A RIGHT-wing Republican congressman has bizarrely quoted Braveheart to defend British nationalist extremist Tommy Robinson, who was jailed for 13 months for contempt of court.
Arizona Congressman Paul Gosar, noted for being the sole member of Congress to boycott Pope Francis’s visit on grounds that the Pontiff “chooses to talk and act like a leftist politician”, spoke out in the House of Representatives on Tuesday.
He spoke on behalf of 35-year-old Robinson, real name Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon and previously known as Andrew McMaster and Paul Harris, who is a convicted fraudster and who also has convictions for police assault and, ahem, entering the US illegally, which Gosar possibly did not know because he tried to get illegal immigrants arrested earlier this year.
Here’s what Gosar said as officially recorded by Congress: “I want to share my concern about the arrest and conviction of Tommy Robinson in Great Britain. I am well aware that England does not share our free speech values and does not have the equivalent of a First Amendment. Indeed, the restrictive practices of England led directly to the birth of this great nation and the freedom we enjoy here.
“Mr Robinson, a British activist and journalist, was arrested and jailed for simply filming outside a public courtroom, and was sentenced to 13 months for this 'crime'.
"His real crime is not taking pictures; his real crime is his refusal to agree to the Government's efforts to cover up crimes by Muslim gangs who are raping British girls, almost with impunity, and with little apparent regard by the British government.
He continued: “If this act violated a term of probation, it would mean the court system in England is a key part of the problem, covering up for criminals by imposing gag orders as terms of probation.
“Dissent is patriotic when the ruling class are illegitimate and oppressive. The ruling class in England appears fearful of the truth.
"When it bans discussion, and when it criminalizes the truth, any such government can fairly be labeled as both oppressive and tyrannical. I object to the suppression of the truth.
“England has a proud history and America is its progeny, but it needs to take back its liberty and freedom. 'It's all for nothing if you don't have freedom,' Braveheart, 1995.”
Being kind to the congressman, as a staunch upholder of the rule of law, he probably was unaware that Robinson – who claims to be a journalist – was convicted not for speaking out against “Muslim paedophile rapists” but for pronouncing the “guilt” of the defendants in the court buildings during an important trial.
That's as clear a case of contempt of court as could be found in any country’s law, not least because Robinson had already been warned about his actions and was asked to stop by court officials.
Here’s what the judge HHJ Norton said when sentencing Robinson: “This contempt hearing is not about free speech. This is not about 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 paedophile rapists'. A legitimate journalist would not be able to do that and under the strict liability rule there would be no defence to publication in those terms. It is pejorative language which prejudges the case, and it is language and reporting – if reporting indeed is what it is – that could have had the effect of substantially derailing the trial.
“As I have already indicated, because of what I knew was going on I had to take avoiding action to make sure that the integrity of this trial was preserved, that justice was preserved and that the trial could continue to completion without people being intimidated into reaching conclusions about it, or into being affected by 'irresponsible and inaccurate reporting'. If something of the nature of that which you put out on social media had been put into the mainstream press I would have been faced with applications from the defence advocates concerned, I have no doubt, to either say something specific to the jury, or worse, to abandon the trial and to start again.
“That is the kind of thing that actions such as these can and do have, and that is why you have been dealt with in the way in which you have and why I am dealing with this case with the seriousness which I am.”
No doubt Congressman Gosar doesn’t understand how serious contempt of court offences are in Britain the US and most civilised countries.
Gosar also doesn’t get the fact that Braveheart was about a hero of Scottish independence who wanted freedom from the English. On one thing a lot of people can agree with Gosar: “The ruling class in England appears fearful of the truth.”
Self-evidently that is the case, as we have witnessed in the House of Commons this week. But where we can also all agree is that when an ignoramus of a congressman goes blundering into support for a neo-Nazi criminal, he should be told to butt out by everyone of right mind anywhere.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel