Anonymous
11/7/2025, 9:40:49 PM
No.942241418
>>942240835
Some of my favorite bits from the first article:
>Jamila A is a fluent Black-British English speaker, and her use of the term “Nigga”
was a fundamental part of her language practice.
>The prosecution disproportionately interfered with her rights under Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights (‘ECHR’) to Freedom of Expression and right to use language from her culture which should be protected from discrimination under Article 10, read in conjunction of Article 14 of the ECHR;
>The CPS’s failure to consider the cultural and linguistic context of her speech
So they can't prosecute her because its too fundamental to her language, and its part of her "culture"
Wait a minute, that means all you have to do to squash a charge of violating s.127 of the Communications Act 2003 is claim that saying racial epithets is fundamental to your cultural identity! A white man can say "I'm from a very racist part of the south, and saying nigger is fundamental to my cultural identity!" Of course, that probably wouldnt work because activist judges hate being called out on their unhinged hypocrisy and having their illogic laid bare for the masses to gawk at.
>The case placed undue stress and anxiety on Jamila A
So if I get a little stressed, I can say I should be found not guilty because feelings.
>The CPS’s failure to consider the cultural and linguistic context of her speech
Interesting. Where was that argument in Ms Russells's case?
>No evidence of any party finding the Tweet offensive, indecent, obscene or menacing had been provided;
But in Ms. Russells's case, the offended party was the PC head of Hate Crimes herself:
>hate crime unit PC Dominique Walker, who told the court the term was "grossly offensive" to her
...so why didn't the prosecutor in Jamila's case just make up an offended party? A solicitor on their own team even? The bar is low, clearly.
Some of my favorite bits from the first article:
>Jamila A is a fluent Black-British English speaker, and her use of the term “Nigga”
was a fundamental part of her language practice.
>The prosecution disproportionately interfered with her rights under Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights (‘ECHR’) to Freedom of Expression and right to use language from her culture which should be protected from discrimination under Article 10, read in conjunction of Article 14 of the ECHR;
>The CPS’s failure to consider the cultural and linguistic context of her speech
So they can't prosecute her because its too fundamental to her language, and its part of her "culture"
Wait a minute, that means all you have to do to squash a charge of violating s.127 of the Communications Act 2003 is claim that saying racial epithets is fundamental to your cultural identity! A white man can say "I'm from a very racist part of the south, and saying nigger is fundamental to my cultural identity!" Of course, that probably wouldnt work because activist judges hate being called out on their unhinged hypocrisy and having their illogic laid bare for the masses to gawk at.
>The case placed undue stress and anxiety on Jamila A
So if I get a little stressed, I can say I should be found not guilty because feelings.
>The CPS’s failure to consider the cultural and linguistic context of her speech
Interesting. Where was that argument in Ms Russells's case?
>No evidence of any party finding the Tweet offensive, indecent, obscene or menacing had been provided;
But in Ms. Russells's case, the offended party was the PC head of Hate Crimes herself:
>hate crime unit PC Dominique Walker, who told the court the term was "grossly offensive" to her
...so why didn't the prosecutor in Jamila's case just make up an offended party? A solicitor on their own team even? The bar is low, clearly.