England has literally given less jail time to migrant rapists.
Consider: A Muslim man who tried to stab an activist for burning the Quran was spared jail time this year.
Luke Yarwood was upset about the 2024 Christmas market attack in Magdeburg, Germany, where a Saudi man plowed full-speed into a crowd of people, injuring dozens. The Islamic jihadi had also rigged his car with explosives that failed to detonate.
In anger, he tweeted several posts that were seen by a handful of people.
From the Daily Mail:
Siobhan Linsley, prosecuting, said Yarwood's 'extremely unpleasant posts' had the potential to trigger disorder at one of three high-profile migrant hotels in Bournemouth, Dorset, near to where he lives.
His barrister argued the posts had 33 views between them and were the 'impotent rantings of a socially isolated man' that had no 'real-world' consequences.
But Judge Jonathan Fuller said Yarwood's 'odious' tweets were designed to stir up racial hatred and incite violence, and jailed him.
What was so "odious"?
Yarwood responded to a post that stated thousands of Germans were taking to the streets and they wanted their country back.
Yarwood replied: 'Head for the hotels housing them and burn them to the ground.'
He also had this to say:
I think it's time for the British to gang together, hit the streets and start the slaughter. Violence and murder is the only way now. Start off burning every migrant hotel then head off to MPs' houses and Parliament, we need to take over by FORCE.
That is incitement to violence, and incitement to violence definitely meets the threshold for prosecution, even in free nations like the United States. Calling for "violence and murder" would get me, a red-blooded American, arrested in a heartbeat.
The question, then, is not whether these posts met the legal threshold for criminal charges, but whether the sentence fits the crime. Why is a Muslim man who ran at someone with a knife forgiven for his "outburst" when a man who posted angry words gets 18 months in jail?
When a British man gets angry that another Muslim killed people in an idyllic shopping village at Christmastime in a sustained pattern of Muslim violence amid a flood of mass immigration, does it warrant throwing the book at him?
I'm starting to understand why the American Founding Fathers wrote this:
That, however, has always been the difference between the UK and the US. The UK has to be harsher with any calls to rebel against the government, because it knows full well what happened the last time its subjects rebelled.
What's new is the way the Crown imposes "justice." The political Left has spent years arguing that destruction of private property and looting is necessary to affect change, and is largely allowed to do it without consequence. The same is true with Muslims, who are given grace time-after-time for serious crimes.
Consider the man named "Jihad" who was released on bail after being charged with rape, which allowed him to go stab Jews at a synagogue:
Perhaps the lesson in double standards is that something bigger than burning down hotels is needed: Perhaps some tea in a harbor?
(I'll be over here polishing my many guns if British police want to fly over to try and arrest me for thoughtcrime.)
And yet, even in the "land of the free," our authorities are sometimes tyrannical in their use of force.
Consider the elderly Utah man who joked about assassinating Biden and got killed in a no-knock, early-morning raid on his house, even though no one saw his Facebook posts.
While we ponder the current state of liberty in the world, Yarwood's brother-in-law who reported him to the police instead of talking to him about his anger might want to get ready.
18 months goes by quicker than you'd think.
P.S. Now check out our latest video 👇
