Pastor James McConnell & freedom of speech

This Belfast preacher caused a stir last year when he gave a sermon which was afterwards declared to be offensive to Muslims. He says he doesn't trust Islam and refered to it as a "satanic" and "heathen" religion.

Later on he was asked to be a guest on BBC's "The Nolan Show" where they put him face to face with a prominent Muslim which the BBC had brought over from "the mainland".
Both men describe themselves as "a man of god" and each man finds the other offensive.
Its a bit like watching a time-traveller from 18th century Britain being brought into contact with modern 21st century multi-cultural Britain, where the original culture has been reduced to just one of many competing sub-cultures. Predictably, it ends in an acrimonious debate about Britishness, and Dr. Khalid exclaims angrily "This is my country".



The authorities reluctantly proceeded with a prosecution after complaints by offended Muslims. Interestingly, they are using relatively new legislation which bans certain "offensive content" broadcast over the electronic media, rather than citing any blasphemy or freedom of speech considerations. This seems to be an attempt to avoid the real issue; that fundamentalist religions are inherently blasphemous to each other. Therefore a multi-cultural society cannot have a blasphemy law. Only a society with a state religion can.

Last August the authorities offered Pastor Mc Connell a way out; if he had pleaded guilty he would have been let off. No criminal prosecution and no sentence. But he refused to back down. He stands up for Jesus.

Last week on Oct 1st he was in court again and a 3 day trial has been set for Oct 14th. The BBC is not at all happy about being dragged into it.

The BBC has questioned what relevance Mr Nolan has to the case, but the court is considering issuing a witness summons before the trial begins.

BBC article


The Irish News, a nationalist newspaper, seems broadly supportive of the pastor, or at least recognises the real issue here is freedom of speech. Saying this;

Plenty has been said about how bringing McConnell to court over an anti-Islamic sermon threatens free expression and freedom of religion but the full recklessness of the case is only emerging as its mechanics come to light.
McConnell is being prosecuted under a 2003 law against transmitting “grossly offensive” remarks over an electronic communications network. This is widely seen as a cunning move by the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) to side-step questions of free speech and freedom of religion by treating the sermon solely as an offensive internet broadcast. However, the woolly concept of ‘offensiveness’ - which the 2003 law makes no attempt to define - is still at the heart of the case.
Last week, it was reported that the PPS had planned to prove offence by summoning four Muslim witnesses to testify that they had been offended, presumably as a complement to establishing some objective basis of offensiveness in law. A change to the hearing’s December schedule indicates this plan has now been dropped but it is incredible that it ever reached such an advanced stage, let alone that it passed the PPS’s public interest test.
Anyone might be offended by anything, so the views of four out of Northern Ireland’s estimated 4,000 Muslims would have proved nothing.
There are no reports of the PPS conducting a general survey of Muslim opinion to ensure that its one in a thousand witness sample would have been representative, so those most offended would likely have been the first called.
Seeking their views in court would have appeared to pit faith groups against each other, in an adversarial legal setting, with one group seeking to get another’s cleric incarcerated based entirely on how much their feelings were hurt. The potential damage to community relations is easy to imagine.

The Belfast Muslim who initiated the complaints against the pastor, Raied al-Wazzan, has previously defended the actions of Islamic State where they "pacified" the city of Mosul (by exterminating all opposition).