Who Are The Idiots In Charge Of Less-Than-Great Britain?
Helmet tip to Coffee Catholic
Here's some of the article from The Daily Mail (London, UK): (Emphasis mine)Christian hotel owners hauled before court after defending their beliefs in discussion with Muslim guest
A Christian couple have been charged with a criminal offence after taking part in what they regarded as a reasonable discussion about religion with guests at their hotel.
Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang were arrested after a Muslim woman complained to police that she had been offended by their comments. They have been charged under public order laws with using ‘threatening, abusive or insulting words’ that were ‘religiously aggravated’.
The couple, whose trial has been set for December, face a fine of up to £5,000 and a criminal record if they are convicted.
Although the facts are disputed, it is thought that during the conversation the couple were challenged over their Christian beliefs. It is understood that they suggested that Mohammed, the founder of Islam, was a warlord and that traditional Muslim dress for women was a form of bondage. They deny, however, that their comments were threatening and argue that they had every right to defend and explain their beliefs.
One of those involved was the Muslim woman, who was staying at the hotel while she received treatment at a hospital nearby.
In July 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.
Neil Addison, a prominent criminal barrister and expert in religious law, said: ‘The purpose of the Public Order Act is to prevent disorder, but I’m very concerned that the police are using it merely because someone is offended.
‘It should be used where there is violence, yobbish behaviour or gratuitous personal abuse. It should never be used where there has been a personal conversation or debate with views firmly expressed. ‘If someone is in a discussion and they don’t like what they are hearing, they can walk away.’
He added that the police had a legal duty under the Human Rights Act to defend free speech ‘and I think they are forgetting that’.
Lemme get this straight... these folks get arrested over a civil discussion where there happens to be a disagreement. But the English cops look the other way at this?
So much for enforcing the Crime and Disorder Act of 1998.
Helmet tip to Coffee Catholic
Here's some of the article from The Daily Mail (London, UK): (Emphasis mine)
A Christian couple have been charged with a criminal offence after taking part in what they regarded as a reasonable discussion about religion with guests at their hotel.
Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang were arrested after a Muslim woman complained to police that she had been offended by their comments. They have been charged under public order laws with using ‘threatening, abusive or insulting words’ that were ‘religiously aggravated’.
The couple, whose trial has been set for December, face a fine of up to £5,000 and a criminal record if they are convicted.
Although the facts are disputed, it is thought that during the conversation the couple were challenged over their Christian beliefs. It is understood that they suggested that Mohammed, the founder of Islam, was a warlord and that traditional Muslim dress for women was a form of bondage. They deny, however, that their comments were threatening and argue that they had every right to defend and explain their beliefs.
One of those involved was the Muslim woman, who was staying at the hotel while she received treatment at a hospital nearby.
In July 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.
Neil Addison, a prominent criminal barrister and expert in religious law, said: ‘The purpose of the Public Order Act is to prevent disorder, but I’m very concerned that the police are using it merely because someone is offended.
‘It should be used where there is violence, yobbish behaviour or gratuitous personal abuse. It should never be used where there has been a personal conversation or debate with views firmly expressed. ‘If someone is in a discussion and they don’t like what they are hearing, they can walk away.’
He added that the police had a legal duty under the Human Rights Act to defend free speech ‘and I think they are forgetting that’.
Lemme get this straight... these folks get arrested over a civil discussion where there happens to be a disagreement. But the English cops look the other way at this?
So much for enforcing the Crime and Disorder Act of 1998.
posted by Kevin Whiteman at
12:03 AM
3 Comments:
The Muslim challenges their beliefs, they defend them & they get in trouble for doing so. I am ashamed of what makes up 1/4 of my heritage.
But even more so, I wonder how much of a preview of things to come here in the USA that this is.
Perhaps it is good British Bobbies are not armed (or are they now?). If I were that British Bobby, armed, and standing behind the demonstrator in that picture, I would be sorely tempted to put a full metal jacket into the back of that @sshole's head. Probably would not be a lethal shot, though! *evil grin*
DO I UNDERSTAND THIS RIGHT. THE HUSBAND AND WIFE, OWNERS OF A HOTEL, WERE ARRESTED BECAUSE THEY HAD A RELIGIOUS COMMENT ON ISLAM, WITH ONE OF THEIR HOTEL GUESTS. GORDON BROWN, WHERE ARE YOU WHEN WE NEED YOU. WHAT IS THE TITLE OF THIS ARTICLE. LET'S CALL IT
"BEYOND INSANITY". IT WAS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME UNTIL IT CAME TO THIS. IT STARTED WITH MAFOUZ, WHO IS NOW DEAD AND DESERVEDLY SO, AND ENDS WITH LUNACY. MOHAMMED WAS A PEDOPHILE, VERY ENJOYABLE, THE BURQUA, OR HAJIB HAVE NO PLACE IN CIVILIZED SOCIETY, AND THE AT THE RATE THIS IS GOING THE JIHADISTS WILL CONQUER THE WORLD WHILE ALL THE CHICKEN SHIT, LILLY LIVERED PEOPLE IN BRITAIN RUN FOR THE METRO.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home