RSS Feed
Los Angeles, CA - Judge Orders Jewish Race Hate Writer Out Of The Country |
|
| |
News Source: Lancshire Evening Post By Jenny Simpson
Text Size
|
|
A US judge has ordered Preston’s Stephen Whittle out of the countryLos Angeles, CA - A racist writer who fled to the United States seeking asylum is to be deported.
Stephen Whittle, 42, of Avenham Lane, Preston, was convicted last year of publishing inflammatory anti-Jewish material on a website.
Whittle skipped bail and flew to Los Angeles with co-defendant Simon Sheppard, 51, who was found guilty of similar offences at Leeds Crown Court.
The two sought asylum under America’s free speech protections, claiming they were being persecuted for their anti-Semitic views.
But an immigration judge has now ordered the pair, who have been in custody since their arrival in the US, be deported to the UK.
Unemployed Whittle wrote anti-Jewish literature on a website under the pen name of Luke O’Farrell between 2004 and 2006. He was convicted of five counts of publishing racially inflammatory written material following a seven-week trial last July.
Sheppard, of Brook Street, Selby, North Yorkshire, was found guilty of 11 counts of publishing racially inflammatory written material.
They were due to return to court after a jury continued deliberations, but they failed to appear. They were believed to have taken a ferry to Ireland before flying to Los Angeles.
US legal expert Alex Rojas told the Evening Post that it was very difficult for people from the UK to get political asylum in America.
He said: “You have to establish a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality or membership of a particular social group or political opinion.”
More of today's headlines
“Cypress, CA - Vandals painted on the doors and walls of an O.C. Islamic center, and police are calling the act a hate crime on Thursday. A police officer on routine...”
Cypress, CA - Vandals Paint Hate Messages On Islamic Center
Germany - Obama Puts Up The Pressure on the Palestinians
Total16
Read Comments (16) — Post Yours »
1
Jun 05, 2009 at 08:33 AM FVNMS Says:
Notwithstanding the occasional exception, most antisemites are quite funny-looking. I suggest a study be initiated to identify a relationship between the two factors. The results, I'm sure, would be interesting.
2
Jun 05, 2009 at 08:53 AM rav nuchemke Says:
why do we care if this mehugna hates us if anting its a compliment
3
Jun 05, 2009 at 10:02 AM BB Says:
I'm not sure what laws these peop.....INDIVIDUALS have violated. Of course what they said is reprehensible but isn't that covered by the first amendment? Whats to stop the government from saying other types of speech are not allowed? Its a slippery slope indeed. Let them say what they will, their ignorance is their greatest weakness. (For those who haven't looked over the constitution in a while: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of SPEECH, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.")
4
Jun 05, 2009 at 10:46 AM Concerned Member Says:
The Constitution provides such protections to the citizens of the United States. This creature is not a citizen of the United States so I'm not sure how your quote is relevant in this case.
5
Jun 05, 2009 at 09:37 AM Anonymous Says:
They got here. Savage (who never actually did or said anything) is banned from Britain in advance! I'm just amazed that US said they have to go. I'm pleasantly surprised at common sense actually working for a change (maybe this is Obama's change???)
6
Jun 05, 2009 at 11:43 AM Dan Says:
The U.S. Constitution applies within the borders of the USA. It's our law, not Britain's. If someone violates British law in the UK, a claim of asylum won't help him here. The exception would be if someone violated a law against speech in a totalitarian state, and can show that he'd be in danger back home (Salman Rushdie, for example). While I disagree with Britain's law, it's not ours, and our Constitution doesn't have force there.
7
Jun 05, 2009 at 12:03 PM Avrohom Abba Says:
I'm so used to people hating us that this new big mouth is just another little speck of dirt in a huge field. Therefore, it is irrelevant if he stays or not.
However, if they kicked him out, great!
But from the picture, it is clear that he is in extremely deep need of attention. Now he has the attention...good bye.
Next?....
8
Jun 05, 2009 at 01:36 PM Anonymous Says:
Judiasm is a religion, not a race. Hitler referred to us a race.
9
Jun 05, 2009 at 01:23 PM Rippin Pinchas Says:
I find it interesting that this week's parsha is parshas Nasso, which deals with nazir. At least that is how it is in the US.
10
Jun 05, 2009 at 02:19 PM Huh?? Says:
“ I'm not sure what laws these peop.....INDIVIDUALS have violated. Of course what they said is reprehensible but isn't that covered by the first amendment? Whats to stop the government from saying other types of speech are not allowed? Its a slippery slope indeed. Let them say what they will, their ignorance is their greatest weakness. (For those who haven't looked over the constitution in a while: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of SPEECH, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.") ”
Read the article. They Violated BRITISH law. First amendment protection applies to US law violations!!!
11
Jun 05, 2009 at 04:11 PM Milhouse Says:
“ Judiasm is a religion, not a race. Hitler referred to us a race. ”
No, Judaism is a nationality. Many Jews unfortunately do not believe in the Jewish religion; they're still Jews. And many goyim do believe in the Jewish religion, but they're not Jews unless they become naturalised through giyur.
12
Jun 05, 2009 at 04:10 PM Milhouse Says:
“ The U.S. Constitution applies within the borders of the USA. It's our law, not Britain's. If someone violates British law in the UK, a claim of asylum won't help him here. The exception would be if someone violated a law against speech in a totalitarian state, and can show that he'd be in danger back home (Salman Rushdie, for example). While I disagree with Britain's law, it's not ours, and our Constitution doesn't have force there. ”
His case is exactly the same as Rushdie's except that the British only want to lock him up, and not kill him. Is that enough to distinguish them?
13
Jun 05, 2009 at 04:09 PM Milhouse Says:
“ The Constitution provides such protections to the citizens of the United States. This creature is not a citizen of the United States so I'm not sure how your quote is relevant in this case. ”
The constitution does not provide the right of free speech. It declares that people everywhere already have that right, and protects it in the USA. Not just for citizens but for everybody under the USA's jurisdiction. Even illegal aliens' free speech is protected. There is no way he could be prosecuted in the USA for his writing. But people aren't entitled to asylum just because they're about to be jailed in a foreign country for exercising their rights; apparently that doesn't count as "persecution". So his application was denied and he's being deported as an illegal alien. The fact that the British will throw him in prison is apparently not a reason to let him stay, according to this judge.
The bottom line is that immigration judges, in fact the entire immigration system, is royally s@#$%^d up.
14
Jun 07, 2009 at 02:13 AM They violated the law in England Says:
“ I'm not sure what laws these peop.....INDIVIDUALS have violated. Of course what they said is reprehensible but isn't that covered by the first amendment? Whats to stop the government from saying other types of speech are not allowed? Its a slippery slope indeed. Let them say what they will, their ignorance is their greatest weakness. (For those who haven't looked over the constitution in a while: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of SPEECH, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.") ”
So congress isnt making a law they are complying with a long standing extradition treaty
15
Jun 07, 2009 at 09:07 AM Milhouse Says:
“ So congress isnt making a law they are complying with a long standing extradition treaty ”
And the result is that this person is being sent to a country where they will throw him in gaol for exercising his inalienable right to freedom of expression, which is protected by the first amendment. That is not right. The UK has no right to gaol him for it, and the USA should not be cooperating in this travesty. No treaty requires the extradition of a person whose "crime" would not be illegal in the rendering country. He should have been given asylum.
16
Jun 07, 2009 at 08:34 PM PMO Says:
“ And the result is that this person is being sent to a country where they will throw him in gaol for exercising his inalienable right to freedom of expression, which is protected by the first amendment. That is not right. The UK has no right to gaol him for it, and the USA should not be cooperating in this travesty. No treaty requires the extradition of a person whose "crime" would not be illegal in the rendering country. He should have been given asylum. ”
In principle I agree with you. These men should be able to say anything they want without persecution from the government.
However, they knew it was against the law in Britain, and if they had any common sense, they would have left Britain for a country with true freedom before starting their hateful blog.
Just because you disagree with a law, does not make it OK to arbitrarily break it (unless there are lives at stake). I may not agree with the reduced speed limits on some parts of I-95 here in FL, but I have to obey them or risk the consequences. These men took the risk and they are going to pay for it.
I only wish that the UK would wake up and realize that freedom means freedom for EVERYONE, not just people we like.