Beware spouting misinformed religious information in semi-public, especially if you are in the UK.
Photo: Daily Mail Online
Last month, a Christian couple in Liverpool was charged with “criminal offense” after a religious dispute with two of their Islamic guests.
The couple, owners of the Bounty House Hotel, and the Muslim guests were apparently having breakfast when a discussion about religion ensued. Although details are scarce, it seems the couple:
…Suggested that Mohammed, the founder of Islam, was a warlord and that traditional Muslim dress for women was a form of bondage.
Ok, certainly offensive, but worth going to jail over?
Seems a little law in the UK called the Public Order Act allows police to arrest people based on offensive comments. The law was enacted, lawyers say, in order to deal with violence and disorder on the streets, not to arrest people having an argument.
Yet police say they were charged due to use of ‘threatening, abusive or insulting words’ that were ‘religiously aggravated’.
Things getting a bit out of control here? It’s hard to know exactly what happened, and the hotel owners obviously have some questionable beliefs about Islam. But going to jail over them? Man, half of America would be in jail if we could get arrested for stupidity.
Freedom of religion, freedom of speech and protection from bodily harm seemed to be getting all jumbled up here. Plus, commentary by the Daily Mail brought up another good point:
It is striking that the Crown Prosecution Service has thought fit to bring this case, when no action was taken to prevent the appalling persecution of Fiona Pilkington, whose disabled daughter was savagely bullied, who called for police help in vain at least 30 times, and who eventually killed herself in despair.
Hmm, makes you wonder what is really going on here.
What do you think about people being arrested for religious offense? Share your thoughts below.
Feature photo: yoshiffles
About the Author
More By This Author
- Thanks for a Great First Year (14 comments)
- The Internet Brain: Our Most Hopeful Approach to Cultural Harmony? (3 comments)
- 'Fare Thee Well': A Mindful Approach to Saying Goodbye (6 comments)
Related Posts
21 Comments... join the discussion!
-
-
Dear Christine,
I think you’re missing a major point here. You speak about “freedom of religion, freedom of speech and protection from bodily harm” — but people are also entitled to ‘protection from insults and verbal abuse’ as well. Don’t you think?
You also quote the police saying “they were charged due to use of ‘threatening, abusive or insulting words’”.
If so, then those people weren’t “arrested for stupidity” nor for “spouting misinformed religious information” as you write, but for threats and insults.
One more thing. for the past decade almost, Muslims minorities in Europe have been a sitting duck. People get insulted, harassed almost daily, in the media and to their faces, for being Muslims. We’re generally grateful for people who take the time to engage in a civil conversation, even if they drastically disagree.
And trust me, people don’t get in any trouble for just being Islamophobes or Muslim-haters, I can assure you. It’s become nearly fashionable, it seems.And re: the Fiona Pilkington case, which I was not familiar with, is one of the most terrible things I’ve read in a long time. And it’s a terrible, terrible shame that no one moved to help them. I’m not sure why you link those two cases though…
↵ -
Mohamed,
Trust me, I’m the first to agree that Muslims have been unforgivably harrassed, beaten, thrown in jail and abused since 9/11 at least in the US, where I live (I can’t speak for Europe). I think there are quite a few people, Christians or otherwise, who should be arrested for their acts against Muslims.
Having said that, in this case, it sounds as if an arrest was not warranted. Yes, they were charged under the Public Order Act for the use of ‘threatening, abusive or insulting words,’ which as I stated, included saying Mohammed was a warlord and that Muslim women are in bondage. Ignorant and inflammatory? Yes. Do I think they should have kept their mouths shut and respected their guests? Absolutely. Do I think they should have gotten arrested for their speech? No.
So far, there has been no indication that they alluded to or attempted any bodily harm on their guests. I have no doubt that there are Muslims out there that speak ill of Christianity (rightly or wrongly), but I don’t believe they should be arrested for that either.
↵ -
How ridiculous! If you’re going to shelter people from any disagreeing viewpoints of ignorant comments then why just do it for Muslims? Are not things like the Da Vinci Code (I loved it btw) offensive to Christianity? And yet, if the British government tried to jail Dan Brown there’d be an uproar. Why the double-standard?
↵ -
Ahem…commentary by the Daily Mail? You mean the well known to be racist right wing paper (masquerading as mainstream) favours the couple who verbally abused the muslims & draws a sensationalist comparison with an irrelevant case? What a surprise. That’s a bit like the KKK wading in with their commentary on the matter.
Also, the Public Order Act is not little known, & periodially gets used to clear streets of drunks causing public disorder, protests that are getting out of hand, and notoriously in the early 90s there was talk of it being used to stop illegal raves.
Seems to me what’s really going on here in this particular case is a pretty everyday use of this act, along the same lines of it being used to arrest drunks being shouty & abusive in the streets, and it getting more attention than it’s worth because people’s religions got involved…(and perhaps also because of the vile rag that is the Daily Mail, & its ilk, capitalising on it).
↵ -
I forgot to add – you state in your post the couple were arrested for a “criminal offense” – being arrested under the Public Order Act does not constitute a “criminal offense”, it’s a public order offence (ie. a “civil offense”), as kinda kinted at by the name of the act.
Also, regarding your reply above to user ‘Mo-ha-med’ you state “So far, there has been no indication that they alluded to or attempted any bodily harm on their guests” – doesn’t the police statement using the word “threatening” qualify as an indication?
I must say, the more I go back and re-read your post & follow up comments, the more disappointed I am. I hate to say it, but even though this post is more in the style of columist & not journalist, there really should have been more due diligence exercised regarding not only this entire story, but as a minimum regarding the Public Order Act, the Daily Mail commentary, and the Fiona Pilkington case.
↵ -
>>I forgot to add – you state in your post the couple were arrested for a “criminal offense” – being arrested under the Public Order Act does not constitute a “criminal offense”, it’s a public order offence (ie. a “civil offense”), as kinda kinted at by the name of the act.
Yes, I stated the couple was arrested for criminal offense, as stated by the Daily Mail, not me. Hence the quotations.
While I agree the Daily Mail is hardly the creme de la creme of resources, I thought it better to use them than extremely racist sites such as jihadwatch.org, weaselzippers.net, and http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com. Unfortunately, the BBC didn’t cover the story.
I wrote about this piece because whether or not what the Daily Mail has to say is fully factual or not (I highly doubt it is, but not necessarily just because it is the Daily Mail, but that every news source has it’s biases and sensational news pulls), but rather to open up a debate on whether people should be arrested for things that they say about religion.
>>Also, regarding your reply above to user ‘Mo-ha-med’ you state “So far, there has been no indication that they alluded to or attempted any bodily harm on their guests” – doesn’t the police statement using the word “threatening” qualify as an indication?
Yes, the words “threatening, abusive or insulting words” were pulled directly from the Public Order Act of 1986 (which I link to in the article…some due diligence?), and therefore was the reason they COULD arrest them. As to whether there were actual “threatening” words used or the woman felt threatened by what the ignorant couple had to say are two different things (and we don’t know the answer, since apparently the police did not release many details).
My issue, once again, is should an arrest even be warranted under such a thing at the Public Order Act? I certainly have felt threatened more than once in my life based on words people have said to me that cut through me like a knife, but should they have been arrested? Probably not.
If it comes out that the couple threatened their guests’ lives in any way, then I completely agree they should have been arrested. With the info we currently have, that doesn’t seem to be the case.
↵ -
Ryan G, the fact that there’s any talk of religion here is actually clouding the issue – as the police statement says it was “religiously aggravated” but even without that, this was already a public disorder offence.
There isn’t a double standard at work here, if Dan Brown went to a public meeting place (pre-requisite for the Act to apply – one of many reasons the Fiona Pilkington case is irrelevant) and behaved abusively or threateningly towards any individuals & someone complained, he would also be arrested.
↵ -
These folks are entitled to their opinion, ignorant though it may be. There’s no law against being offensive. Yet.
I got a chain mail thing today that read I had to forward it, “otherwise you will get a very unpleasant surprise. This is true, even if you are superstitious, agnostic, or otherwise faith impaired.”
“Faith impaired?” I didn’t like it, but there’s no crime here. This was no attack, no condemnation, no threat, no abuse. It was just a stupid thing to say. The proper response is “up yours!” If I told the guy I was gonna rip his head off, that’s a crime.
You should be able to say anything you want about any religion you want, as long as it’s not harming PEOPLE. I have a hard time believing in the potency of any deity or accompanying faith of love that can’t stand up to some harsh words cast against it.
That said, freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from responsibility for what you say. I can walk into an Irish bar and express the opinion “The Pope is a bum”, but I’m an imbecile to think I won’t get my teeth knocked down my throat.
The laws are designed to protect real, living people – not gods, not governments, not institutions of power. If that ever changes, we’re screwed.
↵ -
I think your point is very well made, DHarbecke, and I agree with you.
However, applying Western conventions of freedom of speech to Islam doesn’t work in some cases. Were one to suggest to some Muslims that the Koran or Muhammed for that matter might be less than perfect is highly insulting.
↵ -
Worth noting that these folks weren’t expressing their religious beliefs as suggested in the headline – “Headscarves are slavery” is not a tenet of any Christian denomination I know of. So freedom of religion is irrelevant here, except in the case of the insulted parties. That being said, I’d hesitate to call what they said hate speech.
DHarbecke – I don’t know enough about the latest laws in the UK to say for sure, but it sounds from the story as though there is indeed a law against being offensive there.
Final note – as another commenter mentioned, I’d be wary of anything I read in the Daily Mail. It’s a racist tabloid for the most part.
↵ -
That chain letter mentioned in one of the above comments offends me too, and I’m a Christian. It wasn’t from Anthony Robbins either, and the version I received once, claimed to be. I doubt these people in the article got in trouble for their religious beliefs, but rather, for being mouthy gits. But there’ll probably be a chain letter made from the story, yet another of those fricking “Christians! Your religion is getting threatened! Save it by passing on this chain letter!” Gah! I hate chain letters of any kind, but especially those that exploit religion, and am so sick of people especially Christians blindly passing them along as if their lives depended on it.
↵ -
@Justruss – I understand that, but we can’t let someone else’s taboos repress us. If I visit a conservative country, I behave to their norms and keep my mouth shut. But there’s a world of difference between respecting a culture’s religion and passing a law in your own country to respect a culture’s religion. It’s an uncomfortable truth that with freedom of speech, NOTHING is sacred anymore. The West still wrestles with that problem, and must – if it ever stops, we’re no longer free.
@Eva – “He said something mean, and I’m offended. Arrest him!” Any harm done? No. Battery? Creating a sense of threat? No. But now you need a lawyer for wounding someone’s feelings? Heaven help you if you don’t hold the door open for someone. Start passing laws to spare someone’s feelings or make us love one another, and you’ve got a cartoon waiting to happen.
I don’t know enough about this, so I’ll write my buddy in England. What a disaster if such a law really exists…
↵ -
K, here’s what I got:
According to my English poli sci source, a blasphemy law was kicked out last year but replaced more or less with an appeasing (for religious groups, that is) “incitement to religious hatred” amendment. In terms of laws against “offensiveness”, there’s no such animal. (Benny Hill rests easy.)
My friend has been following the story as well, and cautions me to take it with a grain of salt. The police may have been overzealous in their reactions, or it may have crossed into harrassment based on other unpublicized actions/statements. Quoting his reply: “Following these cases is very difficult because they are often reported by the Daily Mail via groups like the Christian Legal Centre and the Christian Institute who are less than forthcoming with the entire facts.” The moral of the story: stay objective.
↵ -
Thanks for the update, Daniel.
↵ -
The Fiona Pilkinton case is a tragedy and why there need to be laws and more steps taken to put a stop to bullying. But this case over the religious uproar is insanely frivolous in comparison.
↵ -
As a fundamental right, freedom of speech ends not where speech exits the lips but where it enters the ears. Anyone should be able to say anything they want, so long as it does not place another in harm’s way. To arrest someone for stating a misinformed opinion on the merits or lack thereof of someone else’s dearly held religion is a crime of infintely greater magnitude than any spoken insult.
It was asked, “… people are also entitled to ‘protection from insults and verbal abuse’ as well. Don’t you think?”
The answer is emphatically NO. And if such speech incites person to person violence, the crime is in the violence. (Incitement of crowds is a separate matter, given the nature of crowds.)
↵ -
It’d be worthwhile to look over some of the case law in the US surrounding this topic, where hateful, one-sided speech ends (loudmouths like Rush preaching to the masses, lunatics shouting on street corners) and where it borders on inciting a riot, or at least a few to do harm.
I don’t think it will ever be possible to eliminate all forms of speech that don’t offend at least one person.
↵ -
I don’t know about the ins and outs of this case, but I think a lot of British people are worried about losing freedom of speech and not being able to oppose the re-religionising of the island by another Middle-East religion; especially when apostasy receives the death penalty in many Islamic states (not saying that’s going to be introduced in the UK in the foreseeable future).
It seems crazy that 500 years after scientists and astronomers were persecuted for basically disproving the Abrahamic monotheistic view of the universe that those same religions are still warring with each other and trying to suppress secular criticism and rationality.
These religous laws were promoted by Blair; a man of faith biased towards fellow believers.
↵ -
Since when is Islam a race? And it isn’t Islamophobia when they really ARE trying ti kill you.
↵ -
Muslims may not be a race, but their religion doesn’t come from the western world. And scientists didn’t disprove the monotheistic view of the universe, they disproved the Ptolemaic view of it and basically the view all of humanity would’ve had of it regardless of what religion they were. No, it is Muslimophobia when people hate Muslims just for being Muslim when they don’t hold the terrorist view of the extremists who call themselves Muslim when they actually aren’t. Islam is at the stage now where Christianity was at a thousand and even 500 years ago when idiots burned “witches” at the stake and ran around killing and terrorizing others in the name of God but what they were actually doing was not following God and they were not real Christians any more than the terrorists are real Muslims..
↵
