Christians arrested for defending their beliefs

Originally Posted by nomadking

So what are the repeated arrests of this type supposed to achieve, if not silencing people, making certain groups of people fearful of what they say, ie bullying/oppressing people. It's certainly not in order to have a free and open dialogue on things.

At the risk of repeating myself, with the right of free speech comes the responsibility of not being deliberately hateful and provocative. Free speech does not mean being able to say what you want, no matter how untrue, just because you can.

Your definition of a "free and open dialogue" appears to include you can say what you want, but others can't (see this thread vs the idiots who protested against the Royal Anglians) - strange, that.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

I am not making any judgement on " religious " people being offended, we are all made of the same stuff whoever you pray to, so I could go to a national paper, as the complainant has in their case and complain of being all but treated like a terrorist.
Which is a strange thing really, because for apparent legal reasons the accused cannot say anything until the case goes to court but the alleged " offended " can.

Odd that all the stuff I have read has come either from the accused or the Christian Institute then..

When people decide to get involved in something so touchy as religious discussions things can get heated, the alleged " offended " apparently gave as good as she got but then decided to sculk off to the police and complain.
It was allegedly said by the accused that mohammed was a warlord, is that not true?

Nice use of the word "Allegedly" there. Do you not think that if she had "Given as good as she got" then the couple would have said that?

The people who decide in court will look at what was apparently said about mohammed and probably scratch their heads wondering why they are even sat where they are that particular day wasting everyones time.
I have read a lot of opinions on other forums over the case and to be honest there is not a lot of sympathy for the alleged " offended "
A lot of people see it as I do, that she has not liked the heat, but instead of getting out the kitchen has decided to, or her husband has persuaded her, to go to the police.

What do you mean "she should have got out of the kitchen"? She should have gone home? Two things wrong with that. 1) She is English (a converted Muslim), so she is in her home country. 2) If she had just had an op, she probably wasn't in much of a condition to travel anywhere.

This whole story is symptomatic of the pc country we now live in where our national identity is being stripped layer by layer.

Actually, the way the story has been presented (which may or may not be accurate) and the reaction to it is symptomatic of the country we live in. The kinds of changes that you describe in the phrase "our national identity is being stripped layer by layer" actually happen in *most* of the countries in the world, not just England.

[nomadking]

But those that protested about returning soldiers were allowed to do so. Then there were the protests about the Danish cartoons of Mohammed with the placards they were carrying. The Police were escorting them and so could have taken immediate action, but didn't.

Came across this link as to why the cartoons were created in the first place.

According to Flemming Rose, editor of Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten which published the cartoons, “I commissioned the cartoons in response to several incidents of self-censorship in Europe caused by widening fears and feelings of intimidation in dealing with issues related to Islam. ...a Danish children’s writer had trouble finding an illustrator for a book about the life of Muhammad. Three people turned down the job for fear of consequences.” There was thus a serious issue to address, namely a growing fear that anything that might simply be perceived as critical of Islam could not be created.

The original cartoons were published on September 30, 2005. Other European newspapers republished them in 2006 — also not for the purpose of provoking and insulting, but because, like the Jyllands-Posten, they believed that freedom of expression was under assault from extremists using violence and intimidation. They were showing solidarity with the Danish press by taking equal responsibility for the publication rather than engaging in self-defeating self-censorship. They believed they had a right to publish material critical of Islam, Muslims, and Muslim figures like Muhammad even if some find it offensive.

No religion should be exempt from criticism, critique, attack, or even mocking. No one can claim that their religious sensibilities should take precedence over others' rights to free speech and free expression.

Muslims are saying that their interpretations of the cartoons should determine whether they are legally permitted or not.

Such cartoons should not be published merely to offend Muslims or because they offend Muslims; the cartoons should be published, however, because Muslims’ religious objections to the cartoons have been riots, violence, terror, and suppression of free speech. So long as the dominant Muslim reaction to things they find objectionable is call for violence against and/or government suppression of objectionable material, it’s the duty of others to comment on this — especially when such commentary itself falls within the “objectionable” category.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by nomadking

But those that protested about returning soldiers were allowed to do so. Then there were the protests about the Danish cartoons of Mohammed with the placards they were carrying. The Police were escorting them and so could have taken immediate action, but didn't..

Ever heard of evidence gathering first? Which is what the police did as I recall a load of them were arrested and prosecuted.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by nomadking

But those that protested about returning soldiers were allowed to do so. Then there were the protests about the Danish cartoons of Mohammed with the placards they were carrying. The Police were escorting them and so could have taken immediate action, but didn't.

Came across this link as to why the cartoons were created in the first place.

Don't you think those quotes contradict each other? The first says that Jyllands-Posten published the cartoons to deliberately offend (or in their words criticise) and the second says that it didn't. Which one is true? At the time I seem to remember that they tried make people believe they had no idea that the pictures would cause offense, kind of blows that excuse out of the water really, doesn't it? We don't have an automatic right to publish things that are offensive, even though they are only offensive to some people. I am pretty sure we are not allowed to publish child pornography, even though some do not find it offensive.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Russ B

Ever heard of evidence gathering first? Which is what the police did as I recall a load of them were arrested and prosecuted.

Define 'load of them'. IIRC The media had to kick up a very big fuss over it, before any action was taken.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Define 'load of them'. IIRC The media had to kick up a very big fuss over it, before any action was taken.

That's right, because even when people are breaking the law in front of them, the police will only take action if "a very big fuss" is kicked up.

As for a 'load of them' - why do I get the impression that not matter how many people I say were arrested, it won't come anywhere near your idea of "a load of them".

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Define 'load of them'. IIRC The media had to kick up a very big fuss over it, before any action was taken.

I doubt very much of the media had as much influence over the police's policy and decision making, to be honest. I think you have an over inflated expectation of what the press can do.

[nomadking]

So if I deem something offensive then it will be banned? Decisions , Decisions, where do I start.

No religion should be exempt from criticism, critique, attack, or even mocking. No one can claim that their religious sensibilities should take precedence over others' rights to free speech and free expression.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by nomadking

So if I deem something offensive then it will be banned? Decisions , Decisions, where do I start.

If it breaks the law then of course.....

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Russ B

That's right, because even when people are breaking the law in front of them, the police will only take action if "a very big fuss" is kicked up.

As for a 'load of them' - why do I get the impression that not matter how many people I say were arrested, it won't come anywhere near your idea of "a load of them".

They walked quite a distance shouting and waving placards etc.

You didn't give any figures, so either you are unwilling to say or you don't know, which would give you no basis to use the term 'load of them'.

I had at that point been aware of a report of convictions , but were you?

---------- Post added at 13:03 ---------- Previous post was at 13:01 ----------

Originally Posted by Russ B

If it breaks the law then of course.....

And which side gets to define that 'law'?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by nomadking

They walked quite a distance shouting and waving placards etc.

...giving themselves enough rope to hang themselves with? Although perhaps not in the way you'd like...

Originally Posted by nomadking

You didn't give any figures, so either you are unwilling to say or you don't know, which would give you no basis to use the term 'load of them'.

I know there were more than 4. I don't have the figure but it was more than that.

Originally Posted by nomadking

And which side gets to define that 'law'?

The CPS side.

[SMG]

The disgusting actions of these Muslims was, in my view, preventable. The police should have stopped them. If these morons want to change the way our troops are deployed, they should use the ballot box.

It simply looked like the Police are too "scared" to get involved with Muslim groups, for fear of being branded.

[naeskydish]

What a load of b*llocks.

A hotel couple eh, it's like Falwtry towers don't mention the war , Mohammed or anything thing else that might offend. Still, don't believe all you read in the papers especially a Tory rag like the Daily Mail.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Russ B

...giving themselves enough rope to hang themselves with? Although perhaps not in the way you'd like...



I know there were more than 4. I don't have the figure but it was more than that.



The CPS side.

I see now, you are all but calling me a terrorist?
Gets the notion of someone being called a terrorist without actually saying that it was said, very sneaky.

It was a single news item I came across, I didn't say that it was the complete list, just that you weren't supplying a list yourself. Was the total number more or less than the number of people in the picture of this article? They were not arrested at the demo or even shortly afterwards, but in the following month.

The CPS aren't supposed to make the law.