Even non Christians should be concerned as this is a case of police arresting someone for expressing an opinion. I wonder if it would work both ways?

This case comes to court tomorrow.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/reli...ng-Muslim-guest.html

Ridiculous. This is precisely the sort of stuff that gives grist to BNP/EDL's mill. I'm pugnaciously irreligious myself, and have no problems communicating my desire not to be bothered with someone else's dogma every time the Jehovah's Witnesses come round. So I have to wonder how long it'll be before I'm carted off for offending them and, by extension, all religions.
Rid {as I said before}iculous.

Totally wrong.

Therefore every HALAL butcher or restaurant will have to be closed down because they discriminate against non Muslims by only providing HALAL food.......

There is a very nasty racial undertone to New Labour and their laws against Christians ( and Muslims )

Id better watch it next time i say that Jesus Christ is based on many rebel prophets of Roman times and the Bible is a great book of stories but as holy as a copy of Gay Times. Beware our own Taliban.

Um, I'd be interested to know why Halal is discriminatory against non Muslims, BR. My favourite curry houses are all Halal and I don't feel, as a non-anything, discriminated against. Am I missing something here?

I suspect you'd be allowed to say all of that, giles. The Christian religion is the one we are all permitted to dismiss or mock. Even in TV shows you'll notice how it's Christianity alone which is ridiculed. Jesus is constantly lampooned and his name used as a swear word. You'll never hear them misuse the name Mohamed. Maybe that's because Christianity is based on forgiveness and so there's no risk of a fatwa.

I agree Locked Out - that is the stupidity of this "case".

How can following your religious beliefs be wrong >?

Being a Christian and having HALAL food was not a crime the last time I looked.

It's just that you wrote;
.... {every} "HALAL butcher or restaurant will have to be closed down because they discriminate against non Muslims by only providing HALAL food"

So when you said "they discriminate against non Muslims by only providing HALAL food" you didn't actually mean "they discriminate against non Muslims by only providing HALAL food"
Pardon me, I became confused by your saying one thing while meaning something else.

It's really a case of a badly worded law.It was designed to stop hate preachers,and the BNP,but is now being used against a civilised couple debating.
However we don't know if they got aggressive verbally,be interesting to see all the facts before we commit.

Emma Bee wrote:
Even non Christians should be concerned as this is a case of police arresting someone for expressing an opinion. I wonder if it would work both ways?



This not about Christians being arrested for expressing an opinion. I suppose it was obvious the media were going to spin the story in this predictable manner.

It is about an extremely abusive couple who launched into an unprovoked torrent of abuse on an innocent woman in public. All because of a scarf over her hair.

The Times this morning reports the case as follows:

She told Liverpool Magistrates’ Court: “He said, ‘Why are you wearing those?’ He was just laughing at me. It [the hijab] seemed to trigger something. I don’t know why because I am still the same person underneath the garment.

“He called Muhammad a warlord. He was very animated, loud and intimidating. He asked if I was a terrorist. I am a 60-year-old disabled woman. I could not understand where he was coming from. It shocked me. I tried to walk away to get my breakfast but he came in waving his arms and shouting was I a murderer, a Nazi like Hitler.”

Two other guests are quoted:

Shirley Christy, another guest and patient on the pain management course, said that Mr Vogelenzang had been “shaking his fists, whirling like a dervish and going bright red in the face. He was really irate,” she said.

and

Pauline Tait, a fellow guest, described the exchange as “very upsetting and volatile”. She said: “It was all very heated. He was saying ‘Muhammad is a warlord. He stands for murder. Do you stand for murder too?’ That is an angry statement.”

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6948816.ece

So this is not a story about Christians expressing their opinions. Since when did that involve shaking your fist at a disabled woman?

So far we've only heard the allegations. Let's hear both sides before making any judgement.

The defence claim is that the couple were expressing their opinion and they deny the allegations against them.

Besides that, when did shaking your fist at someone or engaging in a heated debate become an offence worthy of prosecution? It's bad for business if you abuse your guests, and maybe - if guilty - the couple should have their guest house downgraded, but it's hardly criminal. Ed Balls gets over heated when people disagree with his views on climate change and he calls them "Flat Earthers". Some find that offensive but they don't ask for his arrest. I see little difference, from what I've heard so far.

Emma Bee wrote:
So far we've only heard the allegations. Let's hear both sides before making any judgement.



yes indeed.

I have to say tho that if someone was raising a fist at me I would consider that a threat of violence, not an expression of opinion. Especially if unprovoked.

But as you say, the case is only in its second day.

These people are Christians. I dont believe they shook their fist at all - that is totally out of character for someone who is passionately a Christian. ( remember Bush and Blair are NOT Christians in what I understand as the traditional sense of the word )

It has been made up against them.

They could have been accused of being insensitive - but when did that become a crime ?

We are living in an age where if you say the wrong thing or say something in the wrong way - you get thrown into a Court Case and your life is ruined ( Carol Thatcher - Ron Atkinson etc etc ) This is ridiculous because the REAL CRIMINALS are out there creating havoc and the POLICE say they cant do anything against them.

POLICE = Criminal Defence Force
CHRISTIANS and MUSLIMS = good people who must be wiped out by the Criminal Defence Force.

This is the reality of how the law is applied in the UK in 2009.

We need to start justice with the presumption of innocence - and only prosecute REAL crimes against the person. Thought crimes should not be prosecuted in a FREE country. Having the "wrong" opinion - even if racist or anti religion - should not be an offence.

We will get to the point where people are HUNG or BURNED at the stake for not believing the right things - sorry but NO belief should lead to that.

If someone is racist - then live with it and try and persuade them to change through education and reason - not criminal prosecution. Etc etc.

The law must be freed to deal with real criminals who commit offences against others. I dont count thought crimes as a criminal offence unless it leads to violence which then makes it an actual crime. How can we penalise people for their thoughts and words ?

The advert for HSBC clearly shows that words mean different things in different cultures for instance....therefore words are CHEAP and over as soon as you say them.

BR wrote:
These people are Christians. I dont believe they shook their fist at all - that is totally out of character for someone who is passionately a Christian.

It has been made up against them.



How can you possibly know that? Were you there?

Also you don't know these people, so how do you know what kind of people they are, just because they are Christian?

you're barking mad lol

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/hote...m-guest-1837016.html

Judge dismissed the case.

well at least that shows the case was not part of an anti-Christian conspiracy.

The two-day trial ended when Judge Clancy ruled that the evidence against the hoteliers was "inconsistent" and dismissed the case.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8404212.stm

The entire case appears to me to have been ridiculous and over reacting.

Quite apart from anything else I'm in favour of all religions being mocked and offended. Stupid thing religion; pandering to the simplicity of slogans; headline morality.

JK2006 wrote:

Quite apart from anything else I'm in favour of all religions being mocked and offended. Stupid thing religion; pandering to the simplicity of slogans; headline morality.

but that's a pretty fundamentalist position too,JK.

I appreciate the fact that atrocities have been committed in the name of various religions- but that's the point, they have been committed in the name of those religions, not by them.

Myself I am a practising Buddhist- we do not believe in a God, but that every life contains infinite potential. I know Christians whose belief is pretty close to that too, we just call ourselves by different names.

Although I am Buddhist, some of my heroes are Christian (Terry Waite, Desmund Tutu....) and I have friends who are Muslim, Humanist and atheist. Who cares, as long as we are aiming for the same thing?

I just wonder when we will start looking for what we have in common rather than clinging to what separates us.

Ah David that's not religion, that's philosophy and most philosophers, like you, feel quite content to be criticised, ridiculed or insulted.