to think eight months in prison is a bit excessive for throwing bacon

[CondyLisa]

www.thesun.co.uk/news/2095440/two-polish-men-bombarded-london-mosque-with-tesco-bacon-after-oktoberfest-booze-binge/

"Blackfriars Crown Court heard that the pair had bought a packet of bacon at a Tesco after drinking heavily at the festival but could not remember going to the mosque on Sunday night, October 2.

Prosecutor Carol Summers said the mosque’s caretaker had at first thought the Polish pair were worshippers but was stunned when meat was thrown at him.

The men threw several rashers of bacon, also placing a third piece in the shoe of a worshipper."

They appear to have no prior offending history.

Obviously whether you are at a church, mosque or community centre, you shouldn't be hassled by drunken yobs and it is right that they should be punished, but this seems to be a de facto blasphemy sentence more than anything else.

I don't see that throwing bacon is more serious than, say, yobs ripping up flower beds that people have worked on, and which provide at least as much social utility as a place of worship - but the latter attracts a sentence of community service, whereas we have eight month prison sentence for some bacon.

" As a soldiers wife it boils my blood to read that Muslims burning a poppy get a £90 fine (and they had previous and were sober) yet this (first time offence, whilst drunk) warrants a prison sentence. Its the double standards that really bother me "

oh for goodness sake, the poppy is not a symbol of our religion is it?
and since when has drunkenness been a get out of jail free card?

The Poppy isn't a Religious symbol. It is a symbol of armed forces involvement. And that involvement has involved the killing of adherents of Islam. That's why the people who burned them were doing it.

I'm not saying that it right or acceptable but it is a completely different scenario to what these men did.

Pointless trying to reason with anyone who doesn't believe that multiculturalism isn't one sided now

I think it was excessive considering some of the (non) sentences we see. Community service aimed at giving something back to the people affected by the crime and educating the twats would be more cost-effective and beneficial. That and publicising their names locally so that they were well and truly embarrassed would be more likely to change their behaviour in future. Oh and standardise sentencing so that it makes no difference what sex, age, religion, sexuality, colour, etc. you are or which judge you end up with.

"the Poppy isn't a Religious symbol. It is a symbol of armed forces involvement. And that involvement has involved the killing of adherents of Islam. That's why the people who burned them were doing it.
"

Actually the poppy IS linked to religion, as death in this country is very strongly tied to Christianity, more so deaths from 100 years ago - war memorials tend to reference the Christian God, in my experience.

I know plenty of British and Irish who would not dream of wearing the poppy .
'CondyLisa put your brain into gear please..

It's not a religious symbol, it's a symbol of remembrance. And for the record, the terrorists and insurgents the army were sent after were no more proper Muslims than the IRA or Loyalists were proper Christians. There is this pervasive attitude that all Muslims are one group, that the actions of some are enough to condemn an entire faith which is both wrong and ridiculous. I'm a Christian, apparently so are the Westboro Baptist church but those fuckers don't speak for me any more than ISIS speak for the vast majority of Muslims worldwide.

@Condy

The Poppy is not a religious symbol. Nor is it a UK national symbol. It comes from a poem written by a Canadian First World War poet, John MCCrae. It is a symbol used to commemorate Allied (not British) troops who fell in the World Wars and later conflicts. Allied troops includes those from UK, all the former colonies, and other allied forces eg US, Serbia, Russia and Belgium.

Those troops included members of all world religions - Christian, Moslem, Hindu, Judaism, Sikhism etc and of no religion at all. Governments since 1914 have bent over backwards to make commemoration of the fallen an inclusive, ecumenical event. Hence the high profile attendance of Representatives of all world religions at Armistice Day ceremonies.

Clearly all lost on you.

It's a hate crime. Can't believe you think this is excessive! If they'd been chucking bacon around the street, I'd agree, but they specifically targeted a mosque. That's not on.

FourKidsNotCrazyYet

The Poppy isn't a religious symbol though, is it? It's a symbol of remembrance. Throwing bacon at a Mosque is racially motivated, just like it would be if it was thrown at a Synagogue.

I wouldn't burn a poppy but I don't wear one. I have family who grew up in Ireland during the Troubles and the way some troops acted, especially on Bloody Sunday was disgusting. I won't wear a poppy as long as it represents all wars. I will wear one that is for only World War 1 and 2.

I also believe it should commemorate all the fallen soldiers, not just allied ones. There were plenty of soldiers fighting for the Nazis that had no choice and we should remember them too.

I will never understand why people cannot simply live and let live. Why the need to be so horribly spiteful?

These men deliberately targeted a Mosque and a group of worshippers whose religious beliefs prohibits them from consuming pork, OP. If you cannot understand why them throwing bacon around their place of worship (which is a sacred space) is so wrong, I'm not sure any of us can explain it to you. What these men did was not only highly offensive, it was downright hateful. I'm fully behind the sentence. Those who commit racist hate crimes must be punished.

It was a hate crime, and I am fully in favour of the sentance. Entirely disrespectful. They can't complain about burning poppies if they do this. They are both the same in my mind, both disgusting and hate crime, humanity can be shocking.

The argument that people who have done worse crimes get less time isn't a good argument to let them off. It's an example of how skewered and light this justice system is, where life no longer means life or even 30 years. IMO, this was a case where a judge used proper sentencing powers. If only it happened more often, people might get what they deserved.

So...

They got an 8 months prison sentence for offending somebody's religion.

I do understand that throwing anything at anybody has legal consequences. But it shouldn't matter whether they threw pork or beef, the law should be blind to religious ideologies.

And it's not like they actually damaged the mosque. Many people have gotten much more lenient sentences for churches or graves.

And it's the current political discourse... well, I feel like the age of the
perpetrators, the fact that it was their first offence and that they didn't cause any physical harm but mainly offence should be considered.

Hate crime laws should include the same amount of protection to every religion and idelology. But seeing as they unfortunately don't... well, I personally wish they were abolished.

Hate crime laws should "afford"

Hate crime laws should include the same amount of protection to every religion and idelology.

Who is not given protection by these laws that you think should be?
The Crime and Disorder Act 1988 defines religious group as
"In this section “religious group” means a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief."

So arguably humanists would be caught by the definition of religious group.

YANBU but you will be told you are and we will all be demonised for saying so.

attitude

They technically do, yes. But people that caused actual damage to churches, Christian artefacts or graves have gotten more lenient sentences. The concept of proportionality should never be disregarded.

Although I personally do believe that the law should be blind. Race, gender, religion... these things should not matter.

Which country Hysterectical ?

I realise this is a hate crime and it was despicable for them to do this BUT when you compare the sentence to other crimes, it is ridiculously over the top.
A 17 year old family friend was killed by a speeding driver, he got a 2 year suspended sentence. I think his crime was far far more serious. There is no comparison with the devastation caused.

We only have a limited number of prison places so I'd rather see a killer imprisoned than a bacon thrower

Spunky
Where I would see a difference between this an attacks on religious buildings is this was targeted directly at individuals. The bacon wasn't just thrown at the building it was thrown at a person inside it.

I would expect someone to get a lesser sentence for offensive graffiti on a mosque and to get a similar sentence for directly targeting individual Christians, Jews, Hindus etc.

It was a hate crime, but all hate crimes should be treated equally. Religion is not a special case. It isn't intrisically worse than other hate crimes because it was directed against a religious group or a place of worship.
That's the impression I'm getting from a lot of posters on this thread .
So, agree with the OP, to an extent.

BakeOff

I have seen quite a lot of discussion over the years on sentencing for causing death by dangerous driving being far too low. Its not that this sentence is too high, its that the sentence for the person who killed your family friend is far too low and doesn't reflect the seriousness of what happened.

CondyLisa
The Poppy is NOT a religious symbol and that's the end of it. It doesn't matter your interpretation of it, plenty of atheists and members of other religions use the poppy to commemorate war, it is NOT Christian.

The difference being that these two drunk people went into a mosque and carried out a hate crime. They specifically targeted a part of someone else's religion in order to instill fear and humiliation.

It's exactly the same as someone going into churches and burning the cross or something.

They have been used as a lesson to deter other crimes like this.
Just as benefit fraudsters sometimes receive maximum sentence or anyone else committing a crime that some get a lesser sentence for.
In addition to meeting targets, obviously.

It was a pretty stupid and nasty thing to do, but I don't think it was eight-elevenths as bad as sexually assaulting two teenagers, half as bad as trying to infect a 12-year-old with HIV or exactly equally bad as an uninsured motorcyclist riding through a playground. Nobody will be killed or scarred for life by a pork product that they've been told they're not allowed to eat.

I think the truth is 8 months for the bacon-throwing idiots is excessive, but the examples I cite above are unduly lenient.