A Belfast man has been released on bail after appearing in court on a charge connected to material described as a “religious tract”.
Glen Kane, 58, of Riga Street in Belfast, is charged with possession of written material to stir up hatred under the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987.
His defence lawyer has said the publication is widely available online and is essentially a “religious tract”.
While a number of people have appeared in courts in Northern Ireland on charges connected with recent rioting and all been remanded, Kane’s case was described as “standing apart” as he was not accused of rioting.
Kane appeared before Belfast Magistrates’ Court on Monday, where his connection to the charge was challenged.
A police constable told the court that on August 10th, police searched a property under a warrant on Riga Street and seized UVF badges, a Britain First keytag, a UVF flag, LVF flag, UVF picture, a British National Party DVD, two Britain First hats, a UFF snood and about 100 copies of a publication.
The name of the publication was withheld in court but was described as referring to the country’s immigration crisis.
The constable said Kane was arrested for possession of material intended or likely to stir up racial hatred with a view to distribution.
The constable said police have concerns about the publication’s content.
“Police would say there are some aspects of the publication which are considered to be threatening, abusive or insulting and appear calculated to stirring up hatred or arouse fear of immigrants of a particular faith if distributed and read by members of the public,” she said.
“Police would say the seizure of the above noted items as a whole must be considered here against the offences being put before the court today.
“It’s widely regarded that the BNP and Britain First are political organisations who represent the far right of the political spectrum, conduct campaigns against multi-culturalism.”
She said that during interview Kane admitted attended a gathering at Belfast City Hall on Saturday, August 3rd, and said he went along to have a look and did not attend any riot.
He also said that “someone unknown” had left the two boxes on his doorstep, and that he had read some of it.
A defence lawyer told the court that the publication referred to is “religious commentary”, to which the constable agreed, adding that the author’s name and detail of the publishers are on it.
“It is in fact a religious organisation that published that commentary, and that religious organisation is a legitimate religious organisation with a Charity Commission charity number,” he said, and asked the constable whether there was any evidence of distribution.
He said: “It’s available for download online, this is not a handwritten bizarre manifesto of some description, it’s a religious commentary.
“If there was material, which hasn’t been suggested to the court by the prosecution service, that was a call to action, that was effectively saying, ‘we must attack, we must do something’ that would potentially be against the law, that’s a very different matter,” he said.
“We can all have different views, we can all express those views, we can all commit those views to writing and we can all publish those views, and if you’re in a situation where those views offend somebody else, that in itself ought not to, in itself, be sufficient ground to any charge before the court in my submission and certainly not this charge.
“This charge clearly is not aimed at the idea of someone who has something which is a akin to a glorified tract in their house, and then is in a position where police can say, ‘we don’t actually know if you’ve distributed this’.
“I think the situation is there are plenty of things that we disapprove of, but to be in a position where you are saying that something that appears to be legitimately published, it’s not something that has just appeared this minute.
“It appears to have been online for some considerable time, presumably has been distributed for some considerable time, has not been taken down from the internet and remains freely available.”
District Judge Michael Ranaghan rose briefly to read the publication.
Returning to court, the judge said he did not believe Kane’s explanation of the publications appearing on his doorstep, describing it as a “tall story”.
He said the publication might be a legal publication, but added its content is “cleared aimed at stirring up some form of hatred”.
“That content is at the very least insulting and very much aimed at one particular part of society, and this is an open society and all should be free to live in an open society,” he said.
“The test for connection is low. In this case I can find that he is connected to the offence.”
Police opposed bail on the risk of committing further offences and risk of harm of the public.
The constable described a context of a “huge spike” in public disorder with racial undertones in parts of the UK this month, and police in Belfast receiving multiple reports of racially aggravated assaults.
“The disorder is, without doubt, the worst Belfast city has seen for a number of years,” she added.
The defence lawyer said his client is not accused of taking part in any of the disorder, and said there is no proof that the publication had been distributed.
“There is a question mark over this material. It’s in his house but there is no indication that that has been used in any way to foster any of the current discontent and more than that, no indication that this man has been involved in any of that, so I would say that this very much stands apart from the current run of cases that are before the court,” he said.
He said his client also has strong ties to the community, including caring for a family member.
Judge Ranaghan granted bail with a number of conditions, including being excluded from Belfast city centre, not to be involved in any form of unlawful protest and signing bail at a police station once a week.
He told the defendant: “You need to behave yourself Mr Kane. This offence is still there and I have no doubt that police have eyes on you. You need to be very careful going forward.”
