Christians arrested for defending their beliefs

Well isn't this fun first off hardly anyone supports that very small non representative group of malcontents that were throwing abuse at our troops and that has been stated many times on here as well as many other places and by many many muslims as well. Secondly this issue is nothing to do with that at all and why that issue is raising it's head in this thread is beyond me as that was out and out abuse and incitement by a bunch of trouble makers and nothing at all to do with free speech.

This issue though is a little more complicated and what is valid is the argument that it should be in civil not criminal court. As for the couple themselves i have googled the hotel in question and no where on their advertising do i see it state this is a christian run hotel or mention christianity at all. So why did they feel it appropriate to enter into a discussion about religion at the breakfast table and would they have done so if they didn't have a muslim guest.

From the little we know and there is obviously a great deal we do not know words were uttered that anyone with half a brain would have known were insulting and highly offensive to anyone of the muslim faith and therefore should not have been said by owners of any establishment that is open to the public. How many whites were present and was this muslim lady the only non white there ? (i know that simplifys the whole religion thing as you don't have to be white to be a christian or non white to be a muslim).

If that was the case then this is not about free speech it could be about something a little more sinister such as out and out bullying by people looking to make some worthless point.

I think religion is being misused here in the case of the owners and i think it is only being used by the daily hate to create a "christian vs muslim in the homeland of christianity" type of attitude and to whip up some good ol anti muslim hate which this particular paper seems to revel in doing. Taking this to court is not a case of pandering to muslims or a further erosion of this and that for the benefit of muslims as some like to see it. What we seem to have is a couple of people with beliefs who chose to express views not commonly held by christianity as a whole (as far as i know) as an attack on a person staying at their hotel and trying to hide behind religion as an excuse.

Never have i stayed at a hotel even some openly christian ones where religion was a breakfast table discussion point and certainly not to the point that this so called discussion went too. If you look at it another way this muslim lady is fighting a decline in one of the things we british used to take great pride in that being a good host\hostess which this couple were certainly not.

Originally Posted by nomadking

But it is being suggested that it wasn't the arrested couple that started the topic. So, it may not be one side made comments that where classed as offensive and the other side didn't, but only one side complained and it happened to be the one side, the Police and the CPS would take any notice of.

Doesn't matter who said what first or last,when dealing with other people's religion and beliefs one should tread lightly and carefully and RESPECTFULLY.If you can't, best to say NOTHING and keep your real thoughts to yourself.

Just having the right to free speech doesn't give one cart blanche to be offensive or rude or abusive or DISRESPECTFUL.

Or as my Nan used to say, think before you speak...

[SMG]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

A quick question to all those who have criticised the muslims in this case:

If *you* followed a religion, and someone suggested that the founder of *that* religion was a warlord, and then suggested that the clothing that the womenfolk of *your* religion was a form of bondage, how would you react? Would you be offended? Would you just laugh it off?

And yes, if you follow no religion, you can answer this. Just imagine for a second that you did follow a religion.

I personally would be offended.

I would not be offended. People are free to speak their own minds, as long as its within the law.

Freedom of expression is a right. However, as I watch the 6 Italian soldiers on TV, being given a state funeral, the crowds turned out to honour them, I cast my mind back to the useless idiot Musim protestors who slagged & shouted at our troops. I am disgusted. Is it any wonder people show disgust? Some Muslims are just a pain in the ARSSE.

Originally Posted by nomadking

But this looks like a case of X starts an discussion/argument with Y, X insults Y's religion but Y brushes it aside and isn't fascist and so doesn't complain. Y then says something in reply which X deems insulting and complains to the Police. It wasn't a third party who reported it, it was a participant in the discussion.

I suggest that you are building supposition upon supposition (I can find at least 5 in your post) to support your position, as none of what you are stating is in the original Daily Fail article - do you have another source, please?

Freedom of expression is a right. However, as I watch the 6 Italian soldiers on TV, being given a state funeral, the crowds turned out to honour them, I cast my mind back to the useless idiot Musim protestors who slagged & shouted at our troops. I am disgusted. Is it any wonder people show disgust? Some Muslims are just a pain in the ARSSE.

Some as in very few. I mean how many were there? It was a very, very small group. Less than 10 if I recall. That nutter 'Christian' church in America (Their name escapes me) which has similar numbers and pickets the funerals of dead American soldiers are quite similar.

So some Christains are also a pain (which is a nice way to put it!) as are some Muslims/Jews/Jehovah's Witnesses/Atheists/Agnostics.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by nomadking

But this looks like a case of X starts an discussion/argument with Y, X insults Y's religion but Y brushes it aside and isn't fascist and so doesn't complain. Y then says something in reply which X deems insulting and complains to the Police. It wasn't a third party who reported it, it was a participant in the discussion.

Excuse me? If I complain that a group of asians insult our armed forces, I'm a fascist am I?
It doesn't matter what the subject is about, if an offense under section 5 of the Public order act has been comitted, then anyone who is the victim of it can report it to the police.

Again I ask, how is calling Mohammed a warlord or stating what women of another religion wear is bondage in any way defending christian religious beliefs?

What evidence have you got that the couple had their religious beliefs insulted?

[nomadking]

One of the problems with using online news references is that an article can often be changed later.
Daily Telegraph
The story is starting to travel the world, US, India, Germany, Canada.

The Public Order Act 1986 is designed to help police arrest those inciting disorder on the streets, through violence or abusive behaviour. 'It should never be used where there has been a personal conversation or debate with views firmly expressed,' said Neil Addison, a leading criminal barrister and expert in religious law.
'If someone is in a discussion and they don't like what they are hearing, they can walk away.'

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by nomadking

One of the problems with using online news references is that an article can often be changed later.
Daily Telegraph
The story is starting to travel the world, US, India, Germany, Canada.

Or they can use British law.

1) thank you for you full answers to my question posted above
2) So according to Neil Addison, the (self-proclaimed) expert in religious law, if someone is insulting you or something you hold dear, the solution is to walk away? Would this hold true for those who were very upset (myself included) by the behaviour of the idiots who protested when the Royal Anglians marched through Luton?

As someone on another forum stated

Arguing with guests at breakfast is a bit Basil Fawltyish don't you think. I wonder how the conversation went from 'Would you like tea or coffee' to 'That Mohammed, he was a right warlord and what's going on with that Burqa, eh? It oppresses women and a sign of bondage. Please help yourself from the selection of cereals or fruit while I fetch some toast.'

[SMG]

Calling out Troops "Murderers" is not only unreasonable, but very likely to incite a riot. Bit different than an argument about "Ficticional" Gods.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by SMG

Calling out Troops "Murderers" is not only unreasonable, but very likely to incite a riot. Bit different than an argument about "Ficticional" Gods.

The complaint wasn't about gods was it though?

It was about the reputation of someone who is held in high regard to the complainant, just as the reputation of our armed forces is held in high regard by many of us.
Why is it ok to sully the name of one person but not another if people are offended and insulted by either?

[SMG]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

The complaint wasn't about gods was it though?

It was about the reputation of someone who is held in high regard to the complainant, just as the reputation of our armed forces is held in high regard by many of us.
Why is it ok to sully the name of one person but not another if people are offended and insulted by either?

My interpretation of the difference is, the law. Incitement to riot is unlawful. Calling ones beliefs, or questioning their factual origins, isnt.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by SMG

My interpretation of the difference is, the law. Incitement to riot is unlawful. Calling ones beliefs, or questioning their factual origins, isnt.

The complaint wasn't about that either.


As for the law;

5 Harassment, alarm or distress

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

The complaint wasn't about gods was it though?

It was about the reputation of someone who is held in high regard to the complainant, just as the reputation of our armed forces is held in high regard by many of us.
Why is it ok to sully the name of one person but not another if people are offended and insulted by either?

It's not. I found the Muslim actions SMG refers to offensive. Whether the soldiers should have been in the Middle East or not is irrelevant. They went where their commanders told them to, and gave their lives performing the task assigned by their commanders. Essentially, they did exactly what our government (on our behalf) asked of them. As such, they deserve nothing but respect. If the Muslims had a grievance, they should have protested to those in charge.

Now I find it interesting that SMG bought up the subject of the soldiers. They are clearly people he respects, and he appears offended at the insulting action of the Muslims, yet he clearly fails to grasp that someone who has been bought up to respect a religious figure (whether that figure exists or not is irrelevant, they have been bought up to believe he does) should be equally offended, not to mention the apparent implication that they believe in female bondage.

[SMG]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

It's not. I found the Muslim actions SMG refers to offensive. Whether the soldiers should have been in the Middle East or not is irrelevant. They went where their commanders told them to, and gave their lives performing the task assigned by their commanders. Essentially, they did exactly what our government (on our behalf) asked of them. As such, they deserve nothing but respect. If the Muslims had a grievance, they should have protested to those in charge..

Yea, spot on.

Originally Posted by Stuart C

Now I find it interesting that SMG bought up the subject of the soldiers. They are clearly people he respects, and he appears offended at the insulting action of the Muslims, yet he clearly fails to grasp that someone who has been bought up to respect a religious figure (whether that figure exists or not is irrelevant, they have been bought up to believe he does) should be equally offended, not to mention the apparent implication that they believe in female bondage.

It is offensive, but in my view, not to the same extent.

My loyalty, is to my family & my country. Not to religion, or any other group. The men who defend our country are the finest people we have. They put their lives in danger so we can sleep at night. I hold no other group in higher esteem. When anyone, insults our forces, they insult me. I have been there & worn the T shirt out. Good men, fine men, have died for us, all of us, & we should acknowledge that, & anyone who openly insults our forces on the streets should be shipped off to a third world country, to see what happens to people, who dont have the right to free expression.