It appears that he was arrested after he illegally filmed material outside of an UK courthouse, however his arrest is on a charge of contempt for the court. If this is in accordance to UK laws, then I suppose that's the way it is and he's been legally detained. However, I consider it a somewhat outrageous law that imprisons people for simply being present and reporting what they have witnessed. As long as he reports truthfully on the events and don't give away unnecessary details that include security information or something, arresting someone for it seems counter to a few personal freedoms. For instance, in my country (and I live in friggin' Africa) it is legal to report on court proceedings and even in some of our more high profile cases filming has been allowed during court proceedings. This particular case being in the UK however, I suppose he should drink his medicine for not following stipulated procedure. I am somewhat puzzled by the charge of contempt of the court since reporting on the case outside the court's steps doesn't seem to be willfully challenging the rule of law. And according to
Caolan Robertson an associate from the website they were reporting for he didn't do anything unusual as far as reporting goes, didn't film anyone other than himself and even cooperated when asked to move from the court's steps.
From what I can gather on him, this sounds like a reasonable representation of the guy. My impression of the guy gleaned from
an article on him by Jamie Bartlett in The Telegraph is that he is somewhat aggressive in his ideals and somewhat stereotypical in his views of followers of Islam.
Statements attributed to him on Wikiquotes reinforce this image of him as Anti-Islamic.
Now as for the guy himself being a scumbag... Even if it is (or were) true, what does it matter? If you can believe what he suggests, then there are irregularities that are being ignored and these should be
investigated. Even if it were the devil himself, his argument stands outside of himself. Even a broken clock is correct twice a day. Ignoring his argument based on his character is an ad hominem fallacy. I look at the picture like this: It doesn't matter who it is that is making the accusation, there may be something to their argument and there may yet be some good that can come from it. So, instead of lambasting the guy for his argument, could we get some information on his claims? It appears as though he is suggesting that there are some irregularities in the justice system that pertain to the prosecution of Muslim men that are suspected of child sexual abuse. He claims that these cases aren't always properly investigated or that the perpetrators of crimes are let-off with lesser sentences. Incidents such as the
Rochdale child sex abuse ring case and
accusations that police in London did not properly investigate violence in an area of the city or covered up a "violent campaign to turn [a] London area 'Islamic' " are held to suggest that there is a widespread phenomenon of turning a blind eye against crimes perpetrated by Muslims in the UK. There appears to be a belief by some that there are systematic cover-ups in UK society regarding child sexual abuse:
The BBC reported in 2014 that those that are charged with protecting children from a ring of sexual abusers in Rotherham failed to do so despite three reports on their abuse from 2002 to 2006. It is claimed that senior officers didn't accept the data from these reports or suggested that the claims were exaggerated. A Commissioner for the Victims commented that "It's deeply distressing how the authorities failed to protect these young people and their voices were not heard."
A group of researchers into the response of the public and authorities to child sexual abuse claim that historically policies have failed to protect children, calling for "firm leadership and transparent management". They report that historically children making allegations of sexual abuse were not believed and even those campaigning against perpetrators of child abuse could often not believe who the perpetrators of these crimes were. Further they stipulate that "[d]espite strong pressures for change, institutions may not easily learn from their mistakes."
Referring to malpractice in
a paper for the Adam Smith Institute, Tim Ambler notes that "The inclination of those in charge, however, is to conceal it." He further suggests that misconduct can be hard to prove since those inside the bodies guilty of misconducting themselves aren't likely to volunteer information, often deliberately conceal it and even consider their conduct to be in the best interest of society since they are attempting to uphold public confidence.
It is within this context that one should understand the perspective of someone of the viewpoint that institutions aren't fully living up to their obligations and consequently views their conduct with suspicion. These examples suggest to us that their viewpoints may be founded on at least some goodwill even if exaggerated or paranoid. Other agendas outside of these are of little consequence when attempting to view the issue that they claim to be focusing on objectively.
That said... what little coverage I could find of cases involving sexual abuse by Muslim perpetrators, does not indicate any significant abnormalities (at least in my uneducated view). According to Wikipedia most of the direct perpetrators of the
Rotherham child sexual abuse scandal who crimes could be pinned on were given sentences that appear to be proportionate to their crime spanning from 5 to 35 years, depending on the charge. I could also find not suggestion that the media refuse to cover crimes by Muslims in the UK as there appears to be an abundance of articles on such crimes, when uncovered.
My take-away from it all is this:
Irrelevant of the source of information, its validity must be investigated seriously.
Despite no clear evidence of authorities systemically ignoring crimes by Muslims, care should be taken that ideology and ignorance does not lead to either a cover-up or exaggeration of their crimes in order to protect the rights of any individual.