To think this so called art exhibition in Margate is nothing short of a hate crime

The police can’t be that stupid? But this is turning into a very informed discussion.

The law recognises five types of hate crime on the basis of:
Race
Religion
Disability
Sexual orientation
Transgender identity

Any crime can be prosecuted as a hate crime if the offender has either:
demonstrated hostility based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity
Or
been motivated by hostility based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity.

If any of those so called art works depicted Mohammed, would the police acted differently?

I am mindful of those who lost their lives regarding Charlie Hebdo…

As usual, these threads descends into ad hominem attacks. I am now being criticised for going on the Together Alliance march and defending the right to use art as a protest again war and genocide (as many artists have done in the past) as if the two should be mutually exclusive.

Replying to Wyllow who addresses the legal aspects.

For the CPS to prosecute a hate crime there has to be a victim.

The police and the CPS have agreed the following definition for identifying and flagging hate crimes:

Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's …. religion or perceived religion.

(For brevity, I have deleted the other categories, disability, race etc).

Kent Police have said that no criminal offence has been identified.

Collings has made it very clear (in a social media post I attached upthread, My show is against Zionism not Jewishness.

Anti-Zionism and anti-semitism are not the same thing.

Now you can chose to believe him or not but if a “victim” were to bring charges and the CPS were to prosecute, then that would be his defence.

Under the Human Rights Act 1998, artistic expression, political speech, and political art are all protected under the right to freedom of expression. Courts have repeatedly ruled that this still applies even if the art or expression “offends, shocks, or disturbs.”

He could possibly be prosecuted under the Public Order Act for stirring up racial hatred.

Section 17 defines “racial hatred” as hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to colour, race, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national origins. This can and has been interpreted by courts to include Jews as an ethnic group, so antisemitism would fall within this provision.

Section 18 refers to the use of threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or any written material.

However, while many may see Collings’ drawings as abusive or insulting, they can only be deemed illegal if it can be proved that he intended to stir up racial hatred. That would be hard for prosecutors to prove when Collings has said his work is about Zionism not Jews.

You might compare this with the Lucy Connolly case. She was charge under Section 19 … a person who publishes or distributes written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting is guilty of an offence if (s)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred. She used social media to incite people to set fire to hotels.

Collings isn’t doing anything like that.

And of course, in his ‘art work’ he hasn’t demonstrated any hostility towards race or religion ( yeah right!)

Allira

So anyone is free to exhibit paintings etc of Hamas and their despicable crimes of October 7th 2023 as typifying Palestinian people as long as they call them artistic interpretations, political in nature and they would be protected by free speech laws?

At least that is clear, thank you.

These are people who have beheaded, dragged corpses around streets tied to vehicles, and chucked their fellow citizens off buildings. Imagine those images depicted as art

TerriBull

There isn't a lot of difference between those of the far right and the far left who espouse this sort of hatred, only in that the element of the Far Left appear to perceive they alone occupy some higher moral ground, the Far Right will know they don't. There will no doubt have been some who marched on Saturday who wouldn't similarly turn out in solidarity for our Jewish community. The rationale appears to be they must bear the collective guilt of whatever Israel is inflicting on Gaza. It's clearly obvious from a cohort within, the far left of The Greens and Labour, whatever prejudice the Jewish community suffer they deserve that. Theirs is to put up with a three pronged onslaught from the Far left, the Far right and extreme Islamists.

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

Unfortunately antisemitism wrapped up and disguised as anti Zionism is alive and kicking.

I am disgusted, disappointed and afraid for the Jews in the U.K. and around the world.

Nobody in authority on their side apparently 🤬🤬🤬

Oreo

Never heard of the guy but I did read about his so called artworks.
Do Thanet Council have the power to stop it? The police aren’t backward at coming forward for hate crimes these days so why aren’t they refusing to have blatantly antisemitic works on public view?

A very good question!

We are making judgements on an exhibition we have not seen, except for one or two pictures.

In a complex world where people take sides, the different opinions here are hardly surprising.

and its probably worth a reminder that many who have posted here have elaborated at length how prosecuting those hate SM posts that followed the July 2024 anti muslim riots had gone over the top, etc. etc,

and how could a nice lady of Cheshire possibly be prosecuted for suggesting all the adults in a mosque should be killed. remember?

You cant have it both ways. You either protect the right for freedom of expression even when you don't like it

(within limits of course, and `I have outlined that I think some of the paintings should be removed)

or you follow the course of closing the parts of freedom of expression that you personally dont like.

There’s freedom of expression and blatant hate crime dressed up as art.

Indeed- It couldn't be evidenced that Collins demonstrated hostility towards the Jewish race or that his art as exhibited was motivated by hostility based on the Jewish race - as the law requires.

His art - he claimed is against Zionism, i.e. a political ideology that advocates for a Jewish homeland whereas Jewish people an ethno- religious group.

Not all Jews are Zionists and not all Zionists are Jews- Zionism is a political choice whilst Jewish identity is a fundamental identity. Political choice is protected by free speech laws in the UK- as the police statement clarified.

The woman from Cheshire was jailed for a couple of years.
This artist was exonerated by the police by not having the images removed.
Chalk and cheese cases.

Why is Collings as a non Jew pontificating on the needs of Jewish people for their homeland? What right does he have? What are his qualifications in this matter?

It wasn't that Collins claimed his art work was against Zionism that underpinned the police decision predominantly- it was that the police officers themselves concluded, after viewing the art themselves- that the art expressed his views about Zionism- PLUS the police did not find any evidence of that the art they viewed was motivated by hostility towards Jews.

Collins is a self confessed Hamas supporter…

Ronib: 15.08- there is often much pontification on Gransnet threads about political matters e.g. anti immigration/anti asylum seekers opinions that are divisive and stir up strong reactions and offend some posters.

Just as we have freedom of expression to share our political opinions, much as they may shock, infuriate and offend other posters who do not share such views, in the eyes of the law Collins also has the right to to free speech and expression in his art on political matters. Zionism is a political matter- not a religious matter.

People had the choice to attend or not attend the exhibition.

It would be fair to say that those who have drawn up the guidelines for what a hate crime is are at fault here. The police only act within those parameters.
This sort of "art" should be stopped because anyone can put an innocent interpretation on a a vile piece of work.
It is time that the laws on hate crime include anything which can be interpreted as discriminatory whatever the artist says. It's a good way of getting away with antisemitism as it stand now.

PLUS the police did not find any evidence of that the art they viewed was motivated by hostility towards Jews.

Good grief.
It is filled with hatred.

Was this just one police officer who made the decision? If so, who is that person?

According to AI - Zionism is the movement for the self determination of the Jewish people in their ancestral homeland of the land of Israel (Zion). It is deeply tied to Jewish cultural and religious identity. It is a Jewish nationalist movement.
Um

People had the choice to attend or not attend the exhibition.

That is irrelevant.
The stuff (artwork?) was exhibited.
People have been jailed for posts on social media. Others did not have to read those posts. I did not.

People jailed for inciting hatred in their social media posts met the legal threshold- ie demonstrated hostility.

E.g. Lucy Connelly admitted in court she incited racial hatred by posting on X calling for mass deportation (of Muslim asylum seekers) and inciting people to set fire to hotels housing immigrants- she added "if that makes me racist, so be it".

Nigel Farage said at the time she should not have been found guilty as "millions of mothers feel the same". But the law does not allow for other people holding a racial view that many others hold as a reason to be exonerated int he eyes of the law from inciting racial hatred.

Yes the police can only prosecute when a law is broken. How would posters like to see the wording of the law changed therefore if they feel it is not fit for purpose as it stands?

.

Did not meet the threshold for inciting racial hatred

🙄

I also recall reading Gransnet posts at the time agreeing with Frage that the law was wrong if it led to Lucy Connell being arrested and prosecuted.

So who would posters like the wording of the law to be changed that protects people like Lucy Connelly inciting racial hatred openly but would lead to prosecution of Collins for his art as exhibited in Margate last week?

Where does the threshold and difference lie- and what wording would improve the law?