UK Christians arrested and charged for criticizing Islam

[MRaverz]

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.

When Bob went on TV he wasn't breaking the law. However this couple could have broken the law through disorderly conduct - if they are guilty of this, freedom of expression was not infringed upon.
If they are not guilty of this, they would not be fined and freedom of expression would still not be infringed upon.

Freedom of expression only get infringed upon if the couple are punished for expressing their opinions if they were within the law whilst doing so.

 

[Nick]

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

By the wording used there to define "harassment" it would be a criminal offence for me to call you 'stupid'. Since you clearly take the side of the law do you think it's appropriate for me to be arrested for calling you 'stupid', providing you claim it caused you distress or alarm? This is the kind of law that's in place to give the police the power to do as they wish.

 

[MRaverz]

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

By the wording used there to define "harassment" it would be a criminal offence for me to call you 'stupid'. Since you clearly take the side of the law do you think it's appropriate for me to be arrested for calling you 'stupid', providing you claim it caused you distress or alarm? This is the kind of law that's in place to give the police the power to do as they wish.

This law has been in place since 1986 to prevent civil disorder, without it you would be free to be verbally abusive and threatening to anyone you see on the streets.

Your example would have to take place in a public or private environment or dwelling, not the internet, and the police would have to decide whether you were actually breaking the law or not. Naturally simply insulting me, as childish as that would be, would only be against the law it is were to cause civil disorder or distress/alarm to myself.

It's merely the difference between being a yob and being pathetic.

 

[borrofburi]

When Bob went on TV he wasn't breaking the law.

If he had been, what then? You seem to be taking the position that the law is the absolute arbiter of what is ethical or not. We are criticizing the law itself, and every time we do so you respond with "but it's the law!": that is not an argument, in such a situation you must justify the law.

However this couple could have broken the law through disorderly conduct - if they are guilty of this, freedom of expression was not infringed upon.
If they are not guilty of this, they would not be fined and freedom of expression would still not be infringed upon.

Freedom of expression only get infringed upon if the couple are punished for expressing their opinions if they were within the law whilst doing so.

This is incorrect. Freedom of expression may have a technical legal definition, however we are not arguing that, we'll let the courts and lawyers argue that. What we are arguing is that freedom of expression is a higher ideal. For example, would you argue that a state that defined "freedom of expression" as "anything that doesn't criticize the government" would then be justified in giving capital punishment to Bob? If yes, why do you let the government (with all its self interest and propensity for corruption) be the arbiter of morality? If no, then you and I both agree that the government and its definitions are not always right.

 

[Nick]

Re: Understand What Harassment Is

This law has been in place since 1986 to prevent civil disorder, without it you would be free to be verbally abusive and threatening to anyone you see on the streets.

Your example would have to take place in a public or private environment or dwelling, not the internet, and the police would have to decide whether you were actually breaking the law or not. Naturally simply insulting me, as childish as that would be, would only be against the law it is were to cause civil disorder or distress/alarm to myself.

It's merely the difference between being a yob and being pathetic.

Proving wether or not alarm or distress was caused to you is a fairly hard thing to do. We really only have your word, so if you oppose what I say then you can claim it did distress or alarm you and we have a potential criminal case. Let's ignore the fact that this is an online forum; when I purposed that I called you 'stupid', I meant it as coming up to you in the street and doing so.

The difference between being a yob and being pathetic is opinion. If you claim you are unoffended or at least 'unharmed' then you can simply call me 'pathetic' and disregard it but if you claim that I have caused you 'harm' or 'distress' then you can label me as a yob or hooligan and accuse me of a criminal offence. The only difference between the two situations is how you decided to respond.

Now with this in mind, I'm asking you these none rhetorical questions:

Should coming up to you in the street and calling you 'stupid', ever be a CRIMINAL OFFENCE?
If yes, what would be the correct size of punishment or maximum punishment?
If you answered 'no' to the original then where do you draw the line at what kind of speech can be considered for a criminal offence?

Also on an extra note, I'll say this: a lot of people don't want unpopular things to be said, that's a given by the very definition of unpopular. However the entire concept of free speech is to allow things no matter how unpopular they are, to be said. Like say, a few hard facts about Islam. Allowing unpopular speech is a corner stone of truth and all freedom. Islam wishes to be immune from criticism, that's extremely clear but the reality is all religions do. Therefore they drill into our heads the idea of how wrong it is to do so. This is how now criticising what someone believes has become akin to criticising the colour of their skin or where they were born.

 

[MRaverz]

@Both borrofburi and Nick:

I'm not going to discuss hypothetical examples based on the ideal of perfect freedom of expression - it's digression from the issue in hand.

The police has acted in according with the law, a trial will decide whether or not the couple were guilty of breaking that crime.

 

[Nick]

... freedom of expression - it's digression from the issue in hand.

It really ISN'T, that's what we were trying to get you to see.

The police has acted in according with the law...

I never disputed this, it's the laws I'm calling into question.

 

[borrofburi]

@Both borrofburi and Nick:

I'm not going to discuss hypothetical examples based on the ideal of perfect freedom of expression - it's digression from the issue in hand.

The police has acted in according with the law, a trial will decide whether or not the couple were guilty of breaking that crime.

It stopped being about "the law" and started being precisely about the ideal of freedom of expression in your first post (actually prior to your first post), when you responded to Nick who was, even then, criticising the law by saying that it does not line up with what he thinks should be the actual limits on freedom of expression. Not only was your response defending the law (as opposed to merely stating it) and making bold claims about what freedom of expression should be/is, you then went on to say:

I would welcome the couple to be fined and charged, in fact I really hope they are.

Indicating a personal opinion on what you think *should* happen. If you had been merely talking about what the law is, then this statement should have been left out (or been more along the lines of "I expect the couple will be fined under current legal code").

If you have been merely talking about what the law is, then your statements should have always been "this is what the law says" "I don't care about ideals, the law says..." "the legality of the situation is..." etc. Instead you've continually made claims about what freedom of expression should be/is and where the limits of it should be. Leading us not only to think, but also to be quite justified in thinking, that this has always been about what the ideal of freedom of expression is and how well british law measures up to that ideal.

Nick, Aught3, Marcus, and I, have never made any claim that the police did not act according to the law, and indeed have all been saying that this law harms the ideal of freedom of expression. I repeat, we have always been decrying that the british law appears to compare very poorly with what we think the ideal of freedom of expression is, NOT saying anything about the legality of the situation. If you have merely been here to declare what the law is (as opposed to supporting it), then you have done a piss poor job of making that clear, as well as I then ask that you please get out of this thread and stop attacking us for our disagreement (especially when your response to "the law is bad" is merely "this is what the law is").

However I do not think that is the case. I think what has happened is that you have been arguing that these laws are good, that these laws do indeed limit freedom of expression in exactly the right way, and that our last few responses have made the situation clear, resulting in a realization that your position is entirely and completely untenable. In an attempt to save face you're trying to change the focus of the conversation to the legality of the situation so that you can appear to be the "winner" of this disagreement.

So I present you with your options: either admit you have done a pathetic piss poor job making your position clear by using emotional and opinionated language when "attempting" to simply declare the legality of the situation while simultaneously completely and utterly failing to understand what we meant, or admit that this is not (and has not been) about the legality of situation but rather it's about whether or not the law measures up to the practical ideal of freedom of expression.

 

[dr_esteban]

I would just like to add that the articles are rather light on detail so it is hard to make an informed opinion on what actually happened. Add that to the fact that both papers are right wing and the Mail is particular is seen to take a less than balanced stance when it comes to UK Muslims then I would hold fire before jumping in.

 

[nasher168]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/sep/21/hotel-guest-row-hijab-religion
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6842869.ece

The Guardian is usually centre-left and The Times is reasonably balanced if slightly conservative at times.

 

[MRaverz]

... freedom of expression - it's digression from the issue in hand.

It really ISN'T, that's what we were trying to get you to see.

The police has acted in according with the law...

I never disputed this, it's the laws I'm calling into question.

It's at least digression away from the thread, that being the article itself. The issue of freedom of expression and how much of it we really have is another topic, related yes but another topic.

If you want to call the laws into question, that is another topic. In my opinion, we get on fine with the laws how they are and how they have been for years.

 

[Nick]

It's at least digression away from the thread, that being the article itself. The issue of freedom of expression and how much of it we really have is another topic, related yes but another topic.

If you want to call the laws into question, that is another topic. In my opinion, we get on fine with the laws how they are and how they have been for years.

The discussion started betwwen me and you when you said this WASN'T a freedom of speech issue and you know it. Maybe you should stop avoding it and just answer borrofburi.

 

[MRaverz]

It's at least digression away from the thread, that being the article itself. The issue of freedom of expression and how much of it we really have is another topic, related yes but another topic.

If you want to call the laws into question, that is another topic. In my opinion, we get on fine with the laws how they are and how they have been for years.

The discussion started betwwen me and you when you said this WASN'T a freedom of speech issue and you know it. Maybe you should stop avoding it and just answer borrofburi.

Strawman argument.

 

[borrofburi]

Strawman argument.

Masked man fallacy. Oh what? I thought we were just throwing around words without any justification for using those words.

 

[Zetetic]

Re: 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.

It's on the Telegraph also. That article seems even more sparse so I have to ask you what part of this seems to be more than a 'they said she said' situation?

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

Only if you concede one side and dismiss the other, unless there is something I missed. If you have a direct citation of evidence of harassment I suggest you share it.

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.

[/quote]

May I ask how 'order' is defined? Without set parameters it potentially nullifies the whole statement, so I assume it has a set legal definition.

I found this on wikipedia:
In the United Kingdom, an ASBO may be issued in response to "conduct which caused or was likely to cause harm, harassment, alarm or distress, to one or more persons not of the same household as him or herself and where an ASBO is seen as necessary to protect relevant persons from further anti-social acts by the Defendant".[3] In England and Wales they are issued by Magistrates' Courts, and in Scotland by the Sheriff Courts.

The British government introduced ASBOs by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. In the UK, a CRASBO is a "criminally related" ASBO. One local authority has published photos of those given ASBOs on an Internet site.[4] Anti-social behaviour includes a range of problems including:[5]

* noisiness
* busking
* drunken behaviour from binge consumption of alcohol
* abandoning cars
* stealing/mugging/shoplifting
* begging
* vandalism/criminal damage
* loitering
* littering/fly tipping/dog fouling
* recreational drug dealing/consumption of recreational drugs
* intimidation
* fare dodging
* spitting
Breaking an ASBO can render up to five years imprisonment. In the UK, there has been criticism that an ASBO is sometimes viewed as a badge of honour by some younger people. Many see the ASBO connected with young delinquents.[2]

I'm not sure if this is right, but does this mean you can get up to 5 years in prison for begging , spitting or standing in front of a store too long repeatedly(perhaps they received the ASBO first for begging, then continued their pattern of behavior and were imprisoned)? Or is the ASBO just a blanket term with gradations?

 

[Aught3]

May I ask how 'order' is defined? Without set parameters it potentially nullifies the whole statement, so I assume it has a set legal definition.

Order, as in public order? It just means contrary to generally accepted cultural norms. Sort of the morality of society. So, yes if begging goes against what is considered to be the societal norm then it could contravene a public order act or law.

Additionally, you clearly don't understand what freedom of expression states:

Yeah, I do understand. I accept that I used a narrow list of exceptions but yours is too broad.

Burka as an instrument of bondage: I think I already posted this but maybe it was on another thread. Wherever political Islam takes over it forces women into the burka. This clothing article is designed to limit a woman's interaction with other people outside her family. Whenever she goes out she must hide her face thereby severely limiting her ability to communicate and form relationships. This keeps her isolated from society and bound to her husband. The sort of thing that ought to be against our cultural norms really.

 

[borrofburi]

Re: Understand What Harassment Is

<legal argument>

Whether it was legal or not is irrelevant, what matters is that you can be arrested for things that in no way violate the ideal of freedom of expression, especially via rules that allow for subjectivity (I.e. calling you stupid might not be "distress", but calling Bob stupid might be "distress"), and *especially* where "insult" or "offense" is considered an argument (read: atheism *is* offensive to theists, thus the phrase "I'm an atheist" might be enough to get you arrested).

 

[dr_esteban]

Re: Understand What Harassment Is

<legal argument>

Whether it was legal or not is irrelevant, what matters is that you can be arrested for things that in no way violate the ideal of freedom of expression, especially via rules that allow for subjectivity (I.e. calling you stupid might not be "distress", but calling Bob stupid might be "distress"), and *especially* where "insult" or "offense" is considered an argument (read: atheism *is* offensive to theists, thus the phrase "I'm an atheist" might be enough to get you arrested).

Not true the legal standard of the "reasonable person" would apply therefore you could not be convicted in the situation you described.

 

[borrofburi]

Re: Understand What Harassment Is

Whether it was legal or not is irrelevant, what matters is that you can be arrested for things that in no way violate the ideal of freedom of expression, especially via rules that allow for subjectivity (I.e. calling you stupid might not be "distress", but calling Bob stupid might be "distress"), and *especially* where "insult" or "offense" is considered an argument (read: atheism *is* offensive to theists, thus the phrase "I'm an atheist" might be enough to get you arrested).

Not true the legal standard of the "reasonable person" would apply therefore you could not be convicted in the situation you described.

Free speech necessarily includes unpopular speech. While I like the "reason" part of "reasonable person" it unfortunately makes the law ambiguous, and in practice means "the average person", which is, honestly, quite unreasonable.