Christians arrested for defending their beliefs - Page 2

Osem · 20-09-2009, 10:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart C

How would Christians react if a Muslim insulted their way of life in a similar way.

They may/may not react in similar fashion but the real question is would the police get involved and would the case come to court?

In any event, given the abject failure of the authorities to deal with the far more serious abuse and harrassment suffered by this family over a period of years, I think most people would think this incident is trivial by comparison and ought not to be occupying the Courts.

Derek · 20-09-2009, 10:23

Quote:

Neil Addison, a prominent criminal barrister and expert in religious law, said: ‘The purpose of the Public Order Act is to prevent disorder, but I’m very concerned that the police are using it merely because someone is offended.

Hmmm, whilst having exceptionally limited knowledge of the Public Order Act from what I do know I wouldn't have thought it should applied in cases like this.

Still the CPS know best. Considering the levels of evidence they demand before they authorise charging (thankfully not in Scotland. Yay!) they must reckon they've got a decent case and chance of conviction.

20-09-2009, 10:28

yeah either that or some Muslim pressure group said charge them or we will cry discrimination

**Maggy** · 20-09-2009, 10:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osem

They may/may not react in similar fashion but the real question is would the police get involved and would the case come to court?

In any event, given the abject failure of the authorities to deal with the far more serious abuse and harrassment suffered by this family over a period of years, I think most people would think this incident is trivial by comparison and ought not to be occupying the Courts.

I cannot disagree with you over that one.Seems to me though that the case in question here has a good chance of being proven and adds another tick to the stats sheets..whereas the suicide pair were viewed as nuisances because it would have been more time consuming to chase up and there was a severe shortage of staff on hand because they were probably all busy writing up reports in triplicate.

Stuart · 20-09-2009, 10:31

There is a massive difference between criticising and insulting. I would say that the Christians in this case did the latter. Criticism can be justified. Insults cannot.

We don't know the full details, but based upon available evidence, I do think that at most, this should be a civil (and not criminal) offence, and should have been sorted long before it reached court.

Russ · 20-09-2009, 10:34

Seeing as Christianity doesn't say that Mohammed was a warlord etc this is more about a Muslim person (apparently) getting offended by something the couple supposedly said.

I wouldn't mind betting she had 'encouragement' to take action but in any case the fact the couple are Christians has as I see it, nothing to do with this at all. Just the usual Daily Mail "Muslims are taking over" BS.

Xaccers · 20-09-2009, 10:43

I'd imagine the conversation didn't stop with calling Mohammed a warlord, but went on to suggest he was a paedophile too.

Russ · 20-09-2009, 10:46

I'm guessing those with a fondness for putting words in people's mouths would consider anything fair game if it whips up some controversy. Good old Daily Mail and its fans.

nomadking · 20-09-2009, 10:50

I don't think that the couple being Christians had anything to do with it, but with being anything but a Muslim. Do you think that if it had been a fellow Muslim says whatever had been said, that a complaint, never mind a charge would have been made?

It's not as if the couple originated the views allegedly expressed, many people(including many Muslims) have been expressing them for a long time.
Link

**Damien** · 20-09-2009, 10:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking

I don't think that the couple being Christians had anything to do with it, but with being anything but a Muslim. Do you think that if it had been a fellow Muslim says whatever had been said, that a complaint, never mind a charge would have been made?

It's not as if the couple originated the views allegedly expressed, many people(including many Muslims) have been expressing them for a long time.
Link

You don't know what they said. The full details of what they said cannot be revealed for 'legal reasons'.

nomadking · 20-09-2009, 10:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

You don't know what they said. The full details of what they said cannot be revealed for 'legal reasons'.

Hence the use of phrases such as 'whatever had been said' and 'views allegedly expressed'.

**Hugh** · 20-09-2009, 11:11

From one side.....

nomadking · 20-09-2009, 11:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by foreverwar

From one side.....

But from the side that will have legal documents from the CPS to back up what they say they have been accused of.

Xaccers · 20-09-2009, 11:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking

But from the side that will have legal documents from the CPS to back up what they say they have been accused of.

No, from the side that has been published by the media in the way the media wish to present it.

nomadking · 20-09-2009, 11:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xaccers

No, from the side that has been published by the media in the way the media wish to present it.

They and the CPS are the ones with copies of the legal documents. They can prove what they are being accused of, which is the issue here, not what actually did or didn't happen. The case will be Crown v ...., not X v Y.

When a Jehovah's Witness calls at my door and I explain that I don't believe in God, am I likely to get arrested as a result? What if I criticise their beliefs with regard to blood transfusions?