Christians arrested for defending their beliefs

[Russ]

Just in the interests of fairness I think the reason people seem to be 'outraged' that it took more than a month to take action against the protesters is because when it's a BNP/Anti-Islam/something started by whites riot, the police are seen to be jumping in straight away.

Of course if I've got that theory wrong then I'm sure I'll be corrected.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Official CPS policy on the issue
I think that defence covers everything the couple are even accused of. So why were they arrested? Especially as the policy goes on to say

I don't believe that is the CPS policy on the Crime and Disorder act, nor the Public order act. Oh wait, you're not talking about what the couple are actually accused of are you?

[nomadking]

Are you saying you(and the police) can be sure that no violence or murder would take place in the following month as a result? They would also have to track down those who had been 'incited' or 'solicited', which would be impossible as the pictures had broadcast around the world on TV etc.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Are you saying you(and the police) can be sure that no violence or murder would take place in the following month as a result? They would also have to track down those who had been 'incited' or 'solicited', which would be impossible as the pictures had broadcast around the world on TV etc.

So you would prefer the police to ignite a riot.
Inciting someone is a crime, being incited isn't, acting on that incitement in a criminal way is.
Am I missing something here though, you appear to be suggesting that someone's power to incite others suddenly stops once they're arrested, and those inititially incited would miraculously no longer be incited.
Or are you under the impression that in order to protest, a group must show all their plackards to the police for approval, along with a script of what slogans are going to be shouted, that way the police can stop something before it happens?

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

I don't believe that is the CPS policy on the Crime and Disorder act, nor the Public order act. Oh wait, you're not talking about what the couple are actually accused of are you?

It's a cut and paste from the CPS website.

Annex A - Legislation used to prosecute racist and religious crime

---------- Post added at 15:48 ---------- Previous post was at 15:43 ----------

Originally Posted by Xaccers

So you would prefer the police to ignite a riot.
Inciting someone is a crime, being incited isn't, acting on that incitement in a criminal way is.

The point is to stop the incitement taking place in order to prevent further(in the future) violence. That is why incitement is a crime. If removing troublemakers ignites a riot then the protest shouldn't have been allowed to form in the first place. After all the 'peaceful' organisers/participants would want any troublemakers removed.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by nomadking

It's a cut and paste from the CPS website.

Funny, if I cut and paste the relevant sections of which they're being charged under I get the following:

Offence
Racially/religiously aggravated harassment/alarm/distress (s.31(1)(c) CDA)

Maximum Penalty - aggravated form
Magistrates' court - fine up to level 4

Maximum Penalty - basic form
Magistrates' court - fine up to level 3

Notes
Can only be tried in magistrates' court in either aggravated or basic form. Need to put charges for both aggravated and basic offence.

Section 5 of the POA isn't mentioned.
Perhaps your mouse slipped?
Or perhaps you were quoting guidelines relating to something the couple aren't being charged with, say perhaps the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006?

Originally Posted by nomadking

The point is to stop the incitement taking place in order to prevent further(in the future) violence. If removing troublemakers ignites a riot then the protest shouldn't have been allowed to form in the first place. After all the 'peaceful' organisers/participants would want any troublemakers removed.

So now you're advocating police action without evidence just incase a crime happens?
Or are you against people's right to protest?
Both perhaps?
There's a right to protest, crimes were committed during that protest, you would rather the police ignited a riot and the resulting damage/injuries that come with riots, than the police gathering evidence and acting on that evidence, correct?

[nomadking]

OK wrong page, but info 100% correct. I have several CPS pages open at the moment.
Link to CPS website

Racist and religious crime – CPS prosecution policy

Crimes were actually taking place at that very moment. Some people were convicted of offences that took place at that time. If I am witnessed soliciting murder by the police, I would expect to be arrested immediately to stop anyone else carrying out the murder,similarly with the incitement aspect.

Sir Ken Macdonald QC, Director of Public Prosecutions said: "Freedom of speech is the right of any individuals in our democracy. However, when we examined the content of speeches by Mizanur Rahman, Abdul Saleem, Umran Javed and Abdul Muhid it was explicit that there was a direct encouragement to those present to commit acts of murder.
"The law says you can express your opinions robustly without the fear of being brought before a criminal court. But if you march down the streets of London calling for people to be beheaded and for European cities to be bombed, you have crossed a line.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Official CPS policy on the issue
I think that defence covers everything the couple are even accused of. So why were they arrested? Especially as the policy goes on to say

But these people are being investigated under the Public Order Act, designed to prevent anti-social behaviour, of which these two are being accused.

---------- Post added at 16:18 ---------- Previous post was at 16:15 ----------

Originally Posted by Xaccers

So you would prefer the police to ignite a riot.
Inciting someone is a crime, being incited isn't, acting on that incitement in a criminal way is.
Am I missing something here though, you appear to be suggesting that someone's power to incite others suddenly stops once they're arrested, and those inititially incited would miraculously no longer be incited.
Or are you under the impression that in order to protest, a group must show all their plackards to the police for approval, along with a script of what slogans are going to be shouted, that way the police can stop something before it happens?

I think it would be suggested, by some, that that would only be for certain demonstrations and not others.

Originally Posted by Gary L

And decide what punishment to give out. if any.

Do you want compensation? or do you want them to sign a new offensive offenders register?
What's wrong with a good old fashioned ASBO?

Recent history dictates that ASBO's are given out after people have died.
Freedom of speech is at it says, if the person on the receiving end, after slagging off what you believe in does not like your response tough S***
Again, someone tell me that I am wrong, that Mohammed was not a warlord.
That guy makes Nick Griffin look a saint by comparison.

---------- Post added at 22:51 ---------- Previous post was at 22:46 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

Or do you want to bully/oppress others to make sure that Muslims can in no way be criticised no matter what they say or do?

And that is the crux.
That it is ok for one person to openly attack anothers belief, but when they get payback they, or their husband, decide that they do not like it and go crying to the police.
If people enter into a debate on religion, with all that history tells us about it on both sides of the coin, things can get heated.
But you dont slag someones belief off and not expect a response, and when that response comes and you dont like what you hear, even though allegedly what the accused said was true, you then expect the courts to be on your side.

---------- Post added at 22:55 ---------- Previous post was at 22:51 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

"Repeated Arrests" is rather overkill, we still are not clear into why the Police and CPS are prosecuting this couple but it's not exactly part of a trend. I don't see it as bullying, I see it as an overreaction to the bulling this couple were alleged to have done.

They are alleged to have unleashed the verbal abuse on this woman at breakfast in front of an audience. That is bullying, it's certainly not a 'free and open' dialogue'.

But as we do not know what the muslim convert said to the christian it demands impartial discussion, not blaming one side over the other ? which you appear to be doing even though you were not there at the time trying to enjoy your breakfast.

[Stuart]

Is there any evidence that the muslim woman "slagged off" Christianity? Not as far as I know.. I have to admit, I think that the thread title is possibly a bit inaccurate..

As for the comments. Was Mohammed a warlord. Yes, I believe he was. Assuming I am correct, I don't think any Muslim would deny it.

Maybe the comment about Muslim women's clothing being a form of bondage was actually more offensive. I certainly would class it as being being as offensive as, say, a Muslim saying that because Christians wear crosses (a symbol of torture) that they idolise torture.


Note: I know that Christians do not idolise torture and that the cross actually symbolises the sacrifice Christ made.

Originally Posted by Flyboy

The victim in this case was not the one who went to the papers. It was the accused, at the behest of the Christian Institute. Now I would have thought that even a hint of their involvement would start to ring alarm bells. A lot has been written about the woman, who was on the receiving end of this couple's wrath, but there is precious little about the couple themselves. I wonder why the likes of the Daily Heil, The Sexpress and the Torygraph haven't delved into their background and bothered finding out anything about them?




Which I would have thought, as experience service providers such as these, should have known better to have not even started a discussion on the subject.



How do you know this? She was recovering from an operation, I hardly think she was in much of a position to "give as good as she got." But, on the presumption that this is what happened, what would you have expected her to have done? Just sit there meekly and take the abuse that was allegedly thrown at her?



But it is more than what was said about Mohammed, she was insulted by their assertions that her religious dress was oppressive and some kind of bondage. I dare say the was a whole lot more said than that as well, but we only the Daily Heil's et al version of what they want us to know.



Yes, I am sure you have, but then I don't think Stormfront's collective opinion holds much of an independent perspective to be honest. But I am sure they are just a little more than confused, to hear the the accused is an immigrant and the victim is a British born white woman.



I am sure a lot of people do see it as you do, but then I am sure there a lot of people who would rather Muslims were not allowed to stay in guest houses where white Christians go, but there you go.

This has nothing to do with an imagine PC conspiracy, what it has to do with is an individual's right, to live their lives as they wish, unharassed and unhindered by someone's yobbish behaviour and bigoted opinions.

As far as her husband is concerned, reading the woman's words, she sounds as though she has a mind of her own in these matters and her husband has little influence over her decisions. Which kind of flies in the face of the accused assertion that she was under some kind of bondage.

You seem to write your post as if you were at the breakfast table.
So the " Bigotted " opinions were only one way were they?
People are entitled to stay where they want, but if i decided to convert to the muslim faith I would look into the history.
I dont recall it being a place only white christians go, maybe I read the wrong papers hey?
But again, freedom of speech is a two edged blade, do you agree on that?
Waiting....

---------- Post added at 23:09 ---------- Previous post was at 23:02 ----------

Originally Posted by Stuart C

Is there any evidence that the muslim woman "slagged off" Christianity? Not as far as I know.. I have to admit, I think that the thread title is possibly a bit inaccurate..

As for the comments. Was Mohammed a warlord. Yes, I believe he was. Assuming I am correct, I don't think any Muslim would deny it.

Maybe the comment about Muslim women's clothing being a form of bondage was actually more offensive. I certainly would class it as being being as offensive as, say, a Muslim saying that because Christians wear crosses (a symbol of torture) that they idolise torture.


Note: I know that Christians do not idolise torture and that the cross actually symbolises the sacrifice Christ made.

Stuart, all we know about what happened is what we are being force fed by the press.
I read that the attack on the muslims faith came during a debate between the two parties.
Different papers will tell us different things.
All I do know is that if I enter into such a debate as religion things will get heated.
But why should it be ok for one religion to be slagged off without fear of retaliation?
What actually happened will only come out in Court, which to me is a sad indication of where we are in this country when you're not allowed to voice your opinion, no matter what has been said to provocate such a response.

[Flyboy]

Sorry, but I don't respond to "Waiting...."

Originally Posted by Flyboy

Sorry, but I don't respond to "Waiting...."

Ok, fair enough

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

You seem to write your post as if you were at the breakfast table.
So the " Bigotted " opinions were only one way were they?
People are entitled to stay where they want, but if i decided to convert to the muslim faith I would look into the history.
I dont recall it being a place only white christians go, maybe I read the wrong papers hey?
But again, freedom of speech is a two edged blade, do you agree on that?
Waiting....

---------- Post added at 23:09 ---------- Previous post was at 23:02 ----------




Stuart, all we know about what happened is what we are being force fed by the press.

True, although they aren't force feeding it (nor could they).

I read that the attack on the muslims faith came during a debate between the two parties.
Different papers will tell us different things.
All I do know is that if I enter into such a debate as religion things will get heated.
But why should it be ok for one religion to be slagged off without fear of retaliation?

It's not OK (which is actually why I made the point about Christianity), but what we have seen in the papers suggests that the Christians did all the attacking. I am not saying they did: I do not know.

This is why I said that the thread title is possibly inaccurate. Based on what we have seen so far, there is no evidence to suggest they were defending their beliefs

What actually happened will only come out in Court, which to me is a sad indication of where we are in this country when you're not allowed to voice your opinion, no matter what has been said to provocate such a response.

You are allowed to voice an opinion. You just have responsibilities that go with that right (something that has not actually changed).

We don't know what was said in that argument, but for it to go to court, I suspect it was a lot more serious than just some random comments about Mohammed being a warlord and bondage. I am sure Derek could tell you just how hard it can be to get CPS to prosecute a case.

Originally Posted by Stuart C

True, although they aren't force feeding it (nor could they).



It's not OK (which is actually why I made the point about Christianity), but what we have seen in the papers suggests that the Christians did all the attacking. I am not saying they did: I do not know.

This is why I said that the thread title is possibly inaccurate. Based on what we have seen so far, there is no evidence to suggest they were defending their beliefs


You are allowed to voice an opinion. You just have responsibilities that go with that right (something that has not actually changed).

We don't know what was said in that argument, but for it to go to court, I suspect it was a lot more serious than just some random comments about Mohammed being a warlord and bondage. I am sure Derek could tell you just how hard it can be to get CPS to prosecute a case.

Respect what you're saying stuart.
It could be that the alleged offence had to be put into a box, so to say.
But given what they are allegedly charged for I am confused, because the act was not initially brought in for the circumstances of the case.
We will all just have to wait until the case goes to Court.