Comments on: Questionable Religious Beliefs: Watch Out, You Might Go To Jail Over Them

By: Capri

Capri — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 20:05:03 +0000

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..

(Report comment)

By: barenakedislam

barenakedislam — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:15:37 +0000

Since when is Islam a race? And it isn’t Islamophobia when they really ARE trying ti kill you.

(Report comment)

By: Marc Latham

Marc Latham — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 10:07:24 +0000

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.

(Report comment)

By: Christine Garvin

Christine Garvin — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 13:41:45 +0000

Thanks for the update, Daniel.

(Report comment)

By: Turner

Turner — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 00:43:14 +0000

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.

(Report comment)

By: Don

Don — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 23:58:30 +0000

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.)

(Report comment)

By: Capri

Capri — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 22:37:00 +0000

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.

(Report comment)

By: DHarbecke

DHarbecke — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 21:06:48 +0000

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.

(Report comment)

By: christine

christine — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 19:07:38 +0000

>>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.

(Report comment)

By: DHarbecke

DHarbecke — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 18:45:26 +0000

@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…

(Report comment)