Christian Hoteliers charged

[dustinzgirl]

Originally Posted by Winters_Sorrow

Without knowing what was said, yes I do.

In that case then, when any atheist tells me there is no God and I am silly for thinking so, I have a right to have them prosecuted? Drachir, you better get a lawyer.

When I tell an atheist there is a God and they are silly for thinking there isn't, they have a right to prosecute me? Crap, now I need one too.

These people are being prosecuted for stating a religious based opinion about another religion. Are you seriously saying such freedom of thought and speech should be outlawed?

Words stated in public can not be considered illegal.

In the workplace, there should be an adherence to civil rights. But these people did adhere to civil rights, they in no way made any forcible changes to the customer's rooms or refuse to service them.

They said that Mohammed was a warlord (I can argue this, but in any case) and that the hajib was representative of removal of women's rights (which it, but I've seen doctors and lawyers wearing this, so this also can be argued, and its not even in the Qu'ran anyways, so that's kind of dumb that its being called a religious thing, its a thing from the totalitarian regime that seeks to keep women subordinate and as slaves, also NOT in the Qu'ran).

I see nothing derogatory there at all. If they had said these things and then said 'we aren't going to give you a room' or ' we have to put your room where no customers can see you' then hecks to the yeah, prosecute away.

They stated an opinion.

Personally, I don't want to live in a world where opinions get you prosecuted in a court of law.

[Ursa major]

Originally Posted by dustinzgirl

These people are being prosecuted for stating a religious based opinion about another religion.

The problem is that everyone is tending to assume that this is what is happening, but until the charges are brought to court**, we simply don't know. And given that, it is very hard to state definitively that there has been an overreaction on the part of the police in this case. We may suspect there has, but that is is all it is: a suspicion.





** - We may never know for sure if the case is dropped before it goes before a judge (or magistrate).

[Peter Graham]

In that case then, when any atheist tells me there is no God and I am silly for thinking so, I have a right to have them prosecuted? Drachir, you better get a lawyer.

When I tell an atheist there is a God and they are silly for thinking there isn't, they have a right to prosecute me? Crap, now I need one too.

But that isn't what anyone is saying. For this to be a criminal matter, there has to be something over and above someone expressing an opinion. The law prevents people causing criminal harassment, alarm or distress. It doens't prevent anything else. No Court in this country will prosecute me just for telling you there is no God, or you just for telling me that there is one.

This is the whole point. For the case to have been charged, either someone has got carried away (in which case, the couple will be acquitted and costs paid) or the couple have done something which goes beyond an innocent expression of their views, in which case they will be convicted. And get a very small fine or a discharge.

These people are being prosecuted for stating a religious based opinion about another religion.

No, they aren't.

Words stated in public can not be considered illegal.

Not in any circumstances? Really?

Regards,

Peter

[dustinzgirl]

Originally Posted by Peter Graham

No, they aren't.



Not in any circumstances? Really?

Regards,

Peter

Yes, they are. They stated an opinion about the Muslim religion and the dress of the people and were persecuted for it and are being prosecuted, there is a difference between being prosecuted and convicted, whether it gets dropped or not they are STILL being prosecuted.

No, not in any circumstances. I do not think censorship is valid under any circumstances. I believe people in the privacy of their homes and in public venues have a right to express their opinions provided that they do not restrict freedoms of others (for example, refusing service to a person based on religion).

An opinion is just an opinion. These are just words. How is anyone else's opinion any more valid or invalid than my own?

In our American history, people were persecuted for writing about sex, religion, and other obscenities. Comedians went to prison for saying the F word.

I am very, very, very anti-censorship. I believe that censorship is a slippery slope and that ONLY actions should be prosecuted in a public court of law.

Civil matters, such as defamation of character, are entirely different.

Friends--public courts work like this-- the prosecutor prosecutes somebody who makes a claim that is either denied or accepted by the courts and turned into a conviction or thrown out or judgment of innocence.

They ARE being legally prosecuted.

NOT convicted.

You must be PROSECUTED before you can go to a court of law and state your guilt or innocence.

pros·e·cute (prs-kyt)v. pros·e·cut·ed, pros·e·cut·ing, pros·e·cutes
v.tr.1. Law a. To initiate civil or criminal court action against.
b. To seek to obtain or enforce by legal action.

2. a. To pursue (an undertaking, for example) until completion; follow to the very end.
b. To chase or pursue (a vessel): "He held a dispatch saying that [they] had prosecuted and probably killed an Echo-class missile submarine" (Tom Clancy).

3. To carry on, engage in, or practice.

v.intr. Law 1. To initiate and conduct legal proceedings.
2. To act as prosecutor.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/prosecute

They are being prosecuted.

From the article:



"
The guest complained to Merseyside Police who called the couple in for an interview. They were questioned twice before being charged with a religiously aggravated public order offence.
They appeared before magistrates last week where they denied the charges and are due to go on trial later this year. If found guilty they face a fine and a criminal record."




Thus, court proceedings have been filed and followed, thus they are being prosecuted.

[Vladd67]

An interesting point that the Daily Mail carried and other papers seem to have missed, so I have no idea how accurate it is.

Originally Posted by Daily Mail 21/09/2009

It is alleged they suggested that Mohammad, the founder of Islam, was a warlord when the guest challenged them about their Christian beliefs*. The woman also claims that the couple, who vehemently deny the allegations and say they were simply defending their faith, described her traditional dress as a form of bondage.

So it would seem the guest started the 'debate' and then got huffy when the couple defended their religion.

*My emphasis

[Ursa major]

Originally Posted by dustinzgirl

Yes, they are. They stated an opinion about the Muslim religion and the dress of the people and were persecuted for it and are being prosecuted, there is a difference between being prosecuted and convicted, whether it gets dropped or not they are STILL being prosecuted.

Again: None of us know precisely why they are being prosecuted because none of us witnessed what happened in the hotel and none of us were in the room during the (I think) two police interviews.

As we know so little, no-one can state with any degree of confidence what led to the hoteliers being charged. And simply restating something that is conjecture (and may - or may not - turn out to be correct) does not make it a fact.

Given the above, we can debate where the theoretical line which could or should be drawn between free speech and civil order (or even "social harmony", though I do not myself like this phrase if only because it's even wider ranging than "civil order"), but we cannot state with any confidence anything about this specific case;not until we know more.



Note: The case comes before the magistrates on the 8th of December 2009. Perhaps we will know more then.

[dustinzgirl]

Ursa, when I read an article that says they were interviewed by police, charged, and have a pending court date, I'm pretty sure that means that they are being prosecuted because the definition of prosecution is to charge and go to court, even if the magistrate throws it out, they were still prosecuted for the "crime" just not convicted.

The fact that it is going before the magistrate means that they are being prosecuted for the charge. Otherwise, they would not be going to court.

Does prosecute mean something different in the UK?

I'm pretty sure that they were charged with "The guest complained to police and the couple were charged under the 1986 Public Order Act - with using “threatening, abusive or insulting words” which were “religiously aggravated”."

Since like, thats what the news reported.

So I'm pretty sure that is what they were charged with.

Cuz the Times is pretty reliable.

I could be wrong tho.

But I'm still pretty dang positive that when you are charged with a crime and you go to court, it means that you are being prosecuted for the crime. In this case they are being prosecuted for a Public Order Act violation that was 'religiously aggravated.'

So............

I still think I'm right. Pretty dang sure of it.

I mean, I know we are splitting hairs here, but still................

[the smiling weirwood]

Originally Posted by TheEndIsNigh

King William the first of America will be enthroned in Lincoln's stone chair

Lincoln's chair is much too big for any actual person to sit in it.

[dustinzgirl]

You know what makes me kind of LOL---calling Mohamed a warlord, because well, pretty much most of Britain's history is all filled up with warlords, they just used titles like King and Queen and General, even all the way back to when London was a little villa called Londominium or however you spell whatever the Romans called it. And even before that, I mean the early history of that little island isn't filled up with hugs and kisses. And while thats more political/historical than religious, Islam is politics, history, and religion rolled into one. Well so is Britain, I mean you all had some pretty hard core religious laws up until the 1800's or so, isn't that why the pilgrims like, left Britain? And that's not to say America is any better, heck our history is full of warlords who stomped on baby's heads until they were dead dead dead. And we still haven't given the natives back their lands or real farming and self sustainability options other than casinos, which kind of defeat the purpose of self sustainability. Even today, there are many native Americans living in conditions similar to third world middle eastern peoples, including lack of clean water, healthcare, and electricity.

So I'm not exactly sure where all these Christians get off with some of their comments, but that doesn't mean I think they should be prosecuted for them!

[Ursa major]

No-one can dispute that they are being prosecuted; however, the details of the prosecution are unknown to us, as are the reasons for it.

For example, it is possible that the police involved have gone way across the line. It is not unknown: the West Midlands Police accused the producers of a TV documentary of fakery, unfairly showing a preacher committing one or more civil order offences. It was clear (if you saw the whole, unedited sequence) that the programme makers were, if anything, toning down the material. The police force, and the Crown Prosecution Service (the English equivalent of your District Attorneys), made an official apology when the programme makers sued for libel. (Sometimes - but only sometimes - UK Libel Law can have beneficial outcomes. )

It seems to me that basing a debate on the assumption that the only reason for the prosecution is that the law is draconian and wrong is unwise. It may turn out to be so; but it may be that the police are merly numpties (or, worse, in some way biased); or it may be that the hoteliers are the kind of people who we might all agree should be prosecuted if only we knew more about what they have done (whatever it may be); it may be for some other reason entirely. We will find out in December.

[dustinzgirl]

Um.........ok well I guess that makes sense.

[Ursa major]

You're perfectly free to state that it doesn't make sense (even if you're bound to be completely wrong about this ).

[Drachir]

Originally Posted by Peter Graham

Take gun ownership. The NRA and their trigger happy chums are all to quick to point to the constitutional right to bear arms, but even I, several thousand miles away, knows that your constitution actually says something rather different. Its all really about militias, is it not? And since we stopped marching ten thousand men up and down hills some generations ago, and given that Canada does not look like invading the US any time soon, I question whether this so-called right is genuinely anything other than a historical abnormality.
Peter

Don't be so sure of that. Even now thousands of Canadians are planning an invasion of the US. I even got some US maps from the CMA to help me find my way deep into the defenceless heartland. Armed with our swimsuits and credit cards we will swarm across the border seizing strategic footholds in motels and condominiums located close to swimming pools and beaches.

[Drachir]

Quite frankly any judge with half a brain (and there are probably a large number who fit that description) will simply throw the case out of court. In the meantime the couple being prosecuted will have been forced to spend several thousands pounds in order to defend themselves. This case doesn't do Muslims or Christians any good and leaves non-believers shaking their heads in dismay.

[j. d. worthington]

Whew! Stay away from a thread for a day or two, and you'll find yourself swamped with things requiring a response! I'll try to avoid being too lengthy, lest my post disappear in a puff of sulphur-tinged smoke (or have to split into numerous sections)....

This is fine as far as it goes. But it doesn't go far enough. If we are to allow totally untrammelled freedom of expression, we must allow it for all. It is one thing for intelligent, rational people to discuss ideas and proposals with no fear of interference or hindrance form the State. No-one could complain about that. But unfortunately, not everyone who wishes to avail themselves of free speech has such an enlightened view of social discourse. Lots of rather unpleasant and bigoted people are only too keen to express their ill-thought out, prejudiced and hate-filled views.

Am I saying that freedom of expression should therefore be limited only to the liberal, the intelligent and the courteous? Of course not. But what I cannot see a problem with is the use of "hate laws" (a dreadful expression) to curb those who go beyond the Pale and who seek to use freedom of expression as a means of vilifying or insulting others or as a means of whipping up hatred (and perhaps more direct forms of action) against certain sectors of society.

If free speech is a right, then like every other right, it comes with responsibilities. Those who fail to discharge or respect those responsibilities have to face the consequences. Whether the pendulum has swung too far is, to my mind, a completely different question to the question of whether freedom of speech can, or should be, curtailed at all.

Regards,

Peter

PS: An interesting example of my argument can be seen in this very thread. We have been warned that perosnal attacks on other posters - which is surely no more than freedom of expresion - will result in the thread being closed. This is surely a tacit acceptance of the limits of freedom of expression, at least as it manifests itself on this thread. If it is sauce for the goose, surely it is also sauce for the gander.

Peter, while you raise some interesting points, it seems to me that you're also putting up straw men as arguments. I don't think anyone here has argued for "totally untrammelled freedom of expression", as such a phrase could be stretched to mean blowing someone's brains out as a means of expressing your contempt or hatred for them or what you think they represent. What I'm seeing here is the reductio ad absurdum of extremes, with nothing in between being seen as options, and I don't think anyone here is arguing for that, either.

As I recall, both Dustie and I have noted that actual threats to an individual or group, or incitement to violence, should result in some legal repercussions; and, in fact, they do, and have, for some time. But insulting someone (or their beliefs), offending someone's feelings; no, that should in no way be a criminal offense. That is a nanny state with a vengeance, infantilizing the entire populace by bluntly stating that none of the adults in society are capable of taking care of themselves where such things come in, and therefore the state will have to paddle their little bottoms and send them to bed without their suppers should they become unruly. It's "Romper Room" time, rather than dealing with adults.

For example: with the case in question, I already noted that, if threats against her, or anyone she knew, or her place of worship, etc., were involved, then of course that puts it into an entirely different category. But: a) such is already long ago covered by law; and b) we have absolutely no evidence at this point that this was the case. In fact, with what Vladd posted about who began the discussion and how, it sounds very much as if she started the ball rolling on this on her own, and in such a way that she herself was likely to offend; in which case, she has only herself to blame if she gets a response with which she is less than happy.

But beyond that, I also posted several possibilities for responding in an adult manner to offense of this nature, the very sorts of options most of us use daily when we find ourselves unhappy with some form of customer service; none of them require the facilities of the legal system nor any violent response of any nature; yet they do form methods of correcting such a situation and in fact are considerably more empowering for everyone involved than getting the courts into the picture, as they allow the person with the complaint to be heard in ways which can be effective and garner them support, while at the same time providing opportunities for the offender to reassess their actions and make amends and change their behavior for the future. or present a defense of their actions, depending on which is the best response (or the one prompted by their conscience, whichever it may be).

As for those who are "only too keen to express their ill-thought out, prejudiced and hate-filled views", the best way to combat such, as I noted above, is by marshalling your facts and presenting them forcibly and repeatedly, not by legislation. Legislating this sort of thing does not improve matters; it only drives the problem underground, where it can fester and turn into nastier channels. At least if it is open, no matter how unpleasant or downright vicious it is, it can be combatted more effectively. It should not be ignored, but suppressing it only makes it worse; and the effect of such laws is to cement hatred and bigotry, not undermine them. However well-intentioned, they tend to build moats (or, not infrequently, canyons) rather than bridges; it is very much a case of the old saw about "the road to Hell is paved with" etc.

The "hate crimes" laws are problematic, not because they are necessarily bad in theory, but because they are getting into an aspect where the law is on frequently shaky ground: motivation. Unfortunately, there are enough crimes motivated by such bigotry that such a law is necessary for now; but we really need to be looking for other ways around this problem, as these also, the way they are, tend to reinforce such prejudices and hatreds, rather than work toward resolving them.

As for the example of the note about closing the thread -- that is a completely different sort of issue, for a number of reasons. First: this is, in effect, Brian's "living room", to which we have been allowed. He has set the house rules, as is only fair, it being his site. As Sparrow noted, if any of us don't like them, we can easily go elsewhere, whether it be to other forums, or setting up our own sites or blogs -- quite a different situation than what one has with society-at-large, where picking up stakes and vacating a state, country, or region, is simply not an option for the majority of people. Even more than this, though: the rules in the "Terms of Use" -- remarkably few, really -- are presented to you when you are registering; you have to agree to them in order to become a member; but no one requires you join, and if you don't agree with them, then the option is entirely up to you. But if you do punch that "I agree" button, then you have signed a contract to abide by the rules set down, and those who step outside those rules are already notified that there can be consequences for such, from a mild reminder from a moderator to banning, depending on the degree and/or frequency of abuse. But -- you are given the rules in a simple, easy-to-understand manner before you join; such cannot be said for the laws of a society, many of which the majority had little or no voice in the adoption of in the first place. So while it may, in the strictest sense be a form of "censorship", the two are about as comparable as a dust mite and the populace of New YorK as representatives of the inhabitants of the planet Earth.

WS:

In terms of freedom of speech, as people have pointed out numerous times, I think that a person's freedom of speech shouldn't include the right to voice aboherent and questionable statements deliberately designed to offend and inflame people which is why I personally support the idea of a legal situation where this can be challenged and the person brought to book. In individual cases this can be done overzealously but isn't that the point of judges and courts? As the arbiters of the law they should throw out cases which have no merit and if they fail in this task it's a miscarriage of justice and they should be disciplined as having failed in their duty.

I don't know how much experience you've had with the judicial system, but I'd suggest you look at the record sometime. It, like so many other things, follows "Sturgeon's Law" (or Revelation, if you really want to be pedantic about it): "Ninety percent of everything is crud." Beyond that, such laws form an even larger workload for systems already crippled by the profusion of lawsuits, criminal prosecutions, and the like; and therefore are simply not practical. I also simply cannot agree that someone should be liable to criminal prosecution for injuring someone's feelings. If that is the case, as noted above, then we are all building one hell of a nursery school to live in. (And it wasn't a civil lawsuit she brought against them. She filed a criminal complaint -- a vastly different matter.)

Peter, again:

Luckily, any alleged criminal conduct tends to be viewed fairly objectively by the Magistrates

This is true only with the very best of judges (here, at any rate; I've never been inside a British court, though I'd be willing to bet the same applies there). Again, look at the number of cases which actually go to trial which are simply ridiculous, let alone those which make it as far as going before such an authority before being dismissed -- all of which causes considerable damage to the defendants along the way. (And reimbursement of costs is not going to help when it comes to the immense amounts of time lost -- which has not infrequently cost people their jobs, their homes, and their families, even when the case was eventually dismissed or even if they were acquitted.) Yet another reason why such actions should be undertaken very, very cautiously. And no, the police are not generally known for their perspicaciousness in this respect. Check with any law enforcement officer, and you'll find that the bulk of them are woefully ignorant of the actual laws they are set out there to enforce, and are prone to give horrendously erroneous advice -- advice which, if followed, could also not infrequently land one in jail or facing the bench.

The vast majority of those who seek to be offended are not actually particularly sensitive at all. They are just using the alleged offence as an excuse to score points off others, to validate their own sense of self-importance or to show us all how politically attuned and fabulous they are.

Here we may be talking at cross-purposes, but I would argue that they are indeed extremely sensitive, but it is entirely where self is concerned. It is empathy (in its genuine sense of "Identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives") they lack, not sensitivity.

I don't think anyone wants the government to ensure social harmony. But I, at least, want my government to protect people from (for example) racist abuse.

And, getting back to the case in hand -- a) exactly where is there any evidence in what we have so far that this was "racist abuse"? b) why should people be protected by the government from this, rather than being able to protect themselves, when it comes to insults and the like? (As noted above, threats of violence and the like, or libel and defamation of character have long been codified, largely to everyone's satisfaction.)

It pays peanuts to the lawyer, but there are still enough criminal hacks around who will turn out for you.

Again, "Aye, there's the rub". Sometimes such legal aid is competent; a lot of the time it is not. Frequently they are overworked and overstressed, often with numerous cases going into court at the same time (at least, so it is here; there may be things in place to prevent such in the U.K.) -- hence can let a lot of things fall through the cracks, even though with the best intentions toward their client (see above on "good intentions"). And (at least here) going through the process of appeals can be horrendously costly in both money and time, and many an innocent person simply cannot afford to contest it if they are wrongfully found guilty. (What was the latest finding? If I recall correctly, historically, roughly 40-50 percent of those found guilty of such a major offense as murder were later found to be innocent, based on new evidence. I think we've all heard now of numerous cases of people being sent to prison for rape, who were later proven innocent via new aspects of forensic science; some of those people spent twenty years or more behind bars.)