In pious Muslim thinking: “how dare these Christians rise above the 2nd class position afforded to them by Islam (dhimmitude), and speak of our prophet in that way“.
But here’s the twist, not only is it a “he said-she said” situation, the faulty law being used to arrest this couple, was never intented to be used against anyone in a private discussion/argument, but against those causing insult in a public situation in order to prevent disorder.
Like the TT said, it’s a bad law to begin with, being insulted should never be grounds for a criminal charge, because it violates the very heart and soul of what constitutes free speech. Such a law will always serves the self interests of those in power, who want to ban any opinion that is deemed contrary to their own set of ideals and goals.
But that’s not all! Because of the frivelous lawsuit by this whining but deeply offended Muslim, the hotel owners were forced to lay of its staff due to the bad publicity, (which reflects badly on the media which seem mentally challenged on these issues), and are now working themselves to the bone to make ends meet. So the owners of a once thriving hotel, meet up with a female Muslim supremacist and is taken to court for insulting Islam. It all sounds too amazingly familiar. KGS
H/T: Gaia
A Christian couple have been charged with a criminal offence after taking part in what they regarded as a reasonable discussion about religion with guests at their hotel. Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang were arrested after a Muslim woman complained to police that she had been offended by their comments.
They have been charged under public order laws with using ‘threatening, abusive or insulting words’ that were ‘religiously aggravated’. The couple, whose trial has been set for December, face a fine of up to £5,000 and a criminal record if they are convicted.
Although the facts are disputed, it is thought that during the conversation the couple were challenged over their Christian beliefs.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.
They deny, however, that their comments were threatening and argue that they had every right to defend and explain their beliefs. […] The use by the police of the Public Order Act to arrest people over offensive comments has dismayed a number of lawyers, who say the legislation was passed to deal with law and order problems in the streets.
Neil Addison, a prominent criminal barrister and expert in religious law, said: ‘The purpose of the Public Order Act is to prevent disorder, but I’m very concerned that the police are using it merely because someone is offended.
‘It should be used where there is violence, yobbish behaviour or gratuitous personal abuse. It should never be used where there has been a personal conversation or debate with views firmly expressed. ‘If someone is in a discussion and they don’t like what they are hearing, they can walk away.’
Read it all here.
