Christians arrested for defending their beliefs - Page 30

09-12-2009, 17:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

Of course they do, He is a White Christian. If this story was the other way around, a Christian accusing a Muslim, then they would be piling on the anti-muslim bile and so would people on this forum.

but the counter claim was anti christian

**Hugh** · 09-12-2009, 18:15

What counter-claim?

nomadking · 09-12-2009, 18:26

Quote:

But the couple denied her version of events and claimed Mrs Tazi told them Jesus was a minor prophet and that the Bible was untrue.

Quote:

The two-day trial ended when Judge Clancy ruled that the evidence against the hoteliers was "inconsistent" and dismissed the case.

Quote:

Evidence inconsistent
Explaining his reasons for dismissal, Judge Clancy said Mrs Tazi's claim that she was verbally attacked for up to an hour had not been backed up by the other witnesses.
He also said the language Mrs Tazi used in the exchange "did not quite form the same religious view" that was put to him on the stand.
Judge Clancy said: "I'm not satisfied on the facts that this case has been made out."

**Damien** · 09-12-2009, 18:41

I don't think calling Jesus a minor prophet is the same as calling someone a terrorist because they are a Muslim. That is their religious belief, whereas Muslim bashing is not a Christian belief. (not that they did that, it would now seem).

nomadking · 09-12-2009, 18:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

I don't think calling Jesus a minor prophet is the same as calling someone a terrorist because they are a Muslim. That is their religious belief, whereas Muslim bashing is not a Christian belief. (not that they did that, it would now seem).

Where did you get that from? Not even the complainant claimed that they said that.

danielf · 09-12-2009, 18:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by zing

but the counter claim was anti christian

But it wasn't Anti-Christian was it? They were accused of religiously aggravated threatening behaviour. The fact that they are Christian is neither here nor there. Unless you'd like to claim that threatening other people is part of religious liberties.

**Damien** · 09-12-2009, 18:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking

Where did you get that from? Not even the complainant claimed that they said that.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/l...re/8401685.stm

Quote:

A Muslim woman was asked by a Christian hotelier if she was a terrorist and a murderer because she was wearing Islamic dress, a court has been told.

---------- Post added at 19:58 ---------- Previous post was at 19:57 ----------

Anyway let's keep this hypothetical since they have been cleared

nomadking · 09-12-2009, 19:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielf

But it wasn't Anti-Christian was it? They were accused of religiously aggravated threatening behaviour. The fact that they are Christian is neither here nor there. Unless you'd like to claim that threatening other people is part of religious liberties.

It is, if you're a Muslim.

Where does anybody(including the complainant) say that they threatened her?

Quote:

The two-day trial ended when Judge Clancy ruled that the evidence against the hoteliers was "inconsistent" and dismissed the case.

Quote:

Explaining his reasons for dismissal, Judge Clancy said Mrs Tazi's claim that she was verbally attacked for up to an hour had not been backed up by the other witnesses.

papa smurf · 09-12-2009, 19:03

Explaining his reasons for dismissal, Judge Clancy said Mrs Tazi's claim that she was verbally attacked for up to an hour had not been backed up by the other witnesses.

is that the same as lied her head off ???

danielf · 09-12-2009, 19:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking

It is, if you're a Muslim.

Bolleaux...

Quote:

Where does anybody(including the complainant) say that they threatened her?

Quote:

Ericka Tazi, 60, who converted when she married a Muslim man, had claimed that Ben Vogelenzang, 53, had called her a terrorist and compared Muhammad to a warlord when she wore a hijab on the last day of her stay at the Bounty House Hotel in Liverpool last March.

She also claimed that his wife Sharon, 54, had told her that wearing such a garment represented a form of bondage, or oppression, in a finger-pointing and aggressive tirade that left her severely traumatised.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...ffset=0&page=1

nomadking · 09-12-2009, 19:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/l...re/8401685.stm

---------- Post added at 19:58 ---------- Previous post was at 19:57 ----------

Anyway let's keep this hypothetical since they have been cleared

And what is the dictionary definition of 'asked'?
Anyway, it seems that it was the complainant who asked the question.

Quote:

Mr Vogelenzang said: 'She took the examples of history and she started provoking me by saying 'Oh, will you tell me then that I'm a murderer, that I'm a Nazi? You're telling me I'm a terrorist?'

**Damien** · 09-12-2009, 19:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking

And what is the dictionary definition of 'asked'?

The asking of the question suggests grounds of which to suspect they might be. Unless you come from the Glenn Beck school of debate, in which you think by framing a insult as a question you are not actually accusing anyone.

Are you a member of the national front by any chance? Not saying you are, Just asking the question. Nothing wrong with asking questions.

---------- Post added at 20:18 ---------- Previous post was at 20:17 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking

Anyway, it seems that it was the complainant who asked the question.

You asked where anyone, including her, claimed that was said. You have been provided evidence that the claimant did indeed claim they called her a terrorists.

nomadking · 09-12-2009, 19:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

The asking of the question suggests grounds of which to suspect they might be. Unless you come from the Glenn Beck school of debate, in which you think by framing a insult as a question you are not actually accusing anyone.

Are you a member of the national front by any chance?

---------- Post added at 20:18 ---------- Previous post was at 20:17 ----------

You asked where anyone, including her, claimed that was said. You have been provided evidence that the claimant did indeed claim they called her a terrorists.

Quote:

The two-day trial ended when Judge Clancy ruled that the evidence against the hoteliers was "inconsistent" and dismissed the case.

Quote:

Explaining his reasons for dismissal, Judge Clancy said Mrs Tazi's claim that she was verbally attacked for up to an hour had not been backed up by the other witnesses.

Quote:

Judge Clancy said: "I'm not satisfied on the facts that this case has been made out."

Evidence?

That's just it, he didn't ask the question(implied or otherwise), she did

.

Quote:

Mr Vogelenzang said: 'She took the examples of history and she started provoking me by saying 'Oh, will you tell me then that I'm a murderer, that I'm a Nazi? You're telling me I'm a terrorist?'

'will you tell me' states that he didn't ask the question or make a statement of that sort directed at her.

danielf · 09-12-2009, 19:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking

That's just it, he didn't ask the question(implied or otherwise), she did

.

That's what he claims. And given the lack of independent confirmation, we just don't know who is and who is not telling the truth. Chances are, we'll never find out.

**Damien** · 09-12-2009, 19:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking

That's just it, he didn't ask the question(implied or otherwise), she did

.

You asked where she claimed it, not if it was true. It was also the accused who claim she was the one who asked the question. The truth is we don't know who said what just that the claimant and no evidence of anything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking

Where does anybody(including the complainant) say that they threatened her?

That is what you asked.