Religiously-aggravated Public Order Offences

[Chinahand]

I trully believe that the UK legal system has got itself into a ridiculous situation over protecting religions.

 

Public Order laws exist - I think the idea that you need to "protect" religious believers using separate laws which make their beliefs in some way more precious than any other's is a dangerous wrong, which too quickly results in books being banned, artists being attacked, and people running to the police when their beliefs are criticized.

 

It ends up with situations like this. As long as the facts are as stated, I really hope this case gets thrown out of court and the Crown Prosecuter who brought it is dismissed for wasting the courts time.

 

There is no way whatsoever these laws should be used in circumstances like this.

 

Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang are charged with breaching Section 5 of the Public Order Act – causing harassment, alarm or distress. If convicted, they face fines of £2,500 each and a criminal record.

 

The Muslim woman was staying at the Bounty House Hotel in Liverpool, which is run by the Vogelenzangs, when a conversation arose between the hoteliers and their guest about her faith.

 

It is understood that among the topics debated was whether Jesus was a minor prophet, as Islam teaches, or whether he was the Son of God, as Christianity teaches.

 

Among the things Mr Vogelenzang, 53, is alleged to have said is that Mohammad was a warlord. His wife, 54, is said to have stated that Muslim dress is a form of bondage for women.

 

The conversation, on March 20, was reported by the woman to Merseyside Police. Officers told the couple that they wanted to interview them over the incident. After being questioned on April 20, they were interrogated again three months later before being charged on July 29 with a religiously-aggravated public order offence.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I absolutely agree. I read this in the paper yesterday and it is just SO wrong this that (somehow) religion is being accorded this level of respect that it is seen to be a criminal matter when people are offended due to having their religion criticised. I mean, what is going on?

 

If anything religions themselves are worthy of disrespect given what they are. (although not the person as such, though this is a tricky matter).

 

If I believe in ghosts, fairies, unicorns, monsters, and the strict meanings of what is given in ancient tomes written by people over two thousands centuries ago and somebody said "That's a load of rubbish" or "I think so-and-so was some savage or barbarian" then what deems that worthy of punishment? And this doesn't even touch on how religions in our society involve the mental abuse of children, clear fabrications in the scripture, a resulting mentality of servitude and many other things.

 

I hope this case becomes a massive issue and is very well publicised and then have this ridiculous situation ended by the courts.

 

And who can deny that Mohammed was a paedophilic, warlord, slave-owner, misguided fool or manipulative trickster. Well...maybe just a lot of Muslims.

[Cronky]

Here is another example of how the UK is clamping down on free speech:

 

Relligious Posters banned in Camden

 

CAMDEN council has been criticised by representatives of all major religions after banning a community poster from its libraries because it is too religious. Campaign group Climate Change is a Christian Issue (CCCI) wanted to advertise their St Francis Weekend event on the environment in Kentish Town library but they were refused because the A4 poster (pictured) contained religious words.

 

What the heck was wrong with that?

[Terse]

A LINK TO the story

 

Chinahand seems to have missed out the rather heavy emphasis on the hoteliers being 'Christians.' I suspect that the 'robust exchange' may have been rather more than the defence claims and that it may, perhaps, have amounted to unpleasant abuse.

If that is the case then the woman, who was staying at the hotel while being treated at a nearby hospital, may be perfectly justified in making a complaint.

Wait for all of the facts to emerge before rushing into judgements.

[bluemonday]

And who can deny that Mohammed was a paedophilic, warlord, slave-owner, misguided fool or manipulative trickster. Well...maybe just a lot of Muslims.

 

If that gets out, your postman will demand extra insurance - and body armour.

 

All this fuss about idiots arguing over whose invisible friend is best.

The inane lurch into stupidity gathers pace.

[jehovah]

I had to check, really disappointed that it was in the torygraph and not the mail, thought they'd learned after the war.

[P.K.]

Among the things Mr Vogelenzang, 53, is alleged to have said is that Mohammad was a warlord. His wife, 54, is said to have stated that Muslim dress is a form of bondage for women.

There is no law against telling the truth. But the point is these people have complained because some infidel had the temerity to point out the bleeding obvious. Now our culture is that we take the piss out of religion, do not have Sharia Law and do not subjugate our women. Now if this pair don't like our culture they can leave our country because the non-Muslims, i.e. the other 97% of the population, are sick to death of the likes of this pair taking the piss out of our tolerance.

 

These clowns are also recruiting for the BNP. Idiots.

[Chinahand]

Among the things Mr Vogelenzang, 53, is alleged to have said is that Mohammad was a warlord. His wife, 54, is said to have stated that Muslim dress is a form of bondage for women.

There is no law against telling the truth. But the point is these people have complained because some infidel had the temerity to point out the bleeding obvious. Now our culture is that we take the piss out of religion, do not have Sharia Law and do not subjugate our women. Now if this pair don't like our culture they can leave our country because the non-Muslims, i.e. the other 97% of the population, are sick to death of the likes of this pair taking the piss out of our tolerance.

 

These clowns are also recruiting for the BNP. Idiots.

 

????

 

PK did you even read the article - "this pair" aren't taking the piss out of anyone's tolerance - they are being prosecuted because the CPS agrees with a Muslim lady that when they argued about religion with her they used 'threatening, abusive or insulting words' which were ' religiously aggravated'.

 

If this is down to words like "warlord" and "bondage" its dreadful.

 

 

I've said already that as long as the facts are as they're stated in the article then it shows that these types of laws are being used totally inappropriately - something we were assured wouldn't happen when these laws were passed and Rowan Atkinson etc protested against them.

 

Edited to add Rowan Atkinson link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4073997.stm

[P.K.]

Not my best effort then!

 

I meant that the Muslims should be told to take a hike because the 97% white christian part of our population are sick to death of their intolerance.

[matty]

Not my best effort then!

 

I meant that the Muslims should be told to take a hike because the 97% white christian part of our population are sick to death of their intolerance.

 

What percentage of the whole population is the 97% white christian part?

 

10% maybe?

[bluemonday]

And I'd suggest knee jerk reactions by the police as in this case will only help build more resentment.

 

It's events like this that polarise joe public.

[Terse]

"The couple, who are members of the Bootle Christian Fellowship, and their solicitor, David Whiting, said they could not discuss the content of the conversation for legal reasons. But the independent lobby group, the Christian Institute, which has seen both the prosecution and defence legal papers, is supporting their defence."

 

They're proselytizing bastards! And since when was the 'Christian Institute' an independent lobby group?

 

Methinks I smell a longtail.

[P.K.]

And I'd suggest knee jerk reactions by the police as in this case will only help build more resentment.

 

It's events like this that polarise joe public.

It's events like this that mean votes for the BNP.

[jimbms]

I wonder if they may take offence to my book to rival the satanic verses, I've named it "Was Buddah a fat bastard"

[La_Dolce_Vita]

"The couple, who are members of the Bootle Christian Fellowship, and their solicitor, David Whiting, said they could not discuss the content of the conversation for legal reasons. But the independent lobby group, the Christian Institute, which has seen both the prosecution and defence legal papers, is supporting their defence."

 

They're proselytizing bastards! And since when was the 'Christian Institute' an independent lobby group?

 

Methinks I smell a longtail.

You think they were prosetysing when this happened or was the reason? So what? I don't know why you have a clear uncertainty about even considering whether this is wrong. I would like to know more, but I don't think I need to as this clearly seems to be a free speech issue with particular emphasis on the disrespect of some ancient guy who is venerated by Muslims.