Breitbart London has this story about a 75-year-old British retiree who was harassed by authorities for six months before charges were finally dropped.
His crime? As he was being forced by airport security to remove his shoes, he remarked, "I'm not a Muslim, am I?"
The security guard accused him of racism and called the police, telling them that he had been upset by the remark. After taking him to an office to be interviewed, the police allowed him to continue on his journey only to arrest him a week later as he was passing back through the airport.
That causes me to wonder if the screener was a Muslim. We can't discriminate, right? Also, since when does making another person "upset" constitute a crime of any sort anywhere?
A threat for the purpose of intimidating someone can be a crime -- unless you work for the IRS or are a cop. There's no evidence, as the police eventually admitted, that Mr. Griffith was attempting to intimidate or do anything other than express his exasperation and disgust at the thought that he was being treated -- without good reason -- as a criminal.
When you think about it, all these searches and ridiculous restrictions at airports are "unreasonable searches". Ninety-nine point nine-nine-nine-nine percent of airline passengers would really like for the plane to stay in the air until it is supposed to land. But everyone of us who boards a plane is treated like a Muslim suicide bomber. That's not reasonable.
Another point to all this:
His case was adjourned by the Magistrates and was due to be heard last Thursday, but with just 24 hours to go the Crown Prosecution Service dropped the charge, as they conceded that there was not enough evidence to mount a case.So we have the tax money and police resources wasted on an investigation because a screener was upset. Meanwhile, I'm sure there were actual crimes being committed that could have used those resources. This is one reason that the whole idea of a "hate crime" is so contrary to good sense. Cars are being stolen, homes burglarized, people being assaulted and even murdered, but the government thinks it has unlimited resources such that it can waste time and money and manpower prosecuting a 75-year-old man with a bit of a sense of humor.
“I have never fallen foul of the law before and the whole affair has been a complete waste of police time, the court’s time, my time as well as taxpayers’ money. It has been incredibly stressful – all because I asked a question and apparently dared to use the M word,” Mr Griffiths said.
Frank Ferguson Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor for CPS East of England, commented “Following receipt of the evidential file a full review of the evidence took place.
“In order to successfully prosecute a charge of racially or religiously aggravated disorderly conduct, we first have to show that the language used was threatening or abusive and in these particular circumstances we could not show that to the high criminal standard required.”
If the government and prosecutors and police departments have those kinds of resources, I need a tax cut.