Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking
I don't think the real issue should be whether or not he was a warlord, but whether someone is allowed to freely claim that he was and, just as equally, someone should be allowed to freely claim that he wasn't.
|
No one has said anyone can't, just as no one has said this is why they were charged - it's what else that was said (that we don't know about/has not been reported) that
may be the reason for the Public Order offence.
If you read further down the article, the defendant's solicitor states
Quote:
|
They are committed Christians and it is the defence’s contention that they have every right to defend their religious beliefs and explain those beliefs to others who do not hold similar views.’
|
It all, imho, depends what is meant by "
explaining those beliefs to others that do not hold similar views" - we have had posters on this forum whose idea of "explaining their beliefs" was to verbally attack, in a virulent and abusive manner, those who did not agree with them; but I am sure it will all come out in the trial.