More UK selective enforcement?

It would be interesting to see who gets the harsher sentence. The people who in fact did deface adds by spray painting a burka on top of bikini clad models, or say, anyone who might do something like this:

Or this: 

Because you know that if someone decided to try and force cultural normalcy on a picture of a Muslim, it wouldn’t just be mischief or vandalism, but would be a hate crime. Even though it may have been done for a laugh or to point out how this doesn’t fit in. Meanwhile, the people spray painting burkas on pictures in the UK absolutly hate British culture, hate powerful women, hate anything that is an affront to their religion of hate. Yet somehow I doubt that a hate crime charge will be added to the 50 quid fine they may get if in fact they don’t sue the police and receive money for their actions.

From The Daily Mail:

Muslim teenagers convicted of criminal damage after spraying burkas onto scantily-clad models in Lynx poster

 

  By Daily Mail Reporter

Last updated at 2:16 PM on 31st July 2011

Two Muslim teenagers have admitted defacing advertising hoardings featuring scantily-clad models and painting a ‘burka’ over them because they offended their religious views.

Mohammed Hasnath and Muhammed Tahir, both 18, used black paint to cover up the picture of a female model on a hoarding advertising Lynx deodorant.

The duo proceeded to paint over the faces on several other advertisements around London’s East End, claiming it was a ‘sin’ for them to be uncovered.

'We wanted to do good': Mohammed Tahir outside Thames Magistrates Court where he was charged with six counts of criminal damage
'We wanted to do good': Mohammed Hasnath outside Thames Magistrates Court where he was charged with six counts of criminal damage

‘We wanted to do good’: Mohammed Tahir and Mohammed Hasnath, both 18, outside Thames Magistrates Court where he was charged with six counts of criminal damage

The youths, who represented themselves, had both denied initial charges of religious aggravated criminal damage.

However, they both pleaded guilty to six counts of criminal damage when they appeared at Thames Magistrates Court in east London.

Taiwo Akinrowo, prosecuting, told the court: ‘On the morning of February 26th this year a member of the public called the police because they had seen three males damaging the bus shelters.

‘One of the males was seen to paint on the female angel in the advert for Lynx. On the other side was an advert for the film ‘Drive Angry’ and this male was seen to paint on the female image next to Nicholas Cage.

‘Police were called and began to monitor the males and they saw them walking along Whitechapel Road towards Osborne Street where they then used the paint on the window of the Money Shop on the faces of the females.

Revealing: Tahir and Hasnath defaced a Lynx poster similar to this one which shows model Kelly BrookRevealing: Tahir and Hasnath defaced a Lynx poster similar to this one which shows model Kelly Brook

 

‘They police officers arrived and the defendants ran away. They were then stopped by police, arrested and interviewed and they gave full and frank admissions as to what they had done.

‘They told them that the way the women had been photographed was against their religion and they said it was a sin in Islam for a male to look twice at a woman who is not covered.

‘If a man looks at a woman the first time it could be accidental, but if they look again it is a sin and they did not want children and other people seeing the image of these woman who were not covered.

‘Consequently they began to paint over burkas around the faces of the women. When arrested, Mr Hasnath’s clothes were covered in black paint and they also had the brushes on them.

‘The pictures – that is someone’s daughter. If someone was to look at our wife or mother or daughter with a bad intention we would not like it so we were just trying to do good.’  – Hasnath

‘Both have admitted painting over them. At first, they did not think it was a bad thing to do but they accept that it was not legal because it was not their property. ‘The defendants had the option on the first appearance to plead guilty to the simple matter and they did not.’

Referring to the fact that the charges were originally religious aggravated criminal damage, Hasnath told the court: ‘We don’t have anything against anyone.

‘We have black friends, white friends and Chinese friends. We are not racist.

‘The pictures – that is someone’s daughter. If someone was to look at our wife or mother or daughter with a bad intention we would not like it so we were just trying to do good.’

Hasnath, of Poplar, and Tahir, of Tower Hamlets, both east London, were both ordered to pay costs of £283 each and were each released on a 12 month conditional discharge.

A third defendant, Abdul Hakim Langaigne, 24, of Thamesmead, south east London, who was also charged with six counts of criminal damage, failed to appear in court. A warrant was issued for his arrest.

Last week the Daily Mail reported that Islamic extremists have launched a poster campaign across the UK proclaiming areas where Sharia law enforcement zones have been set up.

Hate preacher Anjem Choudary claimed responsibility for the scheme, saying he plans to flood specific Muslim and non Muslim communities around the UK and ‘put the seeds down for an islamic Emirate in the long term’.

Extremist Jamaal Uddin of 'Muslims Against Crusades' declares a part of Leyton under Sharia LawExtremist Jamaal Uddin of ‘Muslims Against Crusades’ declares a part of Leyton under Sharia Law

About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

4 Replies to “More UK selective enforcement?”

  1. If it is a sin to look twice at a poster of a scantily dressed woman, I am guilty, but I have forgiveness through the blood of Jesus Christ; something those who damaged the posters are likely to reject, at their peril. Sharia “law” is no substitute for the grace of God.

  2. If this really is a poster in Ottawa spondsored by the United Way, then I ask the question…. Since when does a woman wearing a head covering represent any even small minority in this country. There should be a huge campaign to stop all funding to the |United Way until they used photos that represent modern women and not those subjected to backward religious cultural cult practices that force the head to be covered. This is a form of creeping sharia impletmented by the dumbest of dumb, those who think they are paving their own road to heaven by appeasing being ever so tolerant and in the end will be gobbled up by their own stupidity.
    Disgusting poster, and absolutely justified graffiti vandalism.

  3. The photo of the Muslim girl for the United Way was in fact taken at the Rideau Centre in Ottawa right by the escalator leading to the Mac store. I believe it is still there. The bikini painted on it was a joke done by photoshop done by Tundra Tabloids. Your point is still a worthy one. But stil, I bet had I actually done that graffiti I would have been arrested for a hate crime while the people actually doing this in the UK, the people trying to force pictures to conform to sharia standards, likely face little or no prosecution or punishment.

  4. You are right Eeyore, the Moslems are the new protected minority and can get away with just about anything. Their saying they were covering the paintings because it was a sin to look at them is proof of the religious motive and they should be punished for that but they won’t be punished in any meaningful way.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*