Inciting religious hatred
In November 2019 Louis Duxbury, a 22 year old university student from York, was sentenced to 18 months in prison for ‘inciting religious hatred’ under section 29E of the Public Order Act 1986. The prosecution was brought as a result of a 17 minute monologue that Duxbury uploaded to Facebook.
I can’t show you the video because the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts have effectively outlawed it as religious blasphemy. They don’t call it that of course. The preferred neologism is ‘inciting religious hatred’.
In my opinion the most offensive thing about the monologue is how boring it was. Not a single part of it could be described as a call to arms. It was an expletive riddled, unrehearsed and unsophisticated rant about muslim extremists. Duxbury knew what he was saying was likely to be regarded as bigoted, and that it could arouse the attention of the thought police, who spend more time patrolling social media than they do the streets. But being a bigot is not a crime. Nor is spouting hate about terrorists.
I feel duty bound to defend his right to be offensive. The state sees it otherwise. Regardless of whether you think Duxbury deserved to be punished for what he said – and that’s all this is about what he said, and not something he did – there is nothing that justifies the massively disproportionate penalty he has paid for his recklessness.
As a result of the video he uploaded he was arrested, expelled from university, evicted from his student home, pursued by the Crown Prosecution Service for 2 years, prosecuted across 2 separate trials, convicted, sentenced to 18 months and then locked up in Humber prison. And that was the justice system just getting started, because upon release he is still being hounded and tormented by North Yorkshire Police and the Probation Service, who seem determined to further his punishment.
The police investigation
Duxbury’s problems began when he chose to upload his improvised monologue to Facebook, somehow believing it to be a platform of free speech, instead of the public run Stasi that it really is. He recorded and uploaded the video on the 4th June 2017, one day after the terror attacks on London Bridge. When the police, the media, and the government were on damage limitation red alert, desperate to find somebody, anybody they could publically crucify from ‘the other side’ so they could declare terrorism as a multi-racial, multi-faith problem.
The second mistake he made was to upload the video while he was at York University, where he was taking a degree in sports medicine. Of the handful that saw it one non-muslim student took offence. Or rather took offence on behalf of all Muslims, to save them the bother of having to take offence themselves.
That student contacted the University heads who in turn contacted North Yorkshire Police, who switched on the blue lights and came running. This is where Louis Duxbury made his biggest mistake of all. He talked to the police. He genuinely believed that they only chase after criminals. And that once they heard his explanation and discovered he wasn’t a right wing extremist – but just somebody expressing his rightful contempt toward Islamic murderers – they would leave him alone. After all he had nothing to hide, so surely he nothing to fear. But as he was about to find out, it’s the police who decide whether you have something to hide, and they won’t let up until they prove that you do.
Throughout the interview Duxbury was co-operative and answered every one of the police’s leading questions in detail. Too much detail. Giving them ample opportunity to find anything that could be misconstrued as evidence of extremist views. To make matters worse he apologised profusely for offending anyone and all this did was make him look more guilty than he already wasn’t.
Halfway through the interview, the police exploited Duxbury’s openness by interrogating him on a comment he had made when he was 15 years old and still at school, when he had posted a comment onto Facebook that the terrorists who had beheaded Lee Rigby, deserved to die. This had nothing to do with the polices’ current investigation, nor had he been investigated for the remark at the time. What he didn’t realise is that this was a deliberate attempt by the police to increase their chances of having him convicted. North Yorkshire Police knew that the court would allow the prosecution to cherry pick all the choice remarks made at interview and then compile them together as a greatest hits of self incrimination, all taken out of context, transcribed with numerous errors and edits to make Duxbury sound as bad as possible. So all they needed to do was sit back, recount his entire history and let him drop a verbal bomb on himself so they could sift through the wreckage later.
To bolster up the prosecution, North Yorkshire Police had Duxbury’s laptop forensically searched. They then compiled a gallery of images and memes, to prove Duxbury was an evil right wing extremist ready to corrupt the minds of the innocent and incite racial and religious violence by all the ‘sick filth’ he’d downloaded. Here are some of the images that were shown to the jury:
The first attempt at prosecuting Duxbury resulted in a hung jury. But the CPS refused to give up. Just like the police they have a passion for show trials of extreme right wing patsies and so they regrouped and eight months later Duxbury was retried.
Now, it’s important to know things about the two trials that were never reported in the press. Firstly, the offending remark jumped on with relish by the media, that muslims should be “wiped out” was never complained of by anyone, nor was it mentioned by the police at interview. It was plucked out by the CPS at trial, and decontextualised, as a means to increase their chances of securing a conviction. I have listened to the entire video several times and never once did I get the impression that he was referring to anyone other than muslim terrorists.
The sole complainant focused on the fact that the video was ‘Islamophobic’ ‘anti-police’ and ‘incited racial hatred’. The complainant also smeared Duxbury with a litany of personal petty greivances and unfounded rumours. The complainant even stated that Duxbury’s racism was apparent from an early stage because he had once turned up to a student event wearing a ‘Make America great again’ hat.
The entire witness complaint read like a press release from the Crown Prosecution Service or more likely from North Yorkshire Police. It was clear to me that they had a heavy hand in drafting it. The complainant also stated that several other students had seen the video and complained. And yet no other witnesses tendered statements nor were called to give evidence. The sole complainant was absent from both trials and his hearsay remarks were entered as proven with no chance of cross examination by the defendant. The judge – goaded by the prosecution – refused to accept any defence of free speech, and Duxbury’s own barrister it seemed did his very least to assist him. Before sentence was passed, his barrister declined to mitigate for his client stating ‘there’s nothing to say.’
On November 19th 2019 a jury at York Crown Court took half an hour to find Louis Duxbury guilty of inciting racial and religious hatred. Before sentencing him Judge Sean Morris, couldn’t resist the temptation of coming off like a press release:
“England has been a multi-racial and multi-faith island for thousands of years and will continue to be so. We have to live together in harmony because otherwise mayhem follows. I think you are a bit of a sad loner, but you have to go to prison.”
You don’t have to be a historian to see how ignorant that assessment of British history is, spoken while under the intoxication of woke ideology, but Judge Sean Morris has quite the form for politicizing his trials and cant resist despatching defendants to jail with a public service message.
Judge Sean Morris
When passing sentence upon a man who had dodged VAT on 85,000 cigarettes, he said:
“Let the word go out on the street – buy your cigarettes legitimately.”
That was right after he accused the man of robbing the NHS, for avoiding duty tax, because…
“How do you think the NHS is paid for?” (Booze and fags obviously).
When jailing a man for 16 months for having £160 worth of cocaine in his possession he said:
“You might like to write to all your friends who take cocaine and say: ‘You go away for this.’
Jailing a rapist for five and half years he said:
“Can you remind everyone who is on trial for rape that they get credit for guilty pleas.”
If Judge Morris is so desperate to educate the hoi polloi can’t he get himself a Twitter account, not use convicted defendants as his own personal messaging service. At least that would give the public a proper insight into how anti-defendant he really is.
Take this comment he made when passing sentence upon a man accused of date rape:
“Any sympathy a court has for a defendant goes out of the window when they plead not guilty.”
Up against a political, pro-prosecution judge like Morris, it’s little wonder that Louis Duxbury was sentenced to 18 months. The only message Morris had for him was that due to the offence being a hate crime he should expect to serve two thirds of his sentence.
Now, for a brief history lesson…
Have you ever wondered why prison warders are called screws? Well it dates back to the Victorian era when doing hard time in prison had a very literal meaning. Back then, random prisoners could be be tasked to the crank machine. A wooden box fitted with a crank handle, that the prisoner would be forced to turn all day. It did nothing more than turn a heavy cog against sand. The prison warders also carried a key, that they could insert into the crank machine to tighten the screw, that would make the crank harder to turn. The nickname ‘screw’ stuck, because it assumes the worst of prison warders motives. Which is their seeming desire to participate in the prisoner’s punishment rather than oversee it. The screws at Humber prison, where Louis Duxbury was sent, lived up to every definition of that nickname. Because no sooner had he arrived they took it upon themselves to make his stay an uncomfortable one.
The first thing they did was to inform the muslim prisoners who he was and what he had said. Duxbury would then find himself regularly confronted by prisoners banging on his cell door insisting that he justify himself, while the screws pretended to look the other way. Duxbury decided that his best defence was to engage in rational conversation with them. He would tell them the truth of what he said and why. By his own account the muslim prisoners would listen to what he had to say, accept he was no right wing racist, and admit he did not belong there. In fact Duxberry went as far to say that the prisoners at Humber were more reasonable to him than anyone he had met on his journey throughout the criminal justice system.
But it wasn’t just the prison warders trying to stoke up hostility. The police were at it too. While in prison Duxbury was subjected to the utterly useless re-education tactics of PREVENT, that insidious band of government agents, who claim to be tasked with preventing vulnerable people from being drawn into extremism.
One afternoon, a prevent officer from the Polices’ Counter Terrorism unit ordered that Duxbury be taken out of his cell. He was then frogmarched along a corridor and forced into a room. Inside the room waiting for him was a muslim Imam. The prevent officer began acting up for the Imam, castigating Duxbury for his crime, and insisting that he justify the comments he’d been imprisoned for. The officer’s hatred for Duxbury was undisguised and he was determined to conduct his own mini show trial in a locked room with the Imam as jury. Once again, Duxbury quelled this hostility by engaging the Imam in civil conversation. This seemed to annoy the PREVENT officer, who shouted Duxbury down and insisted that he listen to the Imam rather than talk to him.
Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides a freedom of religion. That right also includes a freedom not to be subjected to religion or not to be forced to participate in somebody else’s religious beliefs. PREVENT and Humber Prison, by compelling Duxbury to be subjected to Islamic ideology, as a means to reprogram his wrongthink, have abused his article 9 rights. This also highlights the worrying truth that PREVENT is indirectly assisting the radicalisation of prisoners, rather than preventing it.
Duxbury was released last year. His time served. Or So he thought. Because unfortunately there is no rehabilitation for anyone convicted of a right wing hate crime in this country.
The probation service
Every week, Duxbury has to attend York probation office. Up until this week, he was assigned a very woke, very white, very hate filled probation officer – who from the outset made it clear that he could never be forgiven for his crime. This woman used every meeting as an opportunity to insult, berate and re-educate him.
At one meeting she told him that his skin colour was a significant part of his problem:
“Do you understand white privelege? Because you need to be made aware that being from your ethnic background, this may affect other members in different communities.”
This implied that his white skin could cause offence.
But she didn’t stop there. She grilled Duxbury on his private life, and asked him if he had a girlfriend. When he expressed his desire to settle down and get married the probationer became enraged, and said:
“So you’re a mysoginist then. You are a patriach.”
Because in the mind of the sort of people that work for York Probation Service, getting married equates to violence against women.
Louis Duxbury attempted to make a complaint to York Probation services, was ignored. He can’t record her soapboxing because recording devices are forbidden at the offices. It falls upon York Probation service to account for the veracity of the allegations that have been made against them. All I will say is that a recent Inspectorate of Probationers report confirms that the probation service has indeed been infected with the virus of critical race theory. The report is riddled with commentary on how to overcome ‘unconcious bias’ and focuses exclusively on how to treat non-whites differently to whites. Probationers are encouraged to treat ethnic minorities as special cases, and to admit to their own wrongthink, as some kind of purification ritual in the church of wokeness.
Just like Humber Prison, York Probation service are a lawsuit waiting to happen. Not only could the probationer’s behaviour be regarded as discriminatory under the Equalities Act 2010, any decision that she makes in her reports could be challenged by Judicial Review, as the reports have clearly been influenced by prejudice toward that person’s skin colour and sex.
I would also go as far as to say that the Probationers aggressive race wrangling constitutes racially aggravated harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Not only is this a criminal offence, it has a civil remedy as well, which means that York probation office could find themselves in county court, being sued by every client who has been told that their skin colour is racist.
The persecution continues
Under the terms of Duxbury’s early release he is required to surrender himself to a police station once a month along with all his electronic devices. The police then search those devices to ensure that he hasn’t engaged in any more instances of wrongspeak. For eight months Duxbury has done as he is asked. On every occasion he hands over the same devices, that have remained relatively untouched since his incarceration. Every month the police have searched those devices and found nothing. On the last day of his licence, when the police were expected to relenquish their hold on him, they suddenly claimed to have found something on his device that gives ’cause for concern’. Which means, once again, Duxbury’s liberty is hanging in the balance on the whims of North Yorkshire Police. Understandably anxious, Duxbury contacted the investigating officer – PC Alister Foy – to ask why. The officer responded vaguely telling Duxbury he could wait as long as 5 months for a decision to be made.
In my opinion this is a deliberate attempt by North Yorkshire Police, to extrajudicially punish Louis Duxbury for a crime he has already paid heavily for.
I am certain, just as Duxbury is, that the police, the probation service, PREVENT, and the Crown Prosecution Service would like nothing less than for Duxbury to go back to prison, and it seems they will do anything to make this happen. In their eyes, he is the most heinous of all criminals. He has dared to offend the state’s most beloved and protected community, and they will show no restraint or proportion to make him suffer for that. He is a political prisoner, persecuted by the authorites in an attempt to balance the books and make it appear that right wing extremists are as prolific as Islamic terrorists. And where they can’t find any, they are willing to manufacture them.
In 1984 – Orwell’s guidebook to 2020’s Britain – anyone caught committing a thought crime would be tortured, re-educated and then shot. But our modern day Thinkpol won’t let you off quite so easily. Rather than despatch you swiftly they prefer to keep you in a permanent state of fear, staring down the barrel of a gun for as long as they care to aim it. A weapon placed into their spiteful hands by the state, the media, and our inconsistent and oppressive hate crime laws.