La vertu même devient vice, étant mal appliquée, et le vice est parfois ennobli par l’action. Frère Laurent (Roméo et Juliette, Shakespeare)
Vous, les Blancs, vous entraînez vos filles à boire et à faire du sexe. Quand elles nous arrivent, elles sont parfaitement entraînées. Ahmed (violeur pakistanais)
By date of conviction, we have evidence of such exploitation taking place in Keighley (2005 and 2013), Blackpool (2006), Oldham (2007 and 2008), Blackburn (2007, 2008 and 2009), Sheffield (2008), Manchester (2008 and 2013) Skipton (2009), Rochdale (two cases in 2010, one in 2012 and another in 2013), Nelson (2010), Preston (2010) Rotherham (2010) Derby (2010), Telford (2012), Bradford (2012), Ipswich (2013), Birmingham (2013), Oxford (2013), Barking (2013) and Peterborough (2013). This is based on a trawl of news sources so is almost certainly incomplete. (…) Ceop data about the ethnicity of offenders and suspects identified by those 31 police forces in 2012 is incomplete. The unit says: “All ethnicities were represented in the sample. However, a disproportionate number of offenders were reported as Asian.” Of 52 groups where ethnicity data was provided, 26 (50 per cent) comprised all Asian offenders, 11 (21 per cent) were all white, 9 (17 per cent) groups had offenders from multiple ethnicities, 4 (8 per cent) were all black offenders and there were 2 (4 per cent) exclusively Arab groups. Of the 306 offenders whose ethnicity was noted, 75 per cent were categorised as Asian, 17 per cent white, and the remaining 8 per cent black (5 per cent) or Arab (3 per cent). By contrast, the seven “Type 2 groups” – paedophile rings rather than grooming gangs – “were reported as exclusively of white ethnicity”. Ceop identified 144 victims of the Type 1 groups. Again, the data was incomplete. Gender was mentioned in 118 cases. All were female. Some 97 per cent of victims were white. Girls aged between 14 and 15 accounted for 57 per cent of victims. Out of 144 girls, 100 had “at least one identifiable vulnerability” like alcohol or drug problems, mental health issues or a history of going missing. More than half of the victims were in local authority care. The 27 court cases that we found led to the convictions of 92 men. Some 79 (87 per cent) were reported as being of South Asian Muslim origin. Three were white Britons, two were Indian, three were Iraqi Kurds, four were eastern European Roma and one was a Congolese refugee, according to reports of the trials. Considerable caution is needed when looking at these numbers, as our sample is very unscientific. There are grooming cases we will have missed, and there will undoubtedly be offences that have not resulted in convictions. (…) Ceop says: “The comparative levels of freedom that white British children enjoy in comparison to some other ethnicities may make them more vulnerable to exploitation. “They may also be more likely to report abuse. This is an area requiring better data and further research.” Channel 4 news
By now surely everyone knows the case of the eight men convicted of picking vulnerable underage girls off the streets, then plying them with drink and drugs before having sex with them. A shocking story. But maybe you haven’t heard. Because these sex assaults did not take place in Rochdale, where a similar story led the news for days in May, but in Derby earlier this month. Fifteen girls aged 13 to 15, many of them in care, were preyed on by the men. And though they were not working as a gang, their methods were similar – often targeting children in care and luring them with, among other things, cuddly toys. But this time, of the eight predators, seven were white, not Asian. And the story made barely a ripple in the national media. Of the daily papers, only the Guardian and the Times reported it. There was no commentary anywhere on how these crimes shine a light on British culture, or how middle-aged white men have to confront the deep flaws in their religious and ethnic identity. Yet that’s exactly what played out following the conviction in May of the « Asian sex gang » in Rochdale, which made the front page of every national newspaper. Though analysis of the case focused on how big a factor was race, religion and culture, the unreported story is of how politicians and the media have created a new racial scapegoat. In fact, if anyone wants to study how racism begins, and creeps into the consciousness of an entire nation, they need look no further. (…) the intense interest in the Rochdale story arose from a January 2011 Times « scoop » that was based on the conviction of at most 50 British Pakistanis out of a total UK population of 1.2 million, just one in 24,000 (…) Even the Child Protection and Online Protection Centre (Ceop), which has also studied potential offenders who have not been convicted, has only identified 41 Asian gangs (of 230 in total) and 240 Asian individuals – and they are spread across the country. But, despite this, a new stereotype has taken hold: that a significant proportion of Asian men are groomers (and the rest of their communities know of it and keep silent). But if it really is an « Asian » thing, how come Indians don’t do it? If it’s a « Pakistani » thing, how come an Afghan was convicted in the Rochdale case? And if it’s a « Muslim » thing, how come it doesn’t seem to involve anyone of African or Middle Eastern origin? The standard response to anyone who questions this is: face the facts, all those convicted in Rochdale were Muslim. Well, if one case is enough to make such a generalisation, how about if all the members of a gang of armed robbers were white; or cybercriminals; or child traffickers? (All three of these have happened.) Would we be so keen to « face the facts » and make it a problem the whole white community has to deal with? Would we have articles examining what it is about Britishness or Christianity or Europeanness, that makes people so capable of such things? (…) Whatever the case, we know that abuse of white girls is not a cultural or religious issue because there is no longstanding history of it taking place in Asia or the Muslim world. How did middle-aged Asian men from tight-knit communities even come into contact with white teenage girls in Rochdale? The main cultural relevance in this story is that vulnerable, often disturbed, young girls, regularly out late at night, often end up in late-closing restaurants and minicab offices, staffed almost exclusively by men. After a while, relationships build up, with the men offering free lifts and/or food. For those with a predatory instinct, sexual exploitation is an easy next step. This is an issue of what men can do when away from their own families and in a position of power over badly damaged young people. It’s a story repeated across Britain, by white and other ethnic groups: where the opportunity arises, some men will take advantage. The precise method, and whether it’s an individual or group crime, depends on the particular setting – be they priests, youth workers or networks on the web. (…) if the tables were turned and the victims were Asian or Muslim, we would have been subjected to equally skewed « expert » commentary asking: what is wrong with how Muslims raise girls? Why are so many of them on the streets at night? Shouldn’t the community face up to its shocking moral breakdown? (…) We have been here before, of course: in the 1950s, West Indian men were labelled pimps, luring innocent young white girls into prostitution. By the 1970s and 80s they were vilified as muggers and looters. And two years ago, Channel 4 ran stories, again based on a tiny set of data, claiming there was an endemic culture of gang rape in black communities. The victims weren’t white, though, so media interest soon faded. It seems that these stories need to strike terror in the heart of white people for them to really take off. What is also at play here is the inability of people, when learning about a different culture or race, to distinguish between the aberrations of a tiny minority within that group, and the normal behaviour of a significant section. Some examples are small in number but can be the tip of a much wider problem: eg, knife crime, which is literally the sharp end of a host of problems affecting black communities ranging from family breakdown, to poverty, to low school achievement and social exclusion. Joseph Harker
There is a small minority of Pakistani men who believe that white girls are fair game. And we have to be prepared to say that. You can only start solving a problem if you acknowledge it first. This small minority who see women as second class citizens, and white women probably as third class citizens, are to be spoken out against. (…) These were grown men, some of them religious teachers or running businesses, with young families of their own. Whether or not these girls were easy prey, they knew it was wrong. (…) In mosque after mosque, this should be raised as an issue so that anybody remotely involved should start to feel that the community is turning on them. Communities have a responsibility to stand up and say, ‘This is wrong, this will not be tolerated’. (…) Cultural sensitivity should never be a bar to applying the law. (…) Failure to be “open and front-footed” would “create a gap for extremists to fill, a gap where hate can be peddled. (…) Leadership is about moving people with you, not just pissing them off. Baroness Warsi
The terrible story of the Oxford child sex ring has brought shame not only on the city of dreaming spires, but also on the local Muslim community. It is a sense of repulsion and outrage that I feel particularly strongly, working as a Muslim leader and Imam in this neighbourhood and trying to promote genuine cultural integration. (…) But apart from its sheer depravity, what also depresses me about this case is the widespread refusal to face up to its hard realities. The fact is that the vicious activities of the Oxford ring are bound up with religion and race: religion, because all the perpetrators, though they had different nationalities, were Muslim; and race, because they deliberately targeted vulnerable white girls, whom they appeared to regard as ‘easy meat’, to use one of their revealing, racist phrases. Indeed, one of the victims who bravely gave evidence in court told a newspaper afterwards that ‘the men exclusively wanted white girls to abuse’. But as so often in fearful, politically correct modern Britain, there is a craven unwillingness to face up to this reality. Commentators and politicians tip-toe around it, hiding behind weasel words. We are told that child sex abuse happens ‘in all communities’, that white men are really far more likely to be abusers, as has been shown by the fall-out from the Jimmy Savile case. One particularly misguided commentary argued that the predators’ religion was an irrelevance, for what really mattered was that most of them worked in the night-time economy as taxi drivers, just as in the Rochdale child sex scandal many of the abusers worked in kebab houses, so they had far more opportunities to target vulnerable girls. But all this is deluded nonsense. While it is, of course, true that abuse happens in all communities, no amount of obfuscation can hide the pattern that has been exposed in a series of recent chilling scandals, from Rochdale to Oxford, and Telford to Derby. In all these incidents, the abusers were Muslim men, and their targets were under-age white girls. Moreover, reputable studies show that around 26 per cent of those involved in grooming and exploitation rings are Muslims, which is around five times higher than the proportion of Muslims in the adult male population. To pretend that this is not an issue for the Islamic community is to fall into a state of ideological denial. But then part of the reason this scandal happened at all is precisely because of such politically correct thinking. All the agencies of the state, including the police, the social services and the care system, seemed eager to ignore the sickening exploitation that was happening before their eyes. Terrified of accusations of racism, desperate not to undermine the official creed of cultural diversity, they took no action against obvious abuse. (…) Amazingly, the predators seem to have been allowed by local authority managers to come and go from care homes, picking their targets to ply them with drink and drugs before abusing them. You can be sure that if the situation had been reversed, with gangs of tough, young white men preying on vulnerable Muslim girls, the state’s agencies would have acted with greater alacrity. Another sign of the cowardly approach to these horrors is the constant reference to the criminals as ‘Asians’ rather than as ‘Muslims’. In this context, Asian is a completely meaningless term. The men were not from China, or India or Sri Lanka or even Bangladesh. They were all from either Pakistan or Eritrea, which is, in fact, in East Africa rather than Asia. What united them in their outlook was their twisted, corrupt mindset, which bred their misogyny and racism. (…) In the misguided orthodoxy that now prevails in many mosques, including several of those in Oxford, men are unfortunately taught that women are second-class citizens, little more than chattels or possessions over whom they have absolute authority. That is why we see this growing, reprehensible fashion for segregation at Islamic events on university campuses, with female Muslim students pushed to the back of lecture halls. There was a telling incident in the trial when it was revealed that one of the thugs heated up some metal to brand a girl, as if she were a cow. ‘Now, if you have sex with someone else, he’ll know that you belong to me,’ said this criminal, highlighting an attitude where women are seen as nothing more than personal property. The view of some Islamic preachers towards white women can be appalling. They encourage their followers to believe that these women are habitually promiscuous, decadent and sleazy — sins which are made all the worse by the fact that they are kaffurs or non-believers. Their dress code, from mini-skirts to sleeveless tops, is deemed to reflect their impure and immoral outlook. According to this mentality, these white women deserve to be punished for their behaviour by being exploited and degraded. On one level, most imams in the UK are simply using their puritanical sermons to promote the wearing of the hijab and even the burka among their female adherents. But the dire result can be the brutish misogyny we see in the Oxford sex ring. (…) It is telling, though, that they never dared to target Muslim girls from the Oxford area. They knew that they would be sought out by the girls’ families and ostracised by their community. But preying on vulnerable white girls had no such consequences — once again revealing how intimately race and religion are bound up with this case. (…) Horror over this latest scandal should serve as a catalyst for a new approach, but change can take place only if we abandon the dangerous blinkers of political correctness and antiquated multiculturalism. Dr. Taj Hargey (Imam of the Oxford Islamic Congregation)
Je respecte le droit de chacun à la liberté d’expression. C’est l’un des droits les plus importants que nous avons. Avec ces droits viennent des responsabilités –la responsabilité d’exercer sa liberté de parole dans le cadre de la loi. Je ne suis pas sûr que vous mesurez les conséquences potentielles de ce que vous avez fait. Juge
Cela n’a rien à voir avec la liberté de parole, ou de la presse, ni à propos de la légitimité du journalisme ou le politiquement correct. C’est une question de justice, et d’assurer qu’un procès peut avoir lieu de manière juste et impartiale […] Il s’agit de préserver l’intégrité du jury, qu’il continue [à siéger] sans que les gens soient intimidés ou affectés par des «reportages» – si on peut les qualifier de tels – irresponsables et faux. Juge
Il s’agit de justice, de faire en sorte qu’un procès puisse être mené avec justice et équité […], d’être innocent jusqu’à preuve du contraire. Juge
This contempt hearing is not about free speech. This is not about the freedom of the press. This is not about legitimate journalism; this is not about political correctness; this is not about whether one political viewpoint is right or another. It is about justice, and it is about ensuring that a trial can be carried out justly and fairly. It is about ensuring that a jury are not in any way inhibited from carrying out their important function. It is about being innocent until proven guilty. It is not about people prejudging a situation and going round to that court and publishing material, whether in print or online, referring to defendants as ‘Muslim pedophile rapists.’ In short, Mr. Yaxley-Lennon, turn up at another court, refer to people as ‘Muslim pedophiles, Muslim rapists’ and so on and so forth while trials are ongoing and before there has been a finding by a jury that that is what they are, and you will find yourself inside. Do you understand? Judge Norton
No one could possibly conclude that it would be anything other than highly prejudicial to the defendants in the trial. I respect everyone’s right to free speech. That’s one of the most important rights that we have. With those rights come responsibilities. The responsibility to exercise that freedom of speech within the law. I am not sure you appreciate the potential consequence of what you have done. You have to understand we are not preventing publication. We are postponing publication to ensure that the trial is fair. When people are convicted and given long sentences, it is on a proper basis and not a conviction that can be overturned. It is a serious feature that you were encouraging others to share what you were streaming live on social media. Judge
In May, Tommy Robinson was jailed over comments which had the potential to cause a retrial at Leeds Crown Court – and we can now reveal the details of the case he was protesting about. Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon, streamed an hour-long Facebook Live outside the court in May and within hours it had been watched more than 250,000 times. A judge who locked the far right activist up for 13 months for contempt of court told him his actions could have caused a long-running trial to be retried which would cost taxpayers ‘hundreds and hundreds of thousands of pounds’. A court order was put in place temporarily banning any reporting on Robinson’s arrest and sentencing hearing, but LeedsLive challenged the order and were able to report it a few days later. Now we can reveal the long-running trial he could have put in jeopardy involved a Huddersfield grooming gang who were jailed on October 19 for more than 200 years for the grooming and sexual abuse of young children. The abuse of the vulnerable, isolated and underage girls – the youngest of whom was 11 or 12 – was described by a judge as ‘top of the scale’. A total of 20 men, ranging in age from 27 to 54, were convicted as part of Operation Tendersea during three trials at Leeds Crown Court throughout 2018 making it the worst scandal to ever hit Huddersfield. They were found guilty of child sex offences including rape, inciting child prostitution and abduction of a child. A court order had been in place temporarily banning any reporting of the trials until now. On May 25, 35-year-old Yaxley-Lennon was arrested on suspicion of a breach of the peace and was held in the court cells before being taken up to the courtroom to face the trial judge. In a rare move, he was arrested, charged and sentenced within five hours. (…) Robinson, whose criminal record dates back to 2005, has a previous conviction for contempt of court. He was the subject of a suspended prison sentence, imposed at Canterbury Crown Court, after he filmed in court. He also has convictions for disobeying a court order, possessing identity documents with intent, fraud, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, possessing drugs and threatening behaviour. In May he was found in contempt of court and in breach of a suspended sentence. Matthew Harding, mitigating, said his client felt « deep regret » after realising the potential consequences of his actions. He said Robinson was aware of the reporting restriction in place in the case but thought what he was saying on camera was already in the public domain. Leeds live
I have been completely had, how embarrassing man. I had a woman, and I’ll show you our screenshots, messaging me all morning about what had happened to her son. It turns out some leftie is sitting somewhere absolutely mugging me completely off and laughing about it. Fake news central. It turns out the ‘13-year-old’ boy who had been jumped by five Muslims wasn’t her son. Tommy Robinson
Lawyers representing a Syrian boy who was attacked at school are crowdfunding to sue Tommy Robinson and Facebook. Footage of the 15-year-old victim being pushed to the ground and having water poured on his face sparked outrage in November, and police continue to investigate the incident in Huddersfield. Amid prominent media coverage, Mr Robinson posted a series of videos on his Facebook account accusing the boy of bullying and claiming “lots of Muslim gangs are beating up white English kids” in Britain. Lawyers for the victim, Jamal, allege that the anti-Islam activist’s posts were defamatory and are exploring whether Facebook can be pursued for allowing fundraising via his page. A page asking for public donations to “sue Tommy Robinson, Facebook and others” has raised more than £3,000 since going online on Saturday. Abdulnaser Youssef, of Farooq Bajwa and Co solicitors, wrote that allegations that Jamal was involved in the beating of a young English girl was false. (…) Mr Robinson’s Facebook page has more than 1 million followers and his posts on the Huddersfield incident were viewed up to 900,000 times each. The page had a “donate” button to transfer him money at the time, but it was removed amid concern that a tool the social media giant says is for charities was abused. Facebook deleted several of Mr Robinson’s videos for violating community standards, after Jamal’s family announced their intention to sue in November. Their lawyers (…) said that Mr Robinson’s social media posts caused Jamal to become “the focus of countless messages of hate and threats from the extreme right wing”, and a police safety warning. (…) The suspect, a 16-year-old boy, has been summonsed to court for alleged assault but no date for the hearing has been set. The teenager had shared numerous posts from Mr Robinson’s Facebook account in previous months, as well as from Britain First and other far-right accounts. The Independent
I met Danny. I was working on some film on Newsnight and Danny was in the green room. It was unusual to meet a white working class male in the Newsnight green room. It was so unusual that me and one of my mates, we went down there to have a drink with him in the way that you would do with somebody, from the, you know a cannibal from the Amazonian, erm, from Amazonia or maybe a creature from outer space. John Sweeney (BBC)
The BBC strongly rejects any suggestion that our journalism is ‘faked’ or biased. Any programme we broadcast will adhere to the BBC’s strict editorial guidelines. Some of the footage which has been released was recorded without our knowledge during this investigation and John Sweeney made some offensive and inappropriate remarks, for which he apologises. BBC Panorama’s investigation will continue. BBC spokeswoman
Tommy Robinson (…) a été arrêté le vendredi 25 mai, alors qu’il filmait et transmettait en direct sur Facebook les entrées de personnes devant être jugées au tribunal de Leeds, au nord de l’Angleterre. (…) La faute à ce que l’on appelle outre-Manche une «reporting restriction» – qu’on pourrait traduire par «restriction de reportage». Le ministère de la Justice britannique en a transmis une copie à CheckNews par mail. Il s’agit d’un ordre du juge de Leeds, daté du jour de l’arrestation de Tommy Robinson. Il interdit aux médias de parler de cette arrestation ou des procédures en cours, au motif d’une loi britannique censée empêcher tout «risque ou préjudice à l’administration de la justice». Ce mardi 29 mai, The Independent et le média Leeds Live ont annoncé qu’à la suite de leurs demandes, cet ordre restrictif a été levé par la justice. Autrement dit, il est de nouveau possible, quatre jours après l’arrestation de l’activiste d’extrême droite, d’aborder ce sujet au Royaume-Uni. Confirmant une information qui circulait déjà à l’extrême droite du web et attribuée à la chaîne américaine Fox News, The Independent écrit que Robinson a été condamné à 13 mois de prison pour outrage au tribunal. La vidéo qui a valu à Robinson son emprisonnement est encore en ligne. Pendant une heure, vendredi 25 au matin, il attend, interpelle et filme des personnes qui doivent être jugées au tribunal de Leeds. La vidéo se termine quand l’activiste est emmené par des policiers.(…) le procès dont l’activiste a filmé des suspects avant d’être embarqué fait lui aussi l’objet d’une reporting restriction. Autrement dit, il est interdit aux médias britanniques d’en parler tant que la justice n’a pas rendu sa décision. Celle-ci ne devrait pas être connue avant la fin de l’année, explique à CheckNews Lizzie Dearden, la journaliste de The Independent qui a participé à faire lever la reporting restriction sur le cas Robinson. L’interdiction de parler du procès dont l’activiste a filmé les accusés s’applique potentiellement à des médias étrangers (comme Libération). L’intéressé n’en est pas à son coup d’essai. Il avait déjà été condamné à trois mois avec sursis pour avoir «couvert» un procès de viol en réunion à Canterbury, il y a un an. Pour cerner le personnage, qui a déjà séjourné à deux reprises en prison (dans sa jeunesse pour avoir frappé un policier, et plus tard pour fraude au prêt), on pourrait situer sa genèse au hooliganisme anglais de Luton, la ville dont il est originaire. Tommy Robinson est le nom de scène – en privé il est Stephen Yaxley-Lennon – du fondateur de l’English Defence League, un mouvement (qu’il a depuis quitté) censé éviter l’«islamisation» des Iles britanniques. Libération
L’arrestation et la condamnation à 13 mois de prison de Tommy Robinson, le co-fondateur de l’English Defence League, un mouvement d’extrême droite dont le but affiché est de «combattre l’islamisation de l’Angleterre», ont été largement commentés sur le web cette dernière semaine. L’homme, de son vrai nom Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, a été arrêté vendredi 25 mai, alors qu’il filmait des gens entrant dans le tribunal de Leeds, au Royaume-Uni, où étaient jugés selon lui «des prédateurs sexuels». Tommy Robinson diffuse la vidéo en direct sur Facebook live, où elle est vue plus de 500.000 fois. Pendant qu’il tourne, il se fait embarquer par la police pour «trouble à l’ordre public» –une interpellation elle aussi diffusée en live sur le réseau social. Les médias anglo-saxons sont sommés, via une décision du juge, de ne pas évoquer l’arrestation. Aucun d’entre-eux ne traitera le sujet jusqu’au mardi 29 mai, à l’exception de The Independent. Ce silence médiatique trouve rapidement un écho en France, dans les milieux très à droite, qui reprochent aux médias de taire le scandale anglais. Le hashtag #FreeTommyRobinson apparaît sur Twitter et certains sites de droite et d’extrême droite, comme Dreuz.info, s’emparent de l’affaire. Breizh-infos explique que l’emprisonnement menace de mort Tommy Robinson, car selon son avocat, il aurait été agressé lors d’une incarcération antérieure et sa tête serait mise à prix. Valeurs Actuelles embraye et publie à son tour un article, relayé par la secrétaire générale adjointe du groupe Les Républicains, Valérie Boyer. La veille, le président du groupe Front national-Marseille Bleu Marine au Conseil municipal de Marseille, Stéphane Ravier, y était également allé de son tweet. Selon l’extrême droite, le procès que souhaitait couvrir Tommy Robinson serait celui du scandale de Telford, une importante affaire de viols sur mineures et de pédophilie, dévoilée par le Sunday Mirror et largement reprise par la fachosphère. Si cette affaire fait autant de bruit, c’est parce que les militantes et militants sont persuadés qu’elle a été passée sous silence pour «protéger» les accusés, en majorité d’origine pakistanaise. Tommy Robinson affirme le procès qui se déroulait à Leeds le jour de son interpellation était bel et bien celui de Telford, mais rien ne permet de le confirmer. Cette incertitude alimente les accusations de censure des droites et extrêmes droites françaises et britanniques. Au Royaume-Uni, la loi impose, dans certaines affaires, des «reporting restrictions»; les juges peuvent fixer un embargo limitant le traitement médiatique d’une affaire. Comme le précise Libération, cette mesure est destinée à empêcher tout «risque ou préjudice à l’administration de la justice». Le procès de Leeds nécessitant visiblement cette protection, l’arrestation et l’emprisonnement de Tommy Robinson y ont également été aussi soumis. (…) Rapidement, le Sun, le Mirror, la BBC et le Guardian ont donné les raisons de l’arrestation de l’ancien leader de l’English Defence League. On apprend que l’homme, âgé de 35 ans, a été condamné à treize mois de prison pour outrage au tribunal –et non pour trouble à l’ordre public. L’outrage au tribunal, en droit britannique, est le fait de désobéir à un ordre de la cour ou de manquer de respect envers son autorité –en somme, de manifester sa méfiance quant à sa capacité à rendre la justice. Le choix de Tommy Robinson de couvrir médiatiquement le procès de Leeds, malgré restriction, explique sa condamnation. Même si la BBC explique que Robinson a plaidé coupable, le jugement alimente l’impression –fausse– que l’on voudrait faire taire celui qui est considéré comme un lanceur d’alerte par une partie de la fachosphère. Lors du procès, l’avocat de Robinson a exprimé le «profond regret» de son client, qui assure que ses actions n’avaient pas pour objectif de «causer des difficultés dans le processus judiciaire». Il n’a pas été entendu par le juge, qui a estimé que ses commentaires sur les réseaux sociaux, pendant la vidéo, risquaient de priver les accusés du droit à un procès équitable. (…) La liste des procès du jour, avec le nom des personnes entendues, est en effet disponible sur le site du tribunal. N’y est cependant pas mentionné ce qui est débattu. Tommy Robinson est un habitué des outrages au tribunal. En 2017, il avait tenté de filmer des accusés dans une affaire de viol, alors que leur procès était en cours –un acte qui lui avait valu du sursis. En France, où aucune loi ne peut imposer un tel embargo sur une affaire, la condamnation de Robinson surprend, certains comparant le Royaume-Uni à une dictature. (…) Le verdict rendu contre l’activiste et l’interdiction de couvrir le procès relèvent pourtant davantage d’un certain pragmatisme que d’une censure d’État: le juge a choisi de condamner Robinson car son action est susceptible d’entraîner un nouveau procès dans l’affaire de Leeds –ce qui coûterait aux contribuables «des centaines et des centaines de milliers de livres», selon Le Sun. Slate
La page Facebook de Tommy Robinson a de manière répétée contrevenu à ces règles, avec des publications utilisant un langage déshumanisant et des appels à la violence dirigés contre les musulmans. Ce n’est pas une décision que nous prenons à la légère mais les individus et organisations qui attaquent les autres sur la base de ce qu’ils sont n’ont pas leur place sur Facebook et Instagram. Facebook
If the content is indeed violating it will go. I want to be clear this is not a discussion about money. This is a discussion about political speech. People are debating very sensitive issues on Facebook, including issues like immigration. And that political debate can be entirely legitimate. I do think having extra reviewers on that when the debate is taking place absolutely makes sense and I think people would expect us to be careful and cautious before we take down their political speech. Richard Allan (Facebook’s head of public policy and Liberal Democrat peer)
We remove content from Facebook no matter who posts it, when it breaks our standards. If Tommy Robinson’s page repeatedly violated our community standards, we would remove it, as we did with Britain First. Richard Allan
Leading far-right activists have received special protection from Facebook, preventing their pages from being deleted even after a pattern of behaviour that would typically result in moderator action being taken. The process, called “shielded review”, was uncovered by Channel 4 Dispatches, after the documentary series sent an undercover reporter to work as a content moderator in a Dublin-based Facebook contractor, Cpl. Typically, Facebook pages are deleted if they are found to have five or more pieces of content that violate the site’s rules. But more popular pages, including those of activists like Tommy Robinson, are protected from those rules and are instead elevated to a second tier of moderation where in-house Facebook staff, rather than external contractors, take the decision on whether or not to take action. Most of the pages granted shielded review are for governments and news organisations, but Robinson – whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon – and the defunct political party Britain First were given the same status. In effect, although individual pieces of content are still removed by Facebook, the normal rules do not apply to the page itself for all but the most egregious breaches of the site’s guidelines. The Dispatches programme also alleged that Facebook moderators were trained to ignore visual evidence that a user was below the age of 13, and so should not be on the site, even if they were being investigated for breaking rules such as those governing self-harm. “We have to have an admission that the person is underage,” a trainer told the undercover reporter. “If not, we just, like, pretend that we are blind and we don’t know what underage looks like.” When pushed on whether it even applies in areas such as self-harm, the trainer gave confirmation, saying: “If this person was a kid, like a 10-year-old kid, we don’t care, we still action the ticket as if they were an adult.” The choice to ignore evidence suggesting a user is underage could pose problems for Facebook, which is required in the US and EU to prevent children under 13 from using their site. Speaking to the US Senate earlier this year, Mark Zuckerberg told senators that “we don’t allow people under the age of 13 to use Facebook”, but did not disclose the fact that Facebook trains its moderators to not act on visual evidence to the contrary. Allan told the Guardian that Facebook investigates underage users who have been reported to its moderators as underage. “If a Facebook user is reported to us as being under 13, a reviewer will look at the content on their profile (text and photos) to try to ascertain their age,” he said. “If they believe the person is under 13, the account will be put on a hold. This means they cannot use Facebook until they provide proof of their age. We are investigating why any reviewers or trainers at Cpl would have suggested otherwise” … Over the past two years, Facebook has gradually opened up to the outside world about how it runs its moderation efforts. In 2017, the Guardian obtained and published the company’s internal guidelines, revealing for the first time Facebook’s policies around sex, terrorism and violence. A year later, Facebook published its own versions of the guidelines, offering the first detailed look at its rulebook in more than a decade of operation. Responding to questions about the story, Allan said: “It’s clear that some of what is shown in the programme does not reflect Facebook’s policies or values, and falls short of the high standards we expect. We take these mistakes in some of our training processes and enforcement incredibly seriously and are grateful to the journalists who brought them to our attention. “Where we know we have made mistakes, we have taken action immediately. We are providing additional training and are working to understand exactly what happened so we can rectify it.” The Guardian
Attention: une motivation peut en cacher une autre !
A l’heure où après Instagram et Paypal, Facebook vient sous les huées des défenseurs de la liberté d’expression …
D’accéder à la demande de groupes antiracistes et anti-fascistes auto-proclamés d’interdire définitivement de réseau …
L’ancien hooligan devenu croisé de la lutte contre l’islamisation sous le pseudonyme emprunté à l’un des héros du hooliganisme anglais, Tommy Robinson …
Suite à ses démêlés avec la justice pour avoir failli compromettre, entre une incitation au harcèlement dont celui d’un réfugié syrien de 15 ans et une dénonciation des méthodes et de l’élitisme de la BBC, le déroulement de tristement célèbres procès d’immigrés musulmans pakistanais pour viols de mineures …
Rendus en bonne partie possibles par des services sociaux et de police paralysés par la peur d’être accusés de racisme …
Et où entre appât du gain, liberté d’expression, incitation à la haine et politiquement correct …
La poule aux oeux d’or de Mark Zucker,erg est rattrapée par le véritable et inextricable sac de noeuds juridico-politique dans lequel sont désormais prises …
L’ensemble de nos institutions suite à des décennies d’immigration incontrôlée de ressortisants musulmans ne reconnaissant ni nos lois ni nos coutumes …
Devinez ce qui avait jusqu’ici et si longtemps retenu les services de modération habituellement si impitoyablement sourcilleux de votre réseau social préféré … ?
C4 Dispatches documentary finds moderators left Britain First’s pages alone as ‘they generate a lot of revenue’
Leading far-right activists have received special protection from Facebook, preventing their pages from being deleted even after a pattern of behaviour that would typically result in moderator action being taken.
The process, called “shielded review”, was uncovered by Channel 4 Dispatches, after the documentary series sent an undercover reporter to work as a content moderator in a Dublin-based Facebook contractor, Cpl.
Typically, Facebook pages are deleted if they are found to have five or more pieces of content that violate the site’s rules. But more popular pages, including those of activists like Tommy Robinson, are protected from those rules and are instead elevated to a second tier of moderation where in-house Facebook staff, rather than external contractors, take the decision on whether or not to take action.
Most of the pages granted shielded review are for governments and news organisations, but Robinson – whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon – and the defunct political party Britain First were given the same status. In effect, although individual pieces of content are still removed by Facebook, the normal rules do not apply to the page itself for all but the most egregious breaches of the site’s guidelines.
In the documentary, a moderator tells the Dispatches reporter that Britain First’s pages were left up, even though they repeatedly broke Facebook’s rules, because “they have a lot of followers so they’re generating a lot of revenue for Facebook”.
Britain First’s Facebook page was eventually banned in March 2018, almost six months after it was deregistered as a political party and a week after its leaders were jailed for a series of hate crimes against Muslims. Robinson is also in jail, serving a 13-month sentence for contempt of court.
In the Dispatches documentary, Facebook’s head of public policy, the Liberal Democrat peer Richard Allan, disputes that the rules are based on revenue. “If the content is indeed violating it will go,” Allan said.
“I want to be clear this is not a discussion about money. This is a discussion about political speech. People are debating very sensitive issues on Facebook, including issues like immigration. And that political debate can be entirely legitimate. I do think having extra reviewers on that when the debate is taking place absolutely makes sense and I think people would expect us to be careful and cautious before we take down their political speech.”
On Monday, Allan addressed Robinson’s page directly, and told the Guardian: “We remove content from Facebook no matter who posts it, when it breaks our standards. If Tommy Robinson’s page repeatedly violated our community standards, we would remove it, as we did with Britain First.”
The Dispatches programme also alleged that Facebook moderators were trained to ignore visual evidence that a user was below the age of 13, and so should not be on the site, even if they were being investigated for breaking rules such as those governing self-harm.
“We have to have an admission that the person is underage,” a trainer told the undercover reporter. “If not, we just, like, pretend that we are blind and we don’t know what underage looks like.” When pushed on whether it even applies in areas such as self-harm, the trainer gave confirmation, saying: “If this person was a kid, like a 10-year-old kid, we don’t care, we still action the ticket as if they were an adult.”
The choice to ignore evidence suggesting a user is underage could pose problems for Facebook, which is required in the US and EU to prevent children under 13 from using their site. Speaking to the US Senate earlier this year, Mark Zuckerberg told senators that “we don’t allow people under the age of 13 to use Facebook”, but did not disclose the fact that Facebook trains its moderators to not act on visual evidence to the contrary.
Allan told the Guardian that Facebook investigates underage users who have been reported to its moderators as underage. “If a Facebook user is reported to us as being under 13, a reviewer will look at the content on their profile (text and photos) to try to ascertain their age,” he said. “If they believe the person is under 13, the account will be put on a hold. This means they cannot use Facebook until they provide proof of their age. We are investigating why any reviewers or trainers at Cpl would have suggested otherwise.”
Over the past two years, Facebook has gradually opened up to the outside world about how it runs its moderation efforts. In 2017, the Guardian obtained and published the company’s internal guidelines, revealing for the first time Facebook’s policies around sex, terrorism and violence.
A year later, Facebook published its own versions of the guidelines, offering the first detailed look at its rulebook in more than a decade of operation.
Responding to questions about the story, Allan said: “It’s clear that some of what is shown in the programme does not reflect Facebook’s policies or values, and falls short of the high standards we expect. We take these mistakes in some of our training processes and enforcement incredibly seriously and are grateful to the journalists who brought them to our attention.
“Where we know we have made mistakes, we have taken action immediately. We are providing additional training and are working to understand exactly what happened so we can rectify it.”
Voir aussi:
Syrian refugee attack: Boy’s family crowdfunding to sue Tommy Robinson and Facebook over ‘defamation’
Lawyers say Facebook enabled ‘false comments’ to spread as Robinson raised money
Lizzie Dearden
The Independent
21 January 2019
Lawyers representing a Syrian boy who was attacked at school are crowdfunding to sue Tommy Robinson and Facebook.
Footage of the 15-year-old victim being pushed to the ground and having water poured on his face sparked outrage in November, and police continue to investigate the incident in Huddersfield.
Amid prominent media coverage, Mr Robinson posted a series of videos on his Facebook account accusing the boy of bullying and claiming “lots of Muslim gangs are beating up white English kids” in Britain.
Lawyers for the victim, Jamal, allege that the anti-Islam activist’s posts were defamatory and are exploring whether Facebook can be pursued for allowing fundraising via his page.
A page asking for public donations to “sue Tommy Robinson, Facebook and others” has raised more than £3,000 since going online on Saturday.
Abdulnaser Youssef, of Farooq Bajwa and Co solicitors, wrote that allegations that Jamal was involved in the beating of a young English girl was false.
“Tommy Robinson [whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon] sought to justify the abuse directed towards Jamal, he defamed the young boy,” he added.
“To make matters worse, he even raised money in support of those behind the bullying by galvanising cash from his supporters on social media platforms.”
Mr Youssef said Jamal’s lawyers were raising money for a defamation action over Mr Robinson’s “false comments” and added: “We are also exploring bringing a claim against Facebook and other social media platforms which have been exploited by Lennon [Robinson] to publish his false and damaging comments made in respect of Jamal.”
Mr Robinson’s Facebook page has more than 1 million followers and his posts on the Huddersfield incident were viewed up to 900,000 times each.
The page had a “donate” button to transfer him money at the time, but it was removed amid concern that a tool the social media giant says is for charities was abused.
Facebook deleted several of Mr Robinson’s videos for violating community standards, after Jamal’s family announced their intention to sue in November.
Their lawyers hope to use part of the crowdfunded money to “penetrate the veil surrounding Lennon’s finances” to ensure compensation can be sought if the lawsuit succeeds.
They said that Mr Robinson’s social media posts caused Jamal to become “the focus of countless messages of hate and threats from the extreme right wing”, and a police safety warning.
Mr Youssef said money from another crowdfunding page set up in November had enabled the family to “relocate to a safer environment where Jamal and his sister will be able to live and study in peace”.
West Yorkshire Police said the incident at Almondbury Community School remains under investigation.
The suspect, a 16-year-old boy, has been summonsed to court for alleged assault but no date for the hearing has been set.
The teenager had shared numerous posts from Mr Robinson’s Facebook account in previous months, as well as from Britain First and other far-right accounts.
The Independent has asked Facebook for comment.
Voir également:
Tommy Robinson admits he shared ‘fake news’ about Muslims attacking boy at school where Syrian refugee was filmed being bullied
Katy Clifton
The Evening Standard
30 November 2018
Tommy Robinson has confessed to spreading fake news about five Muslims attacking a boy at the school where a Syrian refugee was filmed being bullied.
The former EDL leader said in a Facebook video post on Friday “he had been completely mugged off” by “some leftie”.
On Thursday, he had made claims that the 15-year-old who was filmed being bullied in Huddersfield had been involved in a separate attack on a girl at the school.
However, just hours after spreading the claims during two Facebook live broadcasts, Mr Robinson admitted to his followers that he had helped spread fake news.
Explaining he had been duped, the far-right activist said: “I have been completely had, how embarrassing man. »
He added: “I had a woman, and I’ll show you our screenshots, messaging me all morning about what had happened to her son.
« It turns out some leftie is sitting somewhere absolutely mugging me completely off and laughing about it. Fake news central.
“It turns out the ‘13-year-old’ boy who had been jumped by five Muslims wasn’t her son.”
The family’s lawyer on Thursday strongly dismissed the claims made by the former EDL leader and said they were “actively considering legal action” against Mr Robinson.
A letter addressed to Mr Robinson from Farooq Bajwa & Co solicitors read: “We have been aware of two videos posted to your Facebook page. These videos contain a number of false and defamatory allegations in respect of our client.”
Asking for the videos to be removed immediately, it continues: “We wish to place you on notice that our client intends to pursue legal action against you in respect of these contents of these publications and you will shortly be receiving formal pre-action correspondence in this respect.”
Although it is uncertain whether he will still face legal action, in a further Facebook live posted on Friday Mr Robinson said: “If you’re solicitor watching this that’s suing me, I don’t give a s***.”
The comments came after footage of the 15-year-old Syrian refugee being « waterboarded » while at school in Huddersfield was widely shared on social media.
The video’s emergence this week was followed by further footage of what was said to be the boy’s sister being physically abused at the same school.
A 16-year-old boy has been interviewed over the attack on the boy and reported for summons for an offence of assault ahead of a youth court appearance.
The boy, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was questioned by police over the footage in which the 15-year-old victim, with his arm in a cast, is thrown to the ground.
He is dragged to the floor by his neck before his attacker says, « I’ll drown you », while forcing water from a bottle into his mouth.
The Syrian teenager told ITV News on Tuesday: « I woke up at night and just started crying about this problem. They think I’m different, different from them.
« I don’t feel safe at school. Sometimes I say to my dad, ‘I don’t want to go to school any more’. I was just crying and I didn’t do nothing because I respect the school rules. »
Voir par ailleurs:
L’activiste d’extrême droite Tommy Robinson n’a pas été censuré, il a enfreint la loi britannique
Frédéric Scarbonchi
Slate
31 mai 2018
L’arrestation et la condamnation à 13 mois de prison de Tommy Robinson, le co-fondateur de l’English Defence League, un mouvement d’extrême droite dont le but affiché est de «combattre l’islamisation de l’Angleterre», ont été largement commentés sur le web cette dernière semaine.
L’homme, de son vrai nom Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, a été arrêté vendredi 25 mai, alors qu’il filmait des gens entrant dans le tribunal de Leeds, au Royaume-Uni, où étaient jugés selon lui «des prédateurs sexuels».
Tommy Robinson diffuse la vidéo en direct sur Facebook live, où elle est vue plus de 500.000 fois. Pendant qu’il tourne, il se fait embarquer par la police pour «trouble à l’ordre public» –une interpellation elle aussi diffusée en live sur le réseau social.
Accusations de censure
Les médias anglo-saxons sont sommés, via une décision du juge, de ne pas évoquer l’arrestation. Aucun d’entre-eux ne traitera le sujet jusqu’au mardi 29 mai, à l’exception de The Independent.
Ce silence médiatique trouve rapidement un écho en France, dans les milieux très à droite, qui reprochent aux médias de taire le scandale anglais. Le hashtag #FreeTommyRobinson apparaît sur Twitter et certains sites de droite et d’extrême droite, comme Dreuz.info, s’emparent de l’affaire.
Breizh-infos explique que l’emprisonnement menace de mort Tommy Robinson, car selon son avocat, il aurait été agressé lors d’une incarcération antérieure et sa tête serait mise à prix.
Valeurs Actuelles embraye et publie à son tour un article, relayé par la secrétaire générale adjointe du groupe Les Républicains, Valérie Boyer.
La veille, le président du groupe Front national-Marseille Bleu Marine au Conseil municipal de Marseille, Stéphane Ravier, y était également allé de son tweet.
Selon l’extrême droite, le procès que souhaitait couvrir Tommy Robinson serait celui du scandale de Telford, une importante affaire de viols sur mineures et de pédophilie, dévoilée par le Sunday Mirror et largement reprise par la fachosphère.
Si cette affaire fait autant de bruit, c’est parce que les militantes et militants sont persuadés qu’elle a été passée sous silence pour «protéger» les accusés, en majorité d’origine pakistanaise.
Tommy Robinson affirme le procès qui se déroulait à Leeds le jour de son interpellation était bel et bien celui de Telford, mais rien ne permet de le confirmer. Cette incertitude alimente les accusations de censure des droites et extrêmes droites françaises et britanniques.
«Reporting restrictions»
Au Royaume-Uni, la loi impose, dans certaines affaires, des «reporting restrictions»; les juges peuvent fixer un embargo limitant le traitement médiatique d’une affaire. Comme le précise Libération, cette mesure est destinée à empêcher tout «risque ou préjudice à l’administration de la justice».
Le procès de Leeds nécessitant visiblement cette protection, l’arrestation et l’emprisonnement de Tommy Robinson y ont également été aussi soumis.
Si l’on ne connaît toujours pas l’objet du procès qui a attiré Robinson, la restriction empêchant d’évoquer son interpellation a été levée mardi 29 mai, alors que les médias eux-mêmes contestaient l’embargo, que les manifestations de soutien à Tommy Robinson se multipliaient et qu’une pétition en ligne avait déjà recueilli 400.000 signatures.
Outrage au tribunal
Rapidement, le Sun, le Mirror, la BBC et le Guardian ont donné les raisons de l’arrestation de l’ancien leader de l’English Defence League. On apprend que l’homme, âgé de 35 ans, a été condamné à treize mois de prison pour outrage au tribunal –et non pour trouble à l’ordre public.
L’outrage au tribunal, en droit britannique, est le fait de désobéir à un ordre de la cour ou de manquer de respect envers son autorité –en somme, de manifester sa méfiance quant à sa capacité à rendre la justice. Le choix de Tommy Robinson de couvrir médiatiquement le procès de Leeds, malgré restriction, explique sa condamnation.
Même si la BBC explique que Robinson a plaidé coupable, le jugement alimente l’impression –fausse– que l’on voudrait faire taire celui qui est considéré comme un lanceur d’alerte par une partie de la fachosphère.
Lors du procès, l’avocat de Robinson a exprimé le «profond regret» de son client, qui assure que ses actions n’avaient pas pour objectif de «causer des difficultés dans le processus judiciaire». Il n’a pas été entendu par le juge, qui a estimé que ses commentaires sur les réseaux sociaux, pendant la vidéo, risquaient de priver les accusés du droit à un procès équitable.
Lorsqu’il diffusait sa vidéo en live, Tommy Robinson avait d’ailleurs conscience que son acte pouvait être considéré comme un outrage: il le dit expressément et à plusieurs reprises.
Sur la page Facebook de l’activiste, dans la nuit du 29 au 30 mai, un statut a été publié. Si l’homme a reconnu l’outrage devant le tribunal, sa défense publique est tout autre: «Vous devez vous poser la question: pourquoi un reporter lisant un acte d’accusation publique devant un tribunal risque-t-il soudainement de provoquer l’effondrement d’un procès?».
La liste des procès du jour, avec le nom des personnes entendues, est en effet disponible sur le site du tribunal. N’y est cependant pas mentionné ce qui est débattu.
Tommy Robinson est un habitué des outrages au tribunal. En 2017, il avait tenté de filmer des accusés dans une affaire de viol, alors que leur procès était en cours –un acte qui lui avait valu du sursis.
Réactions internationales
En France, où aucune loi ne peut imposer un tel embargo sur une affaire, la condamnation de Robinson surprend, certains comparant le Royaume-Uni à une dictature.
Aux Pays Bas, Geert Wilders, le leader du Parti pour la liberté (PVV), mouvement d’extrême droite, a apporté son soutien à Tommy Robinson. Dans une vidéo publiée sur Twitter, il affirme que la condamnation du Britannique est une «disgrâce absolue», une preuve que «les autorités veulent nous faire taire».
Donald Trump Jr., le fils du président des États-Unis, a également tweeté sa désapprobation.
Décision pragmatique
Le verdict rendu contre l’activiste et l’interdiction de couvrir le procès relèvent pourtant davantage d’un certain pragmatisme que d’une censure d’État: le juge a choisi de condamner Robinson car son action est susceptible d’entraîner un nouveau procès dans l’affaire de Leeds –ce qui coûterait aux contribuables «des centaines et des centaines de milliers de livres», selon Le Sun.
«Je respecte le droit de chacun à la liberté d’expression. C’est l’un des droits les plus importants que nous avons. Avec ces droits viennent des responsabilités –la responsabilité d’exercer sa liberté de parole dans le cadre de la loi. Je ne suis pas sûr que vous mesurez les conséquences potentielles de ce que vous avez fait», aurait justifié le juge lors du procès.
La motivation du juge était similaire lorsque Robinson avait déjà été condamné en 2017: «Il s’agit de justice, de faire en sorte qu’un procès puisse être mené avec justice et équité […], d’être innocent jusqu’à preuve du contraire.»
Voir aussi:
Que se passe-t-il avec Tommy Robinson au Royaume-Uni ?
Militant d’extrême-droite anglais, Tommy Robinson, de son vrai nom Stephen Yaxley Lennon, a été arrêté, jugé et condamné à 13 mois de prison vendredi 25 mai en l’espace de cing heures, à Leeds en Angleterre. Cette arrestation, sous le coup d’une interdiction de couverture par les médias, déchaine les passions sur les réseaux sociaux.
Le C.V de Tommy Robinson est parlant. Fondateur de l’English Defence League (EDL), qu’il quitte pour devenir le correspondant de Rebel Media, un site d’information affilié à l’extrême-droite canadienne. En parallèle, il participe aussi au développement de la branche britannique de Pegida, mouvement anti-islam allemand.
Vendredi dernier alors qu’il couvre l’ouverture du procès d’un supposé gang de proxénètes d’origine anglo-indienne et anglo-pakistanaise dans la ville de Telford (comté de Shropshire), Tommy Robinson est interpellé alors qu’il fait un live sur les marches du tribunal. S’adressant à ses fans sur les réseaux sociaux, il commente le défilé en arrière-plan des suspects entrant au tribunal, les invectivant au passage en leur promettant la prison. Ce procès se tenait dans un contexte tendu. L’extrême-droite s’en étant emparé pour accuser les autorités britanniques de laxisme, au prétexte qu’elles auraient toléré les actes délictueux de ce gang identifié depuis de longues années. Leur procès était du reste censé se tenir à huit-clos et toute publicité avait été interdite par un arrêté du juge.
Alors qu’il est toujours face caméra, une heure plus tard, Tommy Robinson est embarqué en direct par la police. La vidéo de son arrestation cumulera près de 4 millions de vues sur Facebook en moins d’une semaine. Selon le « Daily Mirror », cinq heures seulement se sont écoulées entre l’arrestation de Tommy Robinson et sa condamnation à treize mois de prison ferme, celui-ci étant déjà sous le coup d’une peine de sursis pour des faits similaires.
Malgré qu’elle n’ait pas été commentée par la presse à cause de l’interdiction de publicité, la nouvelle s’est rapidement répandue via les réseaux sociaux et les médias d’extrême-droite, suscitant de vives réactions en Europe et dans le monde. Une pétition demandant sa libération, rédigée en huit langues et adressée à Theresa May, première ministre britannique, cumulait plus de 540 000 signatures le 31 mai.
Donald Trump Jr lui a twitté son soutien
En Angleterre, plus de cent personnes très agitées se sont massées devant le 10, Downing Street, soutenues par certains membres de l’UKIP (parti pour l’indépendance). En Allemagne, l’AFD réclamait que l’asile politique soit accordé à Robinson, tandis que Geert Wilders, chef de l’extrême-droite néerlandaise et alliée de Marine Le Pen, considérait que «le Royaume-Uni se comporte comme l’Arabie saoudite». La droite américaine s’est largement exprimée elle aussi, par la voix de « Breitbart News », à la droite des Républicains, ou encore de Donald Trump Jr., fils du président qui lui twittait son soutien.
La classe politique française n’est pas en reste. De nombreux cadres du Front national, ainsi que Valérie Boyer (LR) ont notamment partagé un article de « Valeurs Actuelles » consacré à l’affaire et des rassemblements sont prévus à Paris, Bordeaux et Montpellier. Les médias traditionnels ne pouvant traiter l’affaire jusque dans l’après-midi du mardi 29 mai, les débats ont majoritairement eu lieu sur les réseaux sociaux. Les supporters de Tommy Robinson considèrent son arrestation comme une atteinte à la liberté d’expression, parlant même pompeusement de “dictature de la bienpensance”. Ses détracteurs, quant à eux, soulignent que dès le départ Tommy Robinson couvrait ce procès avec l’intention de le déstabiliser.
Quoi qu’il en soit, la décision du juge ne semble pas avoir été très efficace, l’information ayant largement circulé malgré le black-out médiatique qui avait été décrété. Cette décision pourrait même avoir été contre-productive, laissant le quasi-monopole de l’information aux militants d’extrême droite.
Voir de plus:
Harcèlement scolaire: un jeune réfugié syrien martyrisé à l’école (vidéo choc)
La vidéo d’un jeune réfugié syrien, martyrisé par ses camarades de lycée, a provoqué une vive polémique
France Soir
La vidéo choc d’un jeune réfugié syrien, scolarisé dans un lycée en Angleterre, et victime de harcèlement scolaire, fait le tour d’Internet depuis mardi. On peut y voir l’adolescent martyrisé par un élève britannique, devant une assemblée visiblement amusée par cette scène de violences.
Les images choquantes d’un jeune réfugié syrien, victime de harcèlement scolaire et d’une agression à caractère raciste, font le tour des réseaux sociaux depuis mardi 27.
Sur la vidéo, partagée des milliers de fois sur Twitter, on aperçoit un adolescent de 16 ans, réfugié syrien dans ce lycée britannique de Huddersfield, se faire martyriser par un élève beaucoup plus grand que lui sur le terrain de sport attenant à l’établissement scolaire.
Le jeune homme harcelé, qui ne peut se défendre car son bras est cassé (il porte un plâtre au bras gauche), se retrouve projeté violemment au sol.
L’agresseur le saisit par le cou et commence à l’étrangler puis lui maintient fermement la tête en lui versant une bouteille d’eau dessus. « Je vais te noyer », lui crie-t-il avant de finalement relâcher sa prise.
Les faits remontent à fin octobre dernier. Ils se sont déroulés devant une assemblée d’adolescents qui ont préféré se moquer de la victime et rire avec son bourreau plutôt que d’aller alerter un enseignant.
Mais la famille de Jamal, l’adolescent violenté, a porté plainte et une enquête a été ouverte par la police britannique pour « agression aggravée à caractère raciste ».
Suite à la diffusion de ces images sur les réseaux sociaux, Jamal a reçu énormément de messages de soutien et une cagnotte GoFundMe a même été créée pour aider sa famille à surmonter cette épreuve et à s’intégrer dans la société britannique.
La personne à l’initiative de la cagnotte a mis un objectif de 50.000 livres (environ 56.600 euros). En 14 heures, plus de 3.300 personnes ont fait un don et à midi ce mercredi 28, il ne manquait de 212 livres pour atteindre la somme fixée.
Voir encore:
Facebook supprime les comptes de Tommy Robinson, figure de l’extrême droite britannique
Le réseau social a emboîté le pas à Twitter, estimant que les messages postés par cet agitateur d’extrême droite avaient violé à de nombreuses reprises les règles de modération sur les contenus haineux.
Le Monde avec AFP
26 février 2019
« Pas leur place »
Sur les réseaux sociaux, Tommy Robinson, dont le vrai nom est Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, avait déjà connu une interdiction remarquée. En mars 2018, Twitter avait supprimé son compte, qui rassemblait alors des millions d’abonnés et générait des centaines de milliers de visionnages de ces vidéos promouvant des messages incitant à la haîne de l’Islam, expliquait alors The Guardian.
C’est désormais à Facebook d’emboîter le pas, notamment en raison de messages répétés promouvant la haine, selon le quotidien britannique. Dans un communiqué sur le sujet, le réseau social a précisé :
« La page Facebook de Tommy Robinson a de manière répétée contrevenu à ces règles, avec des publications utilisant un langage déshumanisant et des appels à la violence dirigés contre les musulmans. Ce n’est pas une décision que nous prenons à la légère mais les individus et organisations qui attaquent les autres sur la base de ce qu’ils sont n’ont pas leur place sur Facebook et Instagram. »
Interrogé par l’agence de presse britannique PA, Tommy Robinson a affirmé que Facebook avait réagi de la sorte en raison de la diffusion de son dernier documentaire, qui « montre comment l’establishment travaille avec les médias pour me faire tomber et me détruire ». « Il s’agit d’une attaque contre la liberté d’expression à travers le monde », a-t-il déclaré.
Interrogé par l’agence de presse britannique PA, Tommy Robinson a affirmé que Facebook avait réagi à son documentaire Panadrama qui « montre comment l’establishment travaille avec les médias pour me faire tomber et me détruire ». « Il s’agit d’une attaque contre la liberté d’expression à travers le monde », a-t-il estimé. Tommy Robinson est le pseudonyme de Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, tiré du nom d’un célèbre hooligan britannique. Il est le fondateur de l' »English Defence League » (EDL), un groupe marginal affirmant lutter contre la menace islamiste.
Condamné en mai à treize mois de prison pour avoir filmé et diffusé sur internet des images d’un procès criminel qui faisait l’objet de restrictions de couverture, il a été libéré sous caution en août en attente de son procès en appel. Son cas avait attiré l’attention de l' »alt-right » américaine, ou « droite alternative », et même de Donald Trump Jr., fils du président américain, et de Steve Bannon, ex-conseiller de Donald Trump, qui lui avait apporté son soutien. En novembre, il est devenu le conseiller spécial du chef du parti europhobe Ukip Gerard Batten.
Voir enfin:
The full story behind Tommy Robinson’s contempt of court battle after Facebook Live at grooming trial
Before he was jailed for contempt of court in May, a judge told him: ‘Freedom of speech comes with responsibility’
Stephanie Finnegan
leeds live
29 May 2018
In May, Tommy Robinson was jailed over comments which had the potential to cause a retrial at Leeds Crown Court – and we can now reveal the details of the case he was protesting about.
Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon, streamed an hour-long Facebook Live outside the court in May and within hours it had been watched more than 250,000 times.
A judge who locked the far right activist up for 13 months for contempt of court told him his actions could have caused a long-running trial to be retried which would cost taxpayers ‘hundreds and hundreds of thousands of pounds’.
A court order was put in place temporarily banning any reporting on Robinson’s arrest and sentencing hearing, but LeedsLive challenged the order and were able to report it a few days later.
Now we can reveal the long-running trial he could have put in jeopardy involved a Huddersfield groming gang who were jailed on October 19 for more than 200 years for the grooming and sexual abuse of young children.
The abuse of the vulnerable, isolated and underage girls – the youngest of whom was 11 or 12 – was described by a judge as ‘top of the scale’.
A total of 20 men, ranging in age from 27 to 54, were convicted as part of Operation Tendersea during three trials at Leeds Crown Court throughout 2018 making it the worst scandal to ever hit Huddersfield.
They were found guilty of child sex offences including rape, inciting child prostitution and abduction of a child.
A court order had been in place temporarily banning any reporting of the trials until now.
On May 25, 35-year-old Yaxley-Lennon was arrested on suspicion of a breach of the peace and was held in the court cells before being taken up to the courtroom to face the trial judge.
In a rare move, he was arrested, charged and sentenced within five hours.
The video footage was played to Judge Geoffrey Marson QC as Robinson sat in the dock.
Leeds Crown Court has advised the media that the address given by Stephen Yaxley-Lennon during his hearing on Friday May 25 was an old address.
His current address – which we would publish as part of the court report – was not given to the court.
We have chosen to remove the incorrect address with the current occupants of that property in mind.
To be clear, it is the responsibility of the defendant – in this case Mr Yaxley-Lennon – to ensure information given in a court hearing is accurate.
The media can only report the address given in open court and we have been informed that we were not at fault.
Robinson, whose criminal record dates back to 2005, has a previous conviction for contempt of court.
He was the subject of a suspended prison sentence, imposed at Canterbury Crown Court, after he filmed in court.
He also has convictions for disobeying a court order, possessing identity documents with intent, fraud, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, possessing drugs and threatening behaviour.
In May he was found in contempt of court and in breach of a suspended sentence.
Matthew Harding, mitigating, said his client felt « deep regret » after realising the potential consequences of his actions.
He said Robinson was aware of the reporting restriction in place in the case but thought what he was saying on camera was already in the public domain.
The barrister added: « He was mindful, having spoken to others and taken advice, not to say things that he thought would actually prejudice these proceedings.
« He did not try to cause difficulties for the court process. »
Mr Harding said Robinson had been the victim of assaults while serving time in prison before and there had been « a price on his head » during his last prison term with inmates being offered the reward of drugs and mobile phones to kill him.
But the judge said: “No one could possibly conclude that it would be anything other than highly prejudicial to the defendants in the trial.
“I respect everyone’s right to free speech. That’s one of the most important rights that we have.
“With those rights come responsibilities. The responsibility to exercise that freedom of speech within the law.
“I am not sure you appreciate the potential consequence of what you have done. »
The judge added: “You have to understand we are not preventing publication. We are postponing publication to ensure that the trial is fair.
“When people are convicted and given long sentences, it is on a proper basis and not a conviction that can be overturned.
“It is a serious feature that you were encouraging others to share what you were streaming live on social media.”
Publié par jcdurbant 
On April 4, 1967, exactly one year before his assassination, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. stepped up to the lectern at the Riverside Church in Manhattan. The United States had been in active combat in Vietnam for two years and tens of thousands of people had been killed, including some 10,000 American troops. The political establishment — from left to right — backed the war, and more than 400,000 American service members were in Vietnam, their lives on the line. Many of King’s strongest allies urged him to remain silent about the war or at least to soft-pedal any criticism. They knew that if he told the whole truth about the unjust and disastrous war he would be falsely labeled a Communist, suffer retaliation and severe backlash, alienate supporters and threaten the fragile progress of the civil rights movement. King rejected all the well-meaning advice and said, “I come to this magnificent house of worship tonight because my conscience leaves me no other choice.” Quoting a statement by the Clergy and Laymen Concerned About Vietnam, he said, “A time comes when silence is betrayal” and added, “that time has come for us in relation to Vietnam.” It was a lonely, moral stance. And it cost him. But it set an example of what is required of us if we are to honor our deepest values in times of crisis, even when silence would better serve our personal interests or the communities and causes we hold most dear. It’s what I think about when I go over the excuses and rationalizations that have kept me largely silent on one of the great moral challenges of our time: the crisis in Israel-Palestine. I have not been alone. Until very recently, the entire Congress has remained mostly silent on the human rights nightmare that has unfolded in the occupied territories. Our elected representatives, who operate in a political environment where Israel’s political lobby holds well-documented power, have consistently minimized and deflected criticism of the State of Israel, even as it has grown more emboldened in its occupation of Palestinian territory and adopted some practices reminiscent of apartheid in South Africa and Jim Crow segregation in the United States. Many civil rights activists and organizations have remained silent as well, not because they lack concern or sympathy for the Palestinian people, but because they fear loss of funding from foundations, and false charges of anti-Semitism. They worry, as I once did, that their important social justice work will be compromised or discredited by smear campaigns. Similarly, many students are fearful of expressing support for Palestinian rights because of the McCarthyite tactics of secret organizations like Canary Mission, which blacklists those who publicly dare to support boycotts against Israel, jeopardizing their employment prospects and future careers. Reading King’s speech at Riverside more than 50 years later, I am left with little doubt that his teachings and message require us to speak out passionately against the human rights crisis in Israel-Palestine, despite the risks and despite the complexity of the issues. King argued, when speaking of Vietnam, that even “when the issues at hand seem as perplexing as they often do in the case of this dreadful conflict,” we must not be mesmerized by uncertainty. “We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak.” And so, if we are to honor King’s message and not merely the man, we must condemn Israel’s actions: unrelenting violations of international law, continued occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza, home demolitions and land confiscations. We must cry out at the treatment of Palestinians at checkpoints, the routine searches of their homes and restrictions on their movements, and the severely limited access to decent housing, schools, food, hospitals and water that many of them face. We must not tolerate Israel’s refusal even to discuss the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes, as prescribed by United Nations resolutions, and we ought to question the U.S. government funds that have supported multiple hostilities and thousands of civilian casualties in Gaza, as well as the $38 billion the U.S. government has pledged in military support to Israel. And finally, we must, with as much courage and conviction as we can muster, speak out against the system of legal discrimination that exists inside Israel, a system complete with, according to Adalah, the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, more than 50 laws that discriminate against Palestinians — such as the new nation-state law that says explicitly that only Jewish Israelis have the right of self-determination in Israel, ignoring the rights of the Arab minority that makes up 21 percent of the population. Of course, there will be those who say that we can’t know for sure what King would do or think regarding Israel-Palestine today. That is true. The evidence regarding King’s views on Israel is complicated and contradictory. Although the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee denounced Israel’s actions against Palestinians, King found himself conflicted. Like many black leaders of the time, he recognized European Jewry as a persecuted, oppressed and homeless people striving to build a nation of their own, and he wanted to show solidarity with the Jewish community, which had been a critically important ally in the civil rights movement. Ultimately, King canceled a pilgrimage to Israel in 1967 after Israel captured the West Bank. During a phone call about the visit with his advisers, he said, “I just think that if I go, the Arab world, and of course Africa and Asia for that matter, would interpret this as endorsing everything that Israel has done, and I do have questions of doubt.” He continued to support Israel’s right to exist but also said on national television that it would be necessary for Israel to return parts of its conquered territory to achieve true peace and security and to avoid exacerbating the conflict. There was no way King could publicly reconcile his commitment to nonviolence and justice for all people, everywhere, with what had transpired after the 1967 war. Today, we can only speculate about where King would stand. Yet I find myself in agreement with the historian Robin D.G. Kelley, who concluded that, if King had the opportunity to study the current situation in the same way he had studied Vietnam, “his unequivocal opposition to violence, colonialism, racism and militarism would have made him an incisive critic of Israel’s current policies.” Indeed, King’s views may have evolved alongside many other spiritually grounded thinkers, like Rabbi Brian Walt, who has spoken publicly about the reasons that he abandoned his faith in what he viewed as political Zionism. (…) During more than 20 visits to the West Bank and Gaza, he saw horrific human rights abuses, including Palestinian homes being bulldozed while people cried — children’s toys strewn over one demolished site — and saw Palestinian lands being confiscated to make way for new illegal settlements subsidized by the Israeli government. He was forced to reckon with the reality that these demolitions, settlements and acts of violent dispossession were not rogue moves, but fully supported and enabled by the Israeli military. For him, the turning point was witnessing legalized discrimination against Palestinians — including streets for Jews only — which, he said, was worse in some ways than what he had witnessed as a boy in South Africa. (…) Jewish Voice for Peace, for example, aims to educate the American public about “the forced displacement of approximately 750,000 Palestinians that began with Israel’s establishment and that continues to this day.” (…) In view of these developments, it seems the days when critiques of Zionism and the actions of the State of Israel can be written off as anti-Semitism are coming to an end. There seems to be increased understanding that criticism of the policies and practices of the Israeli government is not, in itself, anti-Semitic. (…) the Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II (…) declared in a riveting speech last year that we cannot talk about justice without addressing the displacement of native peoples, the systemic racism of colonialism and the injustice of government repression. In the same breath he said: “I want to say, as clearly as I know how, that the humanity and the dignity of any person or people cannot in any way diminish the humanity and dignity of another person or another people. To hold fast to the image of God in every person is to insist that the Palestinian child is as precious as the Jewish child.” Guided by this kind of moral clarity, faith groups are taking action. In 2016, the pension board of the United Methodist Church excluded from its multibillion-dollar pension fund Israeli banks whose loans for settlement construction violate international law. Similarly, the United Church of Christ the year before passed a resolution calling for divestments and boycotts of companies that profit from Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories. Even in Congress, change is on the horizon. For the first time, two sitting members, Representatives Ilhan Omar, Democrat of Minnesota, and Rashida Tlaib, Democrat of Michigan, publicly support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. In 2017, Representative Betty McCollum, Democrat of Minnesota, introduced a resolution to ensure that no U.S. military aid went to support Israel’s juvenile military detention system. Israel regularly prosecutes Palestinian children detainees in the occupied territories in military court. None of this is to say that the tide has turned entirely or that retaliation has ceased against those who express strong support for Palestinian rights. To the contrary, just as King received fierce, overwhelming criticism for his speech condemning the Vietnam War — 168 major newspapers, including The Times, denounced the address the following day — those who speak publicly in support of the liberation of the Palestinian people still risk condemnation and backlash. Bahia Amawi, an American speech pathologist of Palestinian descent, was recently terminated for refusing to sign a contract that contains an anti-boycott pledge stating that she does not, and will not, participate in boycotting the State of Israel. In November, Marc Lamont Hill was fired from CNN for giving a speech in support of Palestinian rights that was grossly misinterpreted as expressing support for violence. Canary Mission continues to pose a serious threat to student activists. And just over a week ago, the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute in Alabama, apparently under pressure mainly from segments of the Jewish community and others, rescinded an honor it bestowed upon the civil rights icon Angela Davis, who has been a vocal critic of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians and supports B.D.S. But that attack backfired. Within 48 hours, academics and activists had mobilized in response. The mayor of Birmingham, Randall Woodfin, as well as the Birmingham School Board and the City Council, expressed outrage at the institute’s decision. The council unanimously passed a resolution in Davis’ honor, and an alternative event is being organized to celebrate her decades-long commitment to liberation for all. I cannot say for certain that King would applaud Birmingham for its zealous defense of Angela Davis’s solidarity with Palestinian people. But I do. In this new year, I aim to speak with greater courage and conviction about injustices beyond our borders, particularly those that are funded by our government, and stand in solidarity with struggles for democracy and freedom. My conscience leaves me no other choice. Michelle Alexander
