One city is Leeds, where prosecutor Rodney Jameson QC told the Crown Court that Nick Griffin had said:-

This wicked, vicious faith has expanded from a handful of cranky lunatics about 1300 years ago.

And if you read that book (the Koran), you’ll find that that’s what they want.

The other city is London, where prosecutor David Perry QC told the Old Bailey that Mizanur Rahman had said:-

Oh Allah, we want to see another 9/11 in Iraq, in Denmark, in Spain, in France ... all over Europe. Oh Allah, destroy all of them.

... The Mujahideen will destroy them and their freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan, in Falluja and in Baghdad.

We don’t want to see them in Baghdad, in Iraq any more.  We want to see them coming home in body bags, we want to see their blood running in the streets of Baghdad, we want to see their blood running in Fallujah.

We want to see the Mujahideen shoot down their planes the way we shoot down birds.  We want to see their tanks burn in the way we burn their flags.

Well, no doubt one Muslim a faith does not make.  But in the absence of a clear poll of naive Moslem opinion (ie not tailored for consumption by the kufrs) ... in the absence of knowing how many “British” Moslems want Coalition Forces defeated in Iraq and Afghanistan, how many in their hearts root for the “Mujahideen”, how many greet the home-coming dead, the flaming tanks, the shot-down aircraft with thanks to Allah or at least with indifference ... in the absence of all this how can one conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Mizanur Rahman is at odds with his co-religionists.  Or that Griffin was wrong?

If Griffin is found guilty it will not only be because the liberal Establishment desires it so but because, in our secular humanitarian fog, we assume that the Moslem mind is much like our own.  We assume that religion to Moslems must be as religion is to us, though we make no allowance for their mean IQ, their general temperament, their mores, their social and racial histories.

Simple-minded humanitarian presumptions are not proof.  They are prejudice.  But under British law they are not enough.  The burden of proof, not presumption, rests with the prosecution.

Griffin’s silk should have demanded that to prove his client guilty the prosecution must prove Islam pacific.  He must prove that there is insufficient wickedness and viciousness along its bloody borders to render Griffin’s statement untrue, and therefore truly nothing but incitement to racial hatred.

(Yes, I know by heart the meme that truth is no defence against the slippery charge of “using words and behaviour likely to incite racial hatred”.  But this stratagem is about proving Islam as it is practised by ordinary Moslems is not as described by Griffin.  Only the presumption of innocence attaches to him, which means that to remain within the law when he gave that speech at the Reservoir Tavern Griffin would have had to knowingly lied, on which basis no jury would convict.)