One rule for one

Its a crazy world innit? Nick Griffin's previous trial coincided with Hamza's, this one coincides with:

The verdict clearing Nick Griffin on race hate charges stands in stark contrast to the case of a young Muslim man convicted the previous day on very similar charges. In both trials, the defendants were accused of using words or behaviour intended to stir up racial hatred.

The case of Griffin and of his British National Party colleague Mark Collett centred on speeches made to their supporters in a pub in Keighley, West Yorkshire.

In the speeches, they launched into tirades against Muslims and made slurs against the murdered black student Stephen Lawrence.

Griffin told the throng that Islam was a "wicked, vicious faith" and said that Muslims were turning Britain into a "multi-racial hell hole", while Collett called asylum seekers "cockroaches" and told the gathering, "Let's show these ethnics the door in 2004."

Both were cleared of using words or behaviour intended to stir up racial hatred.

The case of 23-year-old Mizanur Rahman had a quite different outcome.

At a rally outside the Danish embassy in London in February, Rahman had said soldiers should be brought back from Iraq in body bags and called for September 11-style terrorist attacks against Europe.

He carried placards with the slogans "annihilate those who insult Islam" and "behead those who insult Islam".

He was found guilty at the Old Bailey of using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to stir racial hatred. During the trial, Rahman apologised, saying: "I didn't think about what I was saying." His lawyer compared his remarks to those made from soapboxes at Speaker's Corner.

By contrast, neither Griffin or Collett showed remorse for their words after their trial concluded. Griffin said he was simply "speaking the truth".

Lawyers for the two men successfully argued in court that since their comments were predominantly against Muslims, who were not a racial group, they could not be considered as inciting racial hatred. By contrast, Rahman was apparently found guilty on precisely the opposite conclusion: that the people "who insult Islam", presumably non-Muslims, could be considered a racial group.

I'm not sure anyone should be prosecuted for saying anything. Better out than in no?