In Britain, Two-Tier Policing and a Two-Tier Judiciary

Civil disorder is rife in the United Kingdom. Axel Muganwa Rudakubana, a 17-year-old born in the United Kingdom to Christian immigrants from Rwanda, killed three young girls and injured others in a knife attack at a dance class on July 29. However, his name was initially undisclosed to the public because he was under 18, which led to speculation that he was a Muslim immigrant or an asylum-seeker. This speculation sparked violent riots against immigration and similarly intense counter-protests nationwide. Now, over 1,000 people have been arrested in relation to the riots, with charges ranging from violent disorder to other, speech-related offenses.

Law enforcement’s response to the chaos has renewed claims of “two-tier policing,” the idea in the United Kingdom that the police treat right-wingers more severely than they do other groups. According to the British mainstream media, two-tier policing is a “far-right conspiracy theory,” a “myth,” a “trope,” and a “laughable” notion, even though such publications previously condemned the police force as irreparably biased in other ways. Despite the media’s narrative, the British increasingly believe “two-tier policing” exists: A recent YouGov poll in Britain found that a third of respondents think that “those of the far-right” are treated more strictly by the police, while over 20 percent said “climate activists” and “those of the far left” are treated more leniently. But regardless of whether there is two-tier policing targeting right-wing individuals, the evidence overwhelmingly suggests a two-tier judiciary in the United Kingdom, wherein speech or protest deemed dangerous is punished harshly while other behavior brings about sentences akin to a time-out on the playground.

The same judges who sentence rioters to time behind bars prescribe sunshine and an outdoor lifestyle to other criminals. This month, for example, Judge Mark Bury sentenced three men to over two years in prison each for violent disorder at a riot against immigration. Yet just a few weeks ago, Judge Bury advised Simon Pritchett, who possessed several hundred indecent images of children, to “get out more” because “what you have been doing over an 18-month period is downloading and retaining indecent images of children and extreme pornography images.” Rather than sentence Pritchett to prison, Bury suggested that he “get some fresh air and meet people.” {snip}

The judiciary is also severely punishing those whose conduct and speech might have facilitated the riots. Judge Benedict Kelleher, for instance, sentenced David Spring to 18 months in prison for threatening gestures toward police and joining chants of “who the f*** is Allah?” Kelleher told Spring that “what you did could and it seems did encourage others to engage in disorder,” and merited a punishment to deter others from similar conduct. Yet this very month, that same judge gave Ozzie Cush only a 46-week detention for assaulting a police officer at a demonstration. Cush already had two prior convictions related to criminal damage. {snip}

One need not attend a protest in the United Kingdom to be associated with the riots because now all online speech — including tiny pictograms — are adjudicated in the current circumstances of civil disorder. Judge John Temperley sent Billy Thompson to prison for twelve weeks for posting a comment on Facebook that said “filthy ba*****s” with the emojis of an ethnic person and a gun. Temperley suspected “a racial element to the messaging and the posting of these emojis” {snip} Apparently, Temperley cares about offensive pictograms but not illegal pictures: In 2022, Temperley gave no prison time to Christopher Emmens, who pleaded guilty to five offenses relating to 46 indecent images of children. {snip}

{snip}

Indeed, the British courts evaluate the mental state of a defendant, which includes punishing perceived right-leaning thoughts harsher than behaviors associated with child predators. Earlier this year, Samuel Melia printed and distributed stickers that the Crown Prosecution Service described as “expressing views of a nationalist nature” with the intent to “stir up racial hatred.” The stickers had phrases like “It’s OK to be white,” “Reject white guilt,” and “They seek conquest, not asylum.” Judge Tom Bayliss said “the publication of this kind of material is corrosive to our society,” further telling Melia that “I am quite sure that your mindset is that of a racist and a white supremacist.” Bayliss sentenced Melia to two years in prison. Yet in 2017, Bayliss spared a man from jail who possessed child and bestiality pornography, stating, “I don’t pretend for one moment to know what possesses someone like you to get sexual pleasure from watching children as young as three, or six or seven being raped because that is what you are watching.” Bayliss thus illuminated a two-tier framework for responsibility: A “white supremacist” is guilty for holding that “mindset,” but a pedophile who watches raped toddlers is “possessed” by some nebulous external force.

{snip}