Christians arrested for defending their beliefs

Originally Posted by Xaccers

They were arrested and charged under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 and Section 31 (1) (c) and (5) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
What exactly was said is unknown to us, the statement given on behalf of the couple (as I said, they've gone to the press) is that they called Mohammed a Warlord and referred to a form of islamic dress as a form of bondage. That could be as accurate as saying Hitler wasn't very fond of Jews.
I see you've resorted to the usual ignorant comment that Mohammed was a paedophile, applying todays values to another time.
You appear to be confused, firstly Islam is not a race, secondly, religions have no rights, people have rights, are you honestly saying that some people should have fewer rights than others because of their religious beliefs?


Oh and just to add, I don't remember seeing in the forum T&Cs a time limit for suggesting a topic title be modified, perhaps you could do me a favour and quote the part that does say that?

The act they were arrested under was brought in to deal with different circumstances, the police in this case have imo applied the wrong act.
What they " allegedly " said is fact.
Do you not get that?
My " ignorant " comment is fact too, he was known to have had sex with underage girls, how would you feel if it were your daughter?
I am not confused at all Xaccers, do grow up, it is apparent from the upcoming court case that some people do have less rights than others.
It is seen as fair play for muslims to say what they wish about the christian faith with no action taken, can you not see that either?
Feel free to explain why, given the circumstances, that the title should be changed?
Two sides to every argument Xaccers, which you and some on here seem to ignore conveniently.

---------- Post added at 12:09 ---------- Previous post was at 12:06 ----------

Originally Posted by Saaf_laandon_mo

Their opinion? Or their faith?

Both?
Freedom of speech?
Saaf, is it right that no action is taken over muslim protestors holding blood thirsty placards calling for the death of our troops?
IMO if two people are arrested over a heated debate, regardless what it is about, does it not stink ?
Feel free to answer.

[Xaccers]

You know, I could have sworn that there have been arrests of people who waved placards insulting our troops, aren't some of them due to appear in court this month, and another group in the new year?

Your scenario is faulty in two aspects -
a) There were no placards calling for the death of our troops (the protestors were idiots, imho, and their placards had slogans including: "Anglian Soldiers: Butchers of Basra" and "Anglian Soldiers: cowards, killers, extremists", but nothing about calling for the deaths of our troops).
b) Defending their faith - we have no evidence of that; all we know is that the proprietors of a hotel got into an argument based on religious matters - we do not know who verbally attacked who.

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

Is that so Flyboy?
So tell me, do you not think that problems can arise when one group is perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be favoured over another?
I will give you two scenarios, then you tell me whether you feel action should be taken in both cases, not just one.
Muslim protestors are exercising their freedom of speech by standing on a public highway holding blood thirsty placards calling for the death of our troops.
No muslims are arrested in the above.
Is that right?
Second scenario, three people are involved in a heated debate about religion in a hotel with its doors firmly shut.
The christian couple are arrested defending their faith.
Is that right? if so tell me the difference between the two scenarios, and why the latter requires more attention by our police?

that certainly puts a chip on my shoulder and imo its legal discrimination

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Your scenario is faulty in two aspects -
a) There were no placards calling for the death of our troops (the protestors were idiots, imho, and their placards had slogans including: "Anglian Soldiers: Butchers of Basra" and "Anglian Soldiers: cowards, killers, extremists", but nothing about calling for the deaths of our troops).
b) Defending their faith - we have no evidence of that; all we know is that the proprietors of a hotel got into an argument based on religious matters - we do not know who verbally attacked who.

Its not faulty at all.
The scenario of the muslim protestors was more likely to cause a reaction on a greater scale than an argument in a kitchen.

---------- Post added at 12:21 ---------- Previous post was at 12:19 ----------

Originally Posted by Xaccers

You know, I could have sworn that there have been arrests of people who waved placards insulting our troops, aren't some of them due to appear in court this month, and another group in the new year?

Feel free to show me Xaccers.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

The act they were arrested under was brought in to deal with different circumstances, the police in this case have imo applied the wrong act.
What they " allegedly " said is fact.
Do you not get that?
My " ignorant " comment is fact too, he was known to have had sex with underage girls, how would you feel if it were your daughter?
I am not confused at all Xaccers, do grow up, it is apparent from the upcoming court case that some people do have less rights than others.
It is seen as fair play for muslims to say what they wish about the christian faith with no action taken, can you not see that either?
Feel free to explain why, given the circumstances, that the title should be changed?
Two sides to every argument Xaccers, which you and some on here seem to ignore conveniently.

---------- Post added at 12:09 ---------- Previous post was at 12:06 ----------



Both?
Freedom of speech?
Saaf, is it right that no action is taken over muslim protestors holding blood thirsty placards calling for the death of our troops?
IMO if two people are arrested over a heated debate, regardless what it is about, does it not stink ?
Feel free to answer.

Now you're really not making sense. Other than arrest having been made regarding the placard wavers, how is mohammed being a warlord part of christianity? I've read the bible several times, and you know, I don't ever recall him being referenced, perhaps, along with the entry in the forum's T&C which I mentioned earlier, you could quote any biblical passages which mention mohammed?
Shouldn't be difficult for you to recall them, after all, one would presume you know what you're talking about right? Or perhaps you don't?
In your opinion the law wasn't created to protect people from being insulted, abused, or harrased unless by a large group of thugs right?
Again you seem confused. The legislation is clear.
As for you other ignorant comment, you are applying today's British values and law on another nation in another time, and you don't appear to be aware that you are doing it.

[Saaf_laandon_mo]

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

Both?
Freedom of speech?
Saaf, is it right that no action is taken over muslim protestors holding blood thirsty placards calling for the death of our troops?
IMO if two people are arrested over a heated debate, regardless what it is about, does it not stink ?
Feel free to answer.

1. I don't think they were defending their Christian beliefs, which is what you are implying they were doing.

2. I think freedom of speech should not give you the right to say whatever you want. (And if yo thing otherwise then you would not be bothered about the muslim protestors as they are only exercising their f'reedom of speech').

3. I do think muslims protesting in the manner that the ones at the home coming parade are out of order. If a complaint has been made, and they were subsequently arrested (of which I think some were) then I would have no qualms with that. As far as I am aware action has been taken.

4. If I am in a heated debate with you and say, for example you started being racist towards me (I'm not saying this happened here) then I would have no problem with you being arrested. In all honesty we still don't know why they were arrested (i.e. we don't know what was said), so maybe we should wait for the conclusion of this case before we make assumptions.

Can I ask a question.

Would you have had a problem if this couple were not Christians, and it was A Christian woman taking them to court for something they had said to her.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

The act they were arrested under was brought in to deal with different circumstances, the police in this case have imo applied the wrong act.
What they " allegedly " said is fact.
Do you not get that?
My " ignorant " comment is fact too, he was known to have had sex with underage girls, how would you feel if it were your daughter?
I am not confused at all Xaccers, do grow up, it is apparent from the upcoming court case that some people do have less rights than others.
It is seen as fair play for muslims to say what they wish about the christian faith with no action taken, can you not see that either?
Feel free to explain why, given the circumstances, that the title should be changed?
Two sides to every argument Xaccers, which you and some on here seem to ignore conveniently.

---------- Post added at 12:09 ---------- Previous post was at 12:06 ----------




Both?
Freedom of speech?
Saaf, is it right that no action is taken over muslim protestors holding blood thirsty placards calling for the death of our troops?
IMO if two people are arrested over a heated debate, regardless what it is about, does it not stink ?
Feel free to answer.

Not wanting to repeat what has already been said, but these people were not just arrested for "defending their faith," they were arrested for public order offences. The doors of the hotel were not firmly shut, as there were other guests who clearly heard what was being said, that makes it a public place. The public order act was enacted to combat, amongst other things, harassment, distress and alarm caused by people behaving in way that would cause such things, obviously this is what is alleged to have happened.

No one here has less rights than any other person and I think it is disingenuous of anyone to suggest that there is.

This whole "paedophile" thing is starting ti get disturbing now. You are doing your utmost to construct a strawman argument out of something that allegedly happened one thousand five hundred years ago. If you want to go that route, I'd be very careful about quoting scripture about "paedophilia, as there seems to have been quite a bit about in the Bible, if I remember correctly. In fact, didn't Lot pimp his own daughter to save himself and his "guests" from being raped? Wasn't that after he made his other daughters pregnant, after raping them himself?

Originally Posted by Flyboy

there seems to have been quite a bit about in the Bible, if I remember correctly. In fact, didn't Lot pimp his own daughter to save himself and his "guests" from being raped? Wasn't that after he made his other daughters pregnant, after raping them himself?

Lot was willing to whore out his own daughers, to save the two "angels from heaven" from getting raped, thats correct.

As to his daughters.... Unless I mis-remember (and I'm sure one of the more religious members will correct me if I'm wrong), Lots daughters got him drunk, had sex with him and got pregnant by him....Sounds like an average day in parts of Tennessee.

[e] - removed incorrect statement.... Was unable to find written evidence of Lot murdering his daughters.

[e]- removed incorrect statement regarding Lots daughters reason for having sex with their father.

[e] - corrected drugged to drunk.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Earl of Bronze

Lot was willing to whore out his own daughers, to save the two "angels from heaven" from getting raped, thats correct.

As to his daughters.... Unless I mis-remember (and I'm sure one of the more religious members will correct me if I'm wrong), Lots daughter drugged him, had sex with him and got pregnant by him. As revenge for him wanting to pimp them out to save (literally) the asses of his angelic visitors. I believe, he eventually murders both daughters once he finds out he's the father of their children.... Sounds like an average day in parts of Tennessee.

Don't forget Lot's uncle marrying Lot's sister. Hang on a minute, wasn't Memphsis in Egypt?

[Stuart]

Guys, can we get back on topic?

I still havn't seen anything to say this was a debate willingly entered into by both partys and until i do and until there is it can't be called a debate as i doubt someone who willingly chose to take part in a religious debate would then go running to the police over what was said. What we do know thanks to representatives\supporters of this couple is that they made some ignorant remarks but we do not know their manner when doing so or if thats as far as they went so how exactly right now are we blaming this woman who was a paying guest in their business undergoiong hospital treatment ??.

Until we know more about this and there is definately more to this then we know right now some of us on here are going to look mightily stupid so lets wait till we know more. Then we can debate if this woman was some sort of troublemaker or that we have a couple who think anyone who stays at their hotel should have to endure their views on matters that are nothing to do with ruinning their business.

As for freedom of speech yeah i am all for that and i am also for the responsibility that comes with it and if your going to say something offensive you better be ready for the consequences.

Originally Posted by Saaf_laandon_mo

1. I don't think they were defending their Christian beliefs, which is what you are implying they were doing.

2. I think freedom of speech should not give you the right to say whatever you want. (And if yo thing otherwise then you would not be bothered about the muslim protestors as they are only exercising their f'reedom of speech').

3. I do think muslims protesting in the manner that the ones at the home coming parade are out of order. If a complaint has been made, and they were subsequently arrested (of which I think some were) then I would have no qualms with that. As far as I am aware action has been taken.

4. If I am in a heated debate with you and say, for example you started being racist towards me (I'm not saying this happened here) then I would have no problem with you being arrested. In all honesty we still don't know why they were arrested (i.e. we don't know what was said), so maybe we should wait for the conclusion of this case before we make assumptions.

Can I ask a question.

Would you have had a problem if this couple were not Christians, and it was A Christian woman taking them to court for something they had said to her.

What if it was you being rascist? sticks and stones and all that I think some people should get a thicker skin instead of cry he was prejudiced towards me. If it was just verbal then they should toughen up

ive had enough people victimising me in my life and not once have I cried to the police

Same here Zing but you and i know very well that some people are deeply hurt by verbal attacks and it can have a devastating impact on their lives. Not saying thats the case here but the old thing of "toughen up and learn to give as good as you get" is not always appropriate or practical and in ths case lets not forget it was two people onto one hospital patient does that sound ok to you becauseit doesn't to me.

[Saaf_laandon_mo]

Originally Posted by zing

What if it was you being rascist? sticks and stones and all that I think some people should get a thicker skin instead of cry he was prejudiced towards me. If it was just verbal then they should toughen up

ive had enough people victimising me in my life and not once have I cried to the police

Yeah, if I was being racist I'd expect to be done too. Happy?

Zing, all very well for you not crying to the police, but that doesn't mean others don't have to report it to the police.

I can't believe some of the arguments for letting people get away with abuse/victimisation/offence/racism on this forum. Just because you have a thick skin its ok for others not to report it? Just because muslims dont have rights in their countries of origin (incidently this one was born here) they should either put up or go back? etc etc etc.