employ a racist who shouts ‘at himself’ in public places?

But a criminal record for this? I don’t think so.

I quite agree David, the laws on freedom speech in Europe, including holocaust denial and so-called hate speech, are completely counter-productive and should (must) be jettisoned without further ado, certainly so if Europe intends to retain its credentials as being free and democratic. Notwithstanding the fact that the Lisbon treaty is being rammed down our throats.

I hope his appeal succeeds.

I’ll second that.

I think the prosecution was wrong. (Though he should have been fired from his job, no “diplomat” should ever get away with such conduct.)

When the law seeks to stop people expressing vile opinions, it flings open the door to the proscription of all opinions, and free speech is lost altogether. Because one man’s vile opinion is another man’s home truth.

In this case, the creep never issued threats, nor did he incite others to commit any illegal act against anyone at all. But the other aspect of this is that I suspect this prosecution was only brought because of who he is. If he had been a hoodie teenager shouting actual threats at a jewish family on a council estate, and throwing rocks at their house, every day, it would have been “low level anti-social behaviour”, and a matter for the council.

The law is an asset we all hold in common, we should be looking after it better than this.

I support the right of free speech. Even for racist loons. Even for homophobic loons.

I think he should have been sacked, becuase his behaviour brought his department into disrepute and such bigotted views are incompatible with the diplomatic service. But it should not be a crime.

Unless there is a clear incitement to violence, I don’t think speech should be criminalised just because it upsets people.

“He should certainly be moved to another department.”

I agree with Jonathan S, surely you’re joking?

Putting aside the new HP agenda, in sensible-land which government department should employ a man who shouted that Israelis should be “blown off the f***ing earth” and ranted about the “f**king Jews”?

I’m not sure it was wrong to prosecute him. Behaviour in a public place tending to cause a breach of the peace, or something along those lines, hasn’t that always been illegal anyway, apart from the more recent legislation aimed specifically at outlawing racist behaviour?

But there can be no doubt at all that he is a totally unfit person to be employed in any capacity at all by the FCO. If he has not yet been sacked, then those who have neglected to sack him deserve to be sacked themselves.

“Putting aside the new HP agenda, in sensible-land which government department should employ a man who shouted that Israelis should be “blown off the f***ing earth” and ranted about the “f**king Jews”?”

None, obviously.

But neither should he have a criminal conviction. We need to chill the fuck out and stop thinking the law can legislate away bad manners, vicious tongues and stupidity.

Putting aside the new HP agenda, in sensible-land which government department should employ a man who shouted that Israelis should be “blown off the f***ing earth” and ranted about the “f**king Jews”?

Those verbal outpourings are worrisome, to say the least, but do you have any links to back them up?

Also should he stigmatised with a criminal record for having those views. Leaving aside the fact his unsuitability for the job he had.

“Those verbal outpourings are worrisome, to say the least, but do you have any links to back them up?”

Oh for goodness sake: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6847311.ece

I expect Rowan Laxton will be given a guest post on HP soon the way things are going. Followed by a “I agree” early on from David.

Joe Camel
6 October 2009, 6:56 pm

I’m not sure it was wrong to prosecute him. Behaviour in a public place tending to cause a breach of the peace, or something along those lines..
——————

What do we really mean by “tending to cause a breach of the peace” anyway? Because it sounds suspiciously like “Don’t disappoint anyone who might go berserk and lamp someone.” How is it your fault if someone else can’t control himself? If a thug approaches you demanding your money, presumably the response “No” is liable to provoke a breach of the peace.

That law is far too broad, and that is what makes it a very bad law. The way that other folk are liable to react to your words, can not even be reliably predicted, and is not your responsibility unless you are asking or telling them to do a specific thing.

I also really liked this comment from Laxton:

“We are all human. I erred. I don’t normally swear.”

As if the swearing was the problematic bit!

He also said he “is not an antisemite”. Nah, doesn’t sound like it much does he…

This is a guest post by Paul Leslie

” notorious ASBOs – often misused, as can be seen in the relevant section of the Statewatch site”

Once upon a time the National Association of Probation Officers was foolish enough to compile a dossier on this theme for ASBOwatch, which is no longer with us. Rather a lot of eye-catching cases were dropped between its first edition and the one that was submitted to the Home Office, as a result of the criticisms being very thin to vanishing.

If you think ASBOs are misused, perhaps you’d like to cite a few that have been overturned after challenge in a higher Court?

Oh he is self evidently a rabid antisemite.

Surely this was at least a breach of the peace? And abusing or threatening to any Jews or Israelis present?

Surely if he had said it of Arabs or Muslims it would have been incitement to hatred?

“We are all human. I erred. I don’t normally swear.”

Just at Jews and Israelis…

He didn’t threaten anyone though Zak. You prosecute them for what they said, or what they did, or not at all. I reckon it must have been unforgiveably offensive to any Jewish or Israeli customers within earshot. But he didn’t utter any threats against them, or their property. He ranted about his hatred for them.

I agree with both sides. I agree his actions shouldn’t be prosecuted. On the other hand, you have to pick your battles, and I wouldn’t lift a finger to help the anti-semitic creep if he were — unjustly in my opinion, because he didn’t actually threaten anybody — actually prosecuted. Does that sound contradictory? Perhaps. But contradictions like that are part of the human condition, which is something that ideologues of all stripes often forget.

In short, basically my position is: he shouldn’t be prosecuted, but fuck the racist prick.

Absolutely right.

Valid arguments have been put forward to justify sending a legislative message to offenders guilty of crimes inspired by religious or racist bigotry. There have also been valid counterarguments to the effect that legal provisions – like those in the Crime and Disorder Act – which punish offences inspired by such bigotry more severely give ammunition to racist propagandists who claim that the principle for equal treatment under the law is being undermined.

If there are valid arguments for creating a hierarchy of victimhood and different punishments for the same ‘crime’, then I’ve yet to hear them…and it isn’t just ‘racist propagandists’ who fear that the so-called rule of law is being undermined.

I would not think it acceptable to shout ‘fucking blacks’ at a TV screen. I doubt many people would think that was OK

Cue the slippery subjective nature of whether a ‘crime’ is racist or not. My wife and I’ve been on the receiving end of some pretty horrendous abuse in Urdu and Bengali, but rather than shout ‘racist’ and get the cockweasel’s collar felt, my wife usually gives them an earful back…much more satisfying than involving the criminal joke system.

Well, saying that Israeli soldiers should be wiped off the face of the earth is pretty offensive as far as I’m concerned (and I imagine that there may be other relations who feel the same) and, given his position, could be construed as threatening. It’s not like the guy is a refuse collector -he’s an FO official for God’s sake, who presumably has some sort of influence in his place of work.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/4564216/Foreign-Office-diplomat-arrested-over-anti-Semitic-rant.html

But hey, at least we now know the way the land lies.

No victim. No crime. End of story.

We need a much tighter definition on this breach of the peace business. For my part, I think it should hinge on the risk of fear, intimidation, panic, by any reasonable witness to the deed. It is the public security that should be protected. And from real tangible threats at that.

If we allow the state to clamp down on public rantings, it will not stop here. The demonstration, the picket line, the controversial art exhibition, will be next.

So according to the free speech extremists on this thread it was fine for the Nazis of the 1930s to parade through the streets of Berlin and London shouting “The Yids, the Yids, We’ve Got to Get Rid of the Yids” and to sing the Horst Wessel song, as long as they didn’t actually go and beat up any Jews and throw them out of their jobs etc.

I find the reduction of being the victim of racist abuse to “being offended” quite horrendous. It seems to be the get-out on which these libertarian arguments in favour of absolute free speech depend.

Being the subject of racist abuse goes far beyond “being offended”. I may be offended when someone is rude about my clothes, shouts at me in queues or reels off a tirade of obscenities when they don’t like the way I drive. That is in no way the equivalent of the impact on me of being racially abused as a Jew, where the feelings produce include a level of fear and alarm equivalent to being threatened with imminent physical violence. I can remember every incident of direct racial abuse I have ever encountered because it has induced a level of threat which links with my family’s experiences of persecution and murder in Germany and Eastern Europe. Racial abuse tells me that the abuser approves of what was done to my family and feels the same should be done to me and my family. Racial abuse tells me that I am not considered fully human, and that I am part of a supposedly evil source of all the harm in the world. I know that it invites others to join in. Calling this “taking offence’ is the equivalent of calling a response to sexual abuse “getting upset”.

The law has a variety of offences which could cover the behaviour of Rowan Laxton and others like him. They include threatening behaviour, incitement to violence and others. The concept of racially aggravated versions of these offences is in my view right, since we know that racist violence is one of the greatest possible threats to our society–and to those of most industrialized nations.

Laxton helps to make Combat 18 and the wilder fringes of Islamist extremism respectable. I hope he gets sent down and loses his job. I find the taking up of his cause by the libertarians of HP as repulsive as I’ve found the taking up of Polanski’s cause by the luvvies of Hollywood and France.

Laxton pales into insignigance compared with this wonderful MPAC UK thread that is so rich in antisemitic content that I’m waiting for the police to step in. David T gets an honourable mention. http://www.mpacuk.org/story/021009/secret-zionist-smear-group-%E2%80%98cheerleaders%E2%80%99-tries-intimidate-bloggerheads.html

The elephant is STILL in the room!

Well put Judy. One would think that Laxton’s behaviour would cause bells to ring and lights to flash for any decent person with a reasonable memory. Apparantly not…

Perhaps, instead of victimising a poor, honest-to-goodness FCO chappy who happens to feel strongly about Israeli foreign policy, the police should turn their attention to the real criminals. Like this Christian couple.

Judy, you are 100% correct. I cannot believe some of the stuff popping up on Harry’s Place.

“Justice” for Laxton? Get real. How about Justice for the people he hates and makes to feel threatened and unwelcome in the very gym they have as much right to be in as he does? And all this from someone in his position, at a time when antisemitic attacks in this country were at a record high for years, with Jews feeling scared to walk the streets of London displaying any visible sign of their religion / ethnicity? Justice my arse. Laxton was found guilty because he is guilty. His rant did not and does not exist in some vacuum, and it did far more than ‘offend’ some people.

” How about Justice for the people he hates and makes to feel threatened and unwelcome in the very gym they have as much right to be in as he does? “

Remind me who was escorted out and banned from the gym.

He should neither be sacked nor criminalised.His distasteful views
should not necessarily cloud his professional judgement.Ask any health care professional if their treatment of patients whose views are unacceptable would be treated differently to anyone else.
It was after all, a rant.

Judy
6 October 2009, 9:06 pm

So according to the free speech extremists on this thread it was fine for the Nazis of the 1930s to parade through the streets of Berlin and London shouting “The Yids, the Yids, We’ve Got to Get Rid of the Yids”

———

No Judy. It bloody wasn’t. “We’ve got to get rid of…” is clearly incitement to do something illegal. Getting rid of people is illegal, now, as it was then.

That was no way anywhere like “we’ve got to get rid of the government”, which is a rallying call against the government. The “yids” were ordinary residents, getting rid of them could only mean seriously illegal actions against civilians. So I would bust them for that.

And that Horst Wessel song, it’s not just a ditty, and it doesn’t just tell a story either. The lyrics are an exhortation to inflict violence upon jewish people. Busted again.

In my perfect world, you’d get twelve years without parole for each of those offences. And I wouldn’t let the judge give you twelve years for both. I would force them to make it successive.

Don’t make the mistake of imagining libertarians are bleeding (heart) liberals.

<<<I expect Rowan Laxton will be given a guest post on HP soon the way things are going. Followed by a “I agree” early on from David.

I fail to see a reason why Rowan Laxton should have have a criminal record despite his outburst. What he said was despicable, but a criminal record……puhleeze.

“With no-one in his presence to harass, how could he be found guilty of harassing third party complainants who happened to overhear his rant? (It is not like the cases of a person or persons, alone in a house or flat, opening the window to shout abuse into a public street, or playing music night after night at a deafening level to torment a neighbour or neighbours.)”

Actually it IS rather like the second example you give, because it was a display of yobbishness in public which wasn’t targeted at anyone in particular but which could reasonably have been expected to be overheard. I don’t agree with the argument that it was threatening to specific individuals, though it could reasonably be argued that it was intended to intimidate or insult any Jews who might be around. It’s hard to figure out the mentality of someone who would come out with outbursts like that in public. But being bigoted or racist is not in itself illegal.

I consider what Laxton said detestable and he’s shown himself up as a twat, but any disciplinary matters should be mainly the business of the gym (suspend or rescind his membership) and of Laxton’s employers whom he has publicly disgraced (they should demote or sack him). He’s demonstrated he should not be employed as a diplomat by the British government. But so far as the law should be concerned he merits surely a caution or fine from the police for breach of the peace.

The main lesson of this affair for me is it reinforces what I have always suspected about public gyms – that they are full of people whose main reason for being there is to give vent to their personal frustrations in public – a sort of more cardiovascular version of primal screaming or self-flagellation. I am only surprised that there are not more incidents like the one in the story. Gyms are full of people who if not angry are unhappy, and if not unhappy are exhibitionistic. Generally.

I don’t go to a gym, and no one really needs to. I am 39 and am slim, toned and in excellent general shape on around 40 minutes simple exercise a week and a sensible diet. I’m in far better condition than Laxton judging by his photo. He looks old enough to be my dad. My simple routine or something like it can be done at home by anyone, no membership fee or special equipment necessary. Or as another poster indicated, Laxton could have exercised in a forest where no one would hear him. But where would the drama, narcissism and self-loathing have an audience if Laxton and co did something like that?

Judy: Singing “the yids get rid of the yids” is incitement and therefore prosecutable. They don’t have to actually beat or round up jews. Incitement is also prosecutable. Unfortunately what this rowan fellow did does not constitute incitement. So there’s no good reason to prosecute him, and the prosecution will fail. Not that I wouldn’t mind seeing the SOB go to jail just for the hell of it, but as i said, human nature is contradictory and complicated. However, I accept my own contradictions, and don’t try to bend myself into a pretzel to rationalize them. If he didn’t incite, it shouldn’t be prosecutable. Sackable, yes. Prosecutable, no.

I also think that if anyone hearing is outburst had lost their tempers and punched him on the hooter, they too should have been spared prosecution.

No Brett, listen very carefully dear. I will say this only once.

You only punched him on the hooter because he was hysterical, and you needed to shut him up to get him under control, and before things went dangerously out of hand.

“I also think that if anyone hearing is outburst had lost their tempers and punched him on the hooter, they too should have been spared prosecution.”

That sounds about right. There should be some common sense latitude for the people concerned sorting incidents like this out without necessarily involving the law. it shouldn’t be the case that parties involved in an ill-tempered public row should immediately find themselves in a legal minefield.

And there might have been ladies present, and you couldn’t risk any of them being exposed to any unpleasantness, you gentleman you…

Stan, the idea is about keeping Brett out of prison, I’ll make it up to you later…

Brett could become a political prisoner/Nelson Mandela type figure.

Judy: So according to the free speech extremists on this thread it was fine for the Nazis of the 1930s to parade through the streets of Berlin and London shouting “The Yids, the Yids, We’ve Got to Get Rid of the Yids” and to sing the Horst Wessel song, as long as they didn’t actually go and beat up any Jews and throw them out of their jobs etc.

Yes the poor TV set he shouted at will need therapy for years to come.

Personally I would like to see a constitutional amendment in the US making it clear that any “crime” which lacks a victim or potential victim is not a crime at all and can not be prosecuted as such.

Rowan yelled at a TV set, since the TV set isn’t a human being, there is no possible crime here.

I am 39 and am slim, toned and in excellent general shape on around 40 minutes simple exercise a week and a sensible diet.

Too much information. Arrest immediately for breach of the English Law of Self-Deprecation.

Nursey, Laxton rings all of my bells, loud and only too bloody clear. If you ever imagine that I do not know what is going on within the Foreign Office, let me say this. Everybody knows.

The entire bloody place is infested with his sort. They call themselves “arabists”. In reality they are upper class chinless wonders who think they are the reincarnation of Thesiger and Lawrence, and hold themselves ready to drag their sorry plump bare arses across the desert sand in front of any noble bloody savage who might give them a good horse-whipping. Majestically.

And they hate the Jews. Don’t exactly love the British either.

Well, saying that Israeli soldiers should be wiped off the face of the earth is pretty offensive as far as I’m concerned (and I imagine that there may be other relations who feel the same) and, given his position, could be construed as threatening.

An Iranian said that to me once. He was defending Amadinajad’s threats on Israel. It’s odd that when I told him that Amadinajad is obviously a complete nutcase and that Iran should never be allowed to have nukes, the man looked like he might cry. People are so strange.

I should have read more clearly. The Iranian wasn’t saying that Israeli soldiers should be wiped off the face of the earth, he was saying that Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth.

Quite, Monty. And I’m sure that you have not forgotten that in 1942 when the Vichy regime handed 19,000 Jews over to the Germans for a fate of slave labour followed by extermination and appeals were made to the British Foreign Office to take them in, one FO official replied ‘We cannot turn our country into a sponge for Europe’.

“I also think that if anyone hearing is outburst had lost their tempers and punched him on the hooter, they too should have been spared prosecution.”

The only appropriate response to his rant is to challenge him verbally and chastise him for his idiotic comments.

There is a world of difference between words and physical action. It’s strange that most people on this blog seem incapable of distinguishing between the two.

Judy, maybe you should get a grip. A man yelling at a TV set in the gym is hardly the equivalent of Krystallnacht. The world doesn’t revolve around you darling, and it’s rather childish to wish jail on somebody who says something in earshot that you don’t like.

Chelsea fans. Antisemitic songs about Spurs. Filmed outside a station. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1218607/Chelsea-vow-help-fans-involved-anti-semitic-chants-London-rivals-Spurs.html

Every time I see a report on TV about atrocities in Afghanistan I yell ““f—— British, f—— Christians”.

Laxton blamed it all on his wife. He said he was undergoing a ‘difficult divorce’. His wife is an Afghanistani Muslim, so I guess that means he must be a Muslim too. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. How public is public? Apparently, there was a mezzanine floor beneath the level he was on, and two men (one Jewish) clearly heard him roaring his remarks. How close does a person have to be to feel insulted?

“Remind me who was escorted out and banned from the gym”

Yes, Laxton was. And quite right too. That’s justice for those he offended. That was my point. And Laxton received justice: he was found guilty of doing what he did.

A repeat, a public / members’ gym is not a private space for venting repulsive views. Doing so in such a public place, in the presence of others, opens you up to charges of threatening and offending them, if that is what you did.

Punching him would have been totally unacceptable, and also a crime, just as “T/a/g/n/u/z/l/s/x” points out. In fact, Gideon Falter, one of the two people who reported him, actually challenged him verbally, and testified in court that Laxton replied “If I had my way, the fucking international community should be sent in, and if the Israelis got in the way, they’d be blown off the fucking earth.”

Lovely chap, eh. I think everyone’s efforts should well be spent on defending him, absolutely. Poor guy.

“He was only shouting at his TV set”

”
Judy, maybe you should get a grip. A man yelling at a TV set in the gym is hardly the equivalent of Krystallnacht. The world doesn’t revolve around you darling, and it’s rather childish to wish jail on somebody who says something in earshot that you don’t like.

An absolutely outstanding example of how to sneer at and trivialize what is in fact an indictable legal offence of which Laxton was found guilty by reducing it to something which is merely the reaction of a childish narcissist, who’s beneath the Olympian insights and sophistication of the writer.

Couldn’t have asked for a better demonstration of the methodology of the apologetics I discussed above on 6/10/09 at 6:06pm.

Well said Jonathan S, Judy and Israelinurse.

What a ridiculous post this was.

It seems I’ve got some of the libertarian free speech extremist defenders of Rowan Laxton on this thread wrong. They would have been strongly opposed to the right of Nazis to go on the streets shouting, “The Yids, the Yids, We’ve Got to Get Rid of the Yids” and sing the Horst Wessel Song.

But they presumably would have been quite OK with them going round shouting and plastering the streets with slogans like “The Jews are our misfortune”, “Jews-disgusting race”, ‘the Jews are a plague on our society and our worst enemy” (actually Russia 2004); “The Jews rule the world”; “F*** the Jews” (as also invoked by the martyred Rowan Laxton); “Dirty Jews”; “Jews drink Christian blood” (Russia again)

An absolutely outstanding example of how to sneer at and trivialize what is in fact an indictable legal offence of which Laxton was found guilty by reducing it to something which is merely the reaction of a childish narcissist, who’s beneath the Olympian insights and sophistication of the write

Perhaps you can explain to us how a TV set became, legally, a human being being harrassed. Huh? How did that happen, exactly.

Sorry. I have no time for this. He should go. Harsh? He is in a position where particular and exceptional standards must apply – c.f. teacher’s. He has no one to blame but himself.Sorry. I have no time for this. He should go. Harsh? He is in a position where particular and exceptional standards must apply – c.f. teacher’s. He has no one to blame but himself.

Israelinurse (should I be calling myself AngloSaxonQuitewell?) never misses a chance to denigrate British resistance to Hitler, however tangential – one long since abandoned any hope of a thank you – another reason this man must go. His presence creates opportunities for grudge mongers.
Israelinurse (should I be calling myself AngloSaxonQuitewell?) never misses a chance to denigrate British resistence to Hitler, however tangential – one long since abandoned any hope of a thank you – another reason this man must go. His presence creates opportunities for grudge mongers.

A repeat, a public / members’ gym is not a private space for venting repulsive views.

I agree, but it doesn’t neccessarily follow that doing so should be a criminal offence.

Lovely chap, eh. I think everyone’s efforts should well be spent on defending him, absolutely. Poor guy.

It’s not about whether we happen to approve of him as an individual – I agree he sounds like quite an odious character. It’s the principle of to what extent behaviour which some people find offensive or disturbing should be criminalised which is the issue.

Yes, Laxton was. And quite right too. That’s justice for those he offended. That was my point.

No, the point you made was:

“How about Justice for the people he hates and makes to feel threatened and unwelcome in the very gym they have as much right to be in as he does? ”

But how can these people have been made to feel “unwelcome” when the management of the gym sided with them, affirmed their right to exercise in peace, expelled the abusive party and banned him from returning?

I don’t agree with criminal prosecution either. But as for sacking from the Foreign Office, no chance. A soupçon of antisemitism is regarded there as evidence of correct ideological orientation. Cf. Derek Pasquill.

Besides, you’ve got to do something really serious to get into trouble at the FO, like sleeping with someone you shouldn’t.

“one long since abandoned any hope of a thank you”

I didn’t know you were in the forces during WWII, L. In which did you Serve? MY dad was RN. About 30 000 Palestinian Jews served in the British forces, I think.

Monty, spot on about the FO types, I think.

Judy, I think I get your points, but there is difference between expressing odious views into the general ether and addressing them towards specific individuals, and between those situations and addressing them towards specific individuals in a threatening way. In this particular instance, I think there is a grey area between Laxton addressing an inanimate object (the television screen) and vaguely but intentionally addressing anyone within earshot.

I don’t buy the excuse that he was only addressing the screen either – he must have known he would be overheard. On the other hand, that is not quite the same as going up to someone and shouting in their face, waving a fist etcetera. That’s why I suggested his behaviour appears to be mainly a matter of breach of the peace rather than actual threatening behaviour towards individuals.

I suspect he knew quite well what he was doing and that he hoped his outburst would vaguely intimidate or upset any Jews or their friends in his proximity, but like most bullies he would have the cowardly option of claiming he hadn’t meant anything personal.

Whatever happens, the damage to his reputation has been done and many will know him for the bigot and creep he is. Hopefully his career is screwed. Even so, that does not mean he deserves to be convicted of the more serious charge. A fine and the attendant disgrace should suffice.

Judy: 2 points to your sarcastic but incorrect response:
first of all, ‘the Jews are a plague on our society and our worst enemy” (actually Russia 2004); and “Jews drink Christian blood” (Russia again)
would be considered incitement where I live. Second, yes i think people should have the right to say “fucking Jew” and not be sent to jail for it. I also think those who hear it have the right to beat the living crap out of the person who said it. Just to clarify things.

Old Peculier 6 October 2009, 10:19 pm:

I read the link and the punch line is at the end -

“The guest complained to Merseyside Police who called the couple in for an interview. They were questioned twice before being charged with a religiously aggravated public order offence.”

I wonder whether they were collected for questioning by policewomen wearing the Hijab.