UK Christians arrested and charged for criticizing Islam

[jrparri]

But where do we draw the line? These people were alright in saying what they did about Muhammed, but if they had said something like "raghead" or "muzzy" then they would, in my opinion, have crossed the line.

Muzzy? Well that has to be the laziest slur I've ever heard. If you're Muslim and someone calls you Muzzy, you would just be like, "is... is that a term of endearment? Are we dating now? Well I love you too, Chrizty!" :roll:

This is nothing to do with freedom of speech as it seems to be as if the couple were being genuinely offensive, probably due to a lack of knowledge of their behalf. Therefore it's harassment, an abuse of freedom of expression.

Ehh harassment? If this was just dinner conversation turned bad, I doubt it.
Now, if they followed them home chanting "Muz-zy, Muz-zy!", or burned a cross on their lawn or something that would be harassment.

 

[Nick]

MRaverz, are you serious?

MRaverz, have you even read both those articles? Where on earth does it make this sound like a case of "harrasment"?

This isn't harrasment, this is just making some comments durning conversation that offended someone. Because these comments were related to somebody's faith it's being regarded as a criminal offence. It's insanity and your insane for not seeing it.

As far as Muslims not getting special treatment goes, I have two words for you: "Sharia Law".

 

[Aught3]

This is nothing to do with freedom of speech as it seems to be as if the couple were being genuinely offensive, probably due to a lack of knowledge of their behalf. Therefore it's harassment, an abuse of freedom of expression. I hate how racist bigots feel they can hide behind freedom of speech as an excuse to go around insulting people who they disagree with. If you actually look at what the human rights act says, it states that you cannot abuse freedom of expression - i.e. using it to plainly insult or harass others.

If you can't use freedom of speech to cover insulting or offensive speech then it isn't worth anything. The answer to bad speech is more speech, not to curtail everyone's freedom. If this is what people really think then I want to hear it from them, I would rather these opinions be out in the open (where they can be corrected) than festering in the darkness.

The only way to abuse freedom of expression is along the lines of an incitement to violence. For example, if this couple had been screaming racial slurs in front of an angry mob outside the Muslim's house then the police would have good cause to remove them in order to guarantee public safety. From the sounds of it, this couple didn't shout slurs they merely stated facts in their own private property to a guest that didn't have to stay there if she didn't want to.

 

[Gnomesmusher]

Wow. Trampling on free speech because feelings were hurt? Because someone felt insulted? I'm disappointed in the U.K.

 

[borrofburi]

I'm in favour of anti-hate speech legislation, but people must be able to make their opinion heard without fear of the law.

But where do we draw the line? These people were alright in saying what they did about Muhammed, but if they had said something like "raghead" or "muzzy" then they would, in my opinion, have crossed the line.

(emphasis mine)

We draw the line at the only rational and objective place we can: informed consent and lack of harm to non-participants (I'm copying that phrase from what Marcus wrote in the thread "Rape games banned in Japan"). Can speech be harmful? Maybe, but I guarantee you that "offense" is not enough to be called "harm". As has pointed out, if you allow "offensive" to be an argument where does it stop? Can I call you an idiot or is that a criminal offense? Facts can be offensive, is quoting those a criminal offense?

We cannot allow "offense" to be an argument. You could probably make a very convincing argument that there are times when someone should not be allowed free speech, for example inciting a riot or a lynch mob (note there is clear harm in this example). You may even be able to make an argument that harassment should carry fines, maybe be a civil penalty, and *maybe* be a criminal offense. However both inciting a riot and harassment are *very* different things from being merely "offensive".

So in short, I completely disagree that "raghead" or "muzzy" or hell, even "nigger" cross this "line", because all of those are examples of things that are merely offensive; you'd be hard pressed to argue that "offensive" is a case of clear harm, and as Marcus once said:

Informed consent by all participants and a lack of harm to non-participants is the only place one can objectively "draw the line", lest we start to declare ourselves a "Moral Majority"...

As I always respond to free speech issues: show me the harm. If there is no clear harm, or if those harmed provided informed consent, you have no argument more valid than "it's offensive", which can be used to justify nearly anything (read: atheism is offensive).

 

[Marcus]

They Jailed Abu Hamza for anti western hate speech so to be fair these guys should join him.

They jailed Abu Hamza because he was inciting and advocating violence.

Also, everything borrofburi said is an exactly correct interpretation of my stance. Harassment is wrong, but it's only harassment when either the person has made it clear they feel threatened or harassed and you continue anyway or if any reasonable person would realise that some speech constituted harassment.

 

[xchillx42]

*sigh*

...

Why has free speech gone to shit in England?

 

[xchillx42]

They Jailed Abu Hamza for anti western hate speech so to be fair these guys should join him. It is a fundie fight. Honestly the simplest thing to do is just not pay attention to them in the hopes they will go away.

To be fair, one was preaching hate speech and the other was in a personal debate.

 

[MRaverz]

Understand What Harassment Is

MRaverz, have you even read both those articles? Where on earth does it make this sound like a case of "harrasment"?
This isn't harrasment, this is just making some comments durning conversation that offended someone. Because these comments were related to somebody's faith it's being regarded as a criminal offence. It's insanity and your insane for not seeing it.

As far as Muslims not getting special treatment goes, I have two words for you: "Sharia Law".

You're reading this from the Daily Mail, you're not going to get a fair account of the event - you're going to get something pro-white and anti-anythingThatIsn'tBritish. Haven't you read any other articles they produce? They are often filled with lies or misleading statements.

As for whether this is harassment, it is - by definition. In fact I took the time to look up the act they were detained under: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_harassment,_alarm_or_distress

As for Sharia Law, that only exists in the Middle East. The closest we've had to it here is the Archbishop of Canterbury suggesting it and everyone being against it. It's highly unlikely to be implemented in the West due to it's barbaric punishments etc.

The only way to abuse freedom of expression is along the lines of an incitement to violence. For example, if this couple had been screaming racial slurs in front of an angry mob outside the Muslim's house then the police would have good cause to remove them in order to guarantee public safety. From the sounds of it, this couple didn't shout slurs they merely stated facts in their own private property to a guest that didn't have to stay there if she didn't want to.

It is not a fact that the burka is an instrument of bondage. Additionally, you clearly don't understand what freedom of expression states:

The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

 

[borrofburi]

Re: Understand What Harassment Is

As for whether this is harassment, it is - by definition. In fact I took the time to look up the act they were detained under: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_harassment,_alarm_or_distress

First, "harassment" is just a word, I think it's poorly defined there: a single isolated sentence, phrase, or word, is never enough for it to be harassment; harassment requires that the "offended" party ask the other person to stop, and attempts to leave the situation to get away from it, while the "offender" refuses to stop and actively seeks out the "offended". Regardless, you still have failed to show how this incident falls under the definition of harassment you have provided: how was what was said abusive or threatening.

I wrote a post, that you ignored, on all the reasons exactly why offense is not enough and *must* not be accepted as a way to attack speech.

Furthermore: show me the harm. If there is no clear harm, or if those harmed provided informed consent, you have no argument more valid than "it's offensive", which can be used to justify nearly anything (read: atheism is offensive).

 

[Aught3]

@ MRaverz

The burka is an instrument of bondage. Wherever fundamentalist Islam takes over it forces women into restrictive clothing designed to limit their interaction with the outside world - misogynistic in the extreme.

The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

So did this couple violate any of these restrictions?

I will say that it's possible we haven't heard the whole story, more could have gone on than what is being reported in the newspapers. However, from what I can gather this couple hasn't yet been shown to have done anything harmful, defamatory, or disruptive to public order.

 

[MRaverz]

I will say that it's possible we haven't heard the whole story, more could have gone on than what is being reported in the newspapers. However, from what I can gather this couple hasn't yet been shown to have done anything harmful, defamatory, or disruptive to public order.

Clearly, none of us were there to witness the event and the Daily Mail has a habit of making events look like the white British males are always in the right.

Without a reliable source for the event, we cannot be sure of what occurred. However, from my view the police took the right action and arrested the couple under a viable law - freedom of expression has nothing to do with it.

The couple have also not been charged yet, if they are it would be because the Jury views that harassment occurred - if not then the Jury would declare that it did not occur. Either way, freedom of expression is alive and well. Or are the jury in on this as well?

 

[Aught3]

As far as I can tell this couple has been charged with "a religiously-aggravated public order offence", I read about it in the Daily Telegraph (yes I've heard about the Daily Mail). What is it that the jury could be 'in' on exactly?

If you think that the police were correct an acted within the accordance of a law, would you agree (from what we've heard) that this law is a serious problem for free-speech?

 

[borrofburi]

freedom of expression has nothing to do with it.

Actually it has everything to do with it. The precise question here is what speech is not protected speech.

The couple have also not been charged yet

You can be arrested without being charged? For how long?

 

[MRaverz]

freedom of expression has nothing to do with it.

Actually it has everything to do with it. The precise question here is what speech is not protected speech.

The couple have also not been charged yet

You can be arrested without being charged? For how long?

Sorry, I meant they haven't been to trial yet.

Freedom of expression is the freedom to express an opinion without the state intervening with the message, the state is not intervening with the message - it's arresting someone for disorderly conduct. So freedom of expression is not the issue here.

The law as it stands isn't a problem because it prevents people using their ability to say whatever they like in order to abuse, harass or intimidate others while still giving a forum for their opinions.

 

[MRaverz]

What is it that the jury could be 'in' on exactly?

Some government suppression of freedom of expression which some people seem to believe is happening. I'm talking about those who are 'disappointed in the UK'.

 

[borrofburi]

Freedom of expression is the freedom to express an opinion without the state intervening with the message, the state is not intervening with the message - it's arresting someone for disorderly conduct. So freedom of expression is not the issue here.

There are two ways freedom of speech can be infringed upon: preventing it from ever being said (pre-censorship), or punishing someone for saying it.. Preventing a book from being sold is pre-censorship, we all agree that's bad. However, say Bob goes on television and says "I think our current government is failing us", and then he gets fined for that (or jail time): that's still infringing upon free speech, even if it happens after the fact.

 

[JacobEvans]

I think that lately people have forgotten the difference between 'calling on people to riot' and 'saying something that angers another person who retaliates by calling on people to riot'.

 

[Beerina]

Arrrgh! Who do I back?
The christians sound like they were being bigots, and yet they should be free to criticise Islam. In addition to that, Islam is itself a barbaric religion (although many muslims are decent people) and deserves criticism. The Christian man said that Mohammed was a warlord. That is a historical fact. If they don't like it, that's their problem. The fact is that Mohammed led his people through conquest to becoming the largest power in the world in just 30 years.
Also, I doubt that the Christians would have pressed charges like the Muslims have if the Muslims had attacked Christianity so viciously (which, for all I know, they did). Christians (in my experience, on and off the internet) simply don't care that much, but Muslims seem to go berserk at the slightest mention of criticism.

So all in all, I think I back the christians here.

"Who do you back?" Let's put it this way. If you think I should be fined or jailed for saying, "Muslims should be laughed at because of their backward theo-philosophical worldview, i.e. for exactly what they believe, because they are impious fools for doing so," then you are part of the problem, not the solution.


From TFA:

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.

I'm sure he was a warlord. He was also a power-hungry thug who was the best at killing off his political rivals and feeding bullshit to the masses, much like the early Christian church leaders did.

Muslim dress for women is a form of bondage. It is an excellent example of the real power of a meme -- an idea, yes, but an idea whose primary purpose is to get people to do something that has nothing to do with the "reason".

Also, any god who things women should cover themselve up, or be held accountable for teasing a man somehow, is a sick mofo and the people who worship such a sack are either deluded or have a diseased mind. This goes for all three Western religions, by the way.


So? What do you think?

Now I have two reasons to say things like this: To irritate the religious, but also now to piss off people with guns who don't want me to say them.

 

[Beerina]

Hey, it's Blasphemy Day! What good timing!

Although I would like to point out this is completely coincidental. For me, every day is blasphemy day.