Couple prosecuted for callling Mohammed 'a warlord'

PDN

I thought this was a bit of a strange case. http://www.bootletimes.co.uk/news/bootle-news/2009/09/24/christian-couple-could-lose-their-aintree-hotel-following-row-with-muslim-guest-97007-24765432/

Apparently a Christian couple who run a hotel in Liverpool are being prosecuted because they had an argument with a Muslim guest, during which they referred to Mohammed as 'a warlord' and said that the hajib oppressed women. That was deemed offensive behaviour, while the Muslim woman calling Jesus 'a minor prophet' is not offensive.

Of course with these kind of things context is everything, and you usually end up with two different stories. If I was a guest at a hotel I'm not sure I would be too happy if the hoteliers started picking a quarrel with me about my religion. If the couple initiated the discussion then I would say the local hospital is right to stop recommending the hotel to outpatients - but taking them to court seems like it could create a precedent where no-one can discuss their faith at all.

evolving_doors

Doesn't sound like those hotelliers were sitting down over a cuppa 'discussing' their faith....

Just wondering how an argument at a breakfast table could end with...

"well jesus was only a minor prophet"

"oh yeah well mohammad was a warlord, and the hijab is a form of bondage get your coat darlin cos you've just been checked out"

Rev Hellfire

From what I'm reading it was the guest who is responsible for the prosecution.
The hospital is just reacting to the fact they have a criminal record.

While it certainly looks like a case of misuse of police powers, it does also have to be said that the facts are slim on the ground. The headdress does seem central to the issue and we have no idea how 'vigorously' either side defended their respective position.

PDN

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

From what I'm reading it was the guest who is responsible for the prosecution.
The hospital is just reacting to the fact they have a criminal record.

Yes, the prosecution would be by the CPS acting on a complaint by the guest. My wording was rather clumsy, but I was not meaning that the hospital had initiated the prosecution.

Technically, of course, they don't have a criminal record since they are presumed innocent unless found guilty. But the hospital, IMHO, would be justified in reacting to a complaint if the hoteliers did indeed initiate the argument.

I once had a hotelier pick an unprovoked religious quarrel with me (I had tried to order wine with a meal on Good Friday) and I found it very intrusive.

lugha

Good news for Nick Griffin and his pals, alas.

dvpower

Apparently, this is what they've been charged under.

Section 5, Public Order Act 1986 wrote:

The offence is created by section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986:
"(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he: (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby." This offence has the following statutory defences:
(a) The defendant had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be alarmed or distressed by his action. (b) The defendant was in a dwelling and had no reason to believe that his behaviour would be seen or heard by any person outside any dwelling. (c) The conduct was reasonable.

and

Crime and Disorder Act 1998 wrote:

Section 31(1)(c) creates the distinct offence of racially or religiously harassment, alarm or distress. A person is guilty of this offence if he commits an offence under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 (see harassment, alarm or distress) which is racially or religiously aggravated within the meaning of section 28.
A person guilty of this offence is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale (s.29(3)).

It looks like they may have run fowl of the charter. Hopefully, they'll just get an infraction, but this one could go all the way to the helpdesk.

wolfsbane

lugha wrote: »

Good news for Nick Griffin and his pals, alas.

Yes, just up their street. Very few Britons have a fascist mind-set, in my opinion, but violating their civil and religious liberties to protect Islam from 'offence' is a sure way of pushing people to a radical politic. That and the un-ending influx of immigrants who take over areas and force out the natives.

A lot of bad feeling exists in the white community where this is happening. Stupidly, the main parties have ignored it for many years, treating those who complained with contempt. But failure to deal with real issues does not make them go away - it just makes the inevitable eruption so much the worse.

Glad I'm not in the front line. But I have several non-white family and friends who are liable to suffer if this is not addressed.

dvpower

wolfsbane wrote: »

That and the un-ending influx of immigrants who take over areas and force out the natives.

... and the sensationalist claptrap often used to describe the situation.

wolfsbane

dvpower wrote: »

... and the sensationalist claptrap often used to describe the situation.

I'm using a milder term than often used by those experiencing it. I know many of those on the sharp end on the north of England - W. Yorks and N. Lancs. One is not a racist for objecting to being intimidated by Muslims who have become the majority in one's home town and seek to impose their culture.

Are You telling me this is not a common experience?

dvpower

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm using a milder term than often used by those experiencing it. I know many of those on the sharp end on the north of England - W. Yorks and N. Lancs. One is not a racist for objecting to being intimidated by Muslims who have become the majority in one's home town and seek to impose their culture.

Are You telling me this is not a common experience?

Yes. I think that un-ending influx of immigrants who take over areas and force out the natives is not common.

This is the problem with the immigration debate. Many people who are concerned by it don't want to be on the same side as racists like the BNP, but are also turned off by this kind of harsh (and inaccurate) language.

lugha

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, just up their street. Very few Britons have a fascist mind-set, in my opinion, but violating their civil and religious liberties to protect Islam from 'offence' is a sure way of pushing people to a radical politic. That and the un-ending influx of immigrants who take over areas and force out the natives.

I see the former Archbishop of Canterbury has put a spoke in the wheel of Griffin's claim that the BNP represents Christian Britain.

wolfsbane

lugha wrote: »

I see the former Archbishop of Canterbury has put a spoke in the wheel of Griffin's claim that the BNP represents Christian Britain.

I'm all for putting spokes in Griffin's wheel - but I doubt Rowan Williams has any credibility with ordinary people, especially those troubled about unchecked immigration.

Rowan Atkinson would be another matter.

Even good people can be enticed into supporting nazis if they are made desperate enough. They just want someone to act for them, and if it is vile people, then they think they can dispense with them after they do their job. Usually they are mistaken - evil men can be voted in, but rarely out.

If timely action were taken to address legitimate grievances, bloody crises could be avoided. Something many have learned here in Ulster.

wolfsbane

dvpower wrote: »

Yes. I think that un-ending influx of immigrants who take over areas and force out the natives is not common.

This is the problem with the immigration debate. Many people who are concerned by it don't want to be on the same side as racists like the BNP, but are also turned off by this kind of harsh (and inaccurate) language.

So you are sure immigration has plateaued? That areas are not being taken over by ethnic groups? That such take-overs involve intimidation of the previous inhabitants?

Obviously it is not happening everywhere. My town has very few Muslims, for example. But Dewsbury and many towns in the areas I mentioned?

Fanny Cradock

*Mod Hat ON*

OK guys, let's take a little sting out of this debate when discussing our Muslim friends. I really don't want this to turn into something regrettable.

*Mod Hat Off*


Anywho... all this talk of the BNP reminds me of their laughably blundering and crass campaign they ran a while back.

Nodin

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm using a milder term than often used by those experiencing it.

...than those who imagine they're experiencing it, which doesn't make it correct either, IMO....

dvpower

wolfsbane wrote: »

So you are sure immigration has plateaued?

I never mentioned immigration levels at all.

wolfsbane wrote: »

That areas are not being taken over by ethnic groups?

Areas are not been taken over. Certainly immigrants tend to congregate in certain areas. Irish people will recognise this from places like Kilburn and Harlesden. I accept that this can be difficult for the 'natives'; much more difficult when they feel that the immigrants are taking over. But this language implies some kind of coercion, which I don't accept.

wolfsbane wrote: »

That such take-overs involve intimidation of the previous inhabitants?

I've no doubt that tension exists and intimidation on all sides. But crying wolf; talking about takeovers doesn't help.

studiorat

wolfsbane wrote: »

One is not a racist for objecting to being intimidated by Muslims who have become the majority in one's home town and seek to impose their culture.

But surely it's the home town of the Majority, this Majority being Muslim. Why should the majority of people not have their culture in the majority aswell? Lets not forget that this Muslim majority were British subjects until the 1940's and as such are perfectly entitled to be there in the first place.

Handsome Bob

studiorat wrote: »

But surely it's the home town of the Majority, this Majority being Muslim. Why should the majority of people not have their culture in the majority aswell? Lets not forget that this Muslim majority were British subjects until the 1940's and as such are perfectly entitled to be there in the first place.

Maybe Wolfsbane's friend can't afford to move. I imagine his friend is also an elderly man so it must be hard to see what was one familiarity for you become alien. I can understand why his friend feels intimidated. That being said, and strictly speaking from a someone who doesn't know the facts, I'm sure he has no real reason to feel intimidated. I'm sure his neighbours aren't terrorising him or anything. He's just a scared and alienated old man, which unfortunately is bread and butter for the BNP.

homer911

Some video coverage here:

http://blog.echurchwebsites.org.uk/2009/09/20/christian-hotel-owners-ben-sharon-vogelenzang-hauled-court-defending-beliefs-discussion-muslim-guest/

wolfsbane

Nodin wrote: »

...than those who imagine they're experiencing it, which doesn't make it correct either, IMO....

Yes, if it is only their imagination, they are making things worse by their allegations of intimidation.

But I've no reason to doubt the reports I receive from trusted Christians known to me. I know them to be gracious, tolerant, anti-racist people over the years I have been in contact with them. If they are reporting it, it is not hype or covert racism.

We need to face the reality that militant Muslims seek to impose their views on their own community and on those they border. Moderate Muslims are good neighbours, but if they do not rule in their community then the rest of us can expect triumphalism from the militants to be our lot.

wolfsbane

dvpower said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
So you are sure immigration has plateaued?
I never mentioned immigration levels at all.

You seemed to be denying an un-ending influx of immigrants.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
That areas are not being taken over by ethnic groups?
Areas are not been taken over. Certainly immigrants tend to congregate in certain areas. Irish people will recognise this from places like Kilburn and Harlesden. I accept that this can be difficult for the 'natives'; much more difficult when they feel that the immigrants are taking over. But this language implies some kind of coercion, which I don't accept.

I agree that even a peaceful swamping of an area by immigrants can be difficult for the natives - but such is life, swings and roundabouts, etc. If that were all, then I'd say to those affected to take it as a socio-economic circumstance like any other.

But when such swamping is accompanied by anti-social and intimidatory abuse of the natives to get them to move on, then that is not on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
That such take-overs involve intimidation of the previous inhabitants?
I've no doubt that tension exists and intimidation on all sides. But crying wolf; talking about takeovers doesn't help.

Can you point to areas where the natives are moving in on the immigrants and gradually forcing them out?

Or are you saying one shouldn't tell it like it is - pretend there is no take over, no intimidation? Head in the sand a cure for trouble?

I fear for my immigrant friends and relatives. If it continues as it is, one of three outcomes are likely:
a. Militant Islam will dominate their own areas and silence any criticism from the rest of us.

b. The natives will react bitterly and the government will fiddle and fumble until widespread communal clashes brings something like Ulster had for 30 years.

c. The natives will react bitterly, electing people who will clamp down harshly on all immigants.

In all these scenarios, my immigrant friends will come off the worst.

wolfsbane

studiorat wrote: »

But surely it's the home town of the Majority, this Majority being Muslim. Why should the majority of people not have their culture in the majority aswell? Lets not forget that this Muslim majority were British subjects until the 1940's and as such are perfectly entitled to be there in the first place.

I've no trouble with them having their culture - but not imposing it on the whole community.

wolfsbane

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Maybe Wolfsbane's friend can't afford to move. I imagine his friend is also an elderly man so it must be hard to see what was one familiarity for you become alien. I can understand why his friend feels intimidated. That being said, and strictly speaking from a someone who doesn't know the facts, I'm sure he has no real reason to feel intimidated. I'm sure his neighbours aren't terrorising him or anything. He's just a scared and alienated old man, which unfortunately is bread and butter for the BNP.

No doubt there are many as you have described. Change is difficult for everyone.

But I wasn't referring to them. I was speaking about folk who are verbally abused and made to feel unwelcome in their home town.

dvpower

wolfsbane wrote: »

You seemed to be denying an un-ending influx of immigrants.

I think that there are high levels of immigration, and in recent years perhaps too high. Most immigration to the UK and Ireland in recent years has been from EU ascession states, mostly Christian.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But when such swamping is accompanied by anti-social and intimidatory abuse of the natives to get them to move on, then that is not on.

I fully agree that anti-social and intimidatory abuse is not on. I'd be confident that this works both ways. Immigrants have as much right to get on with their lives without being abused as natives.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Can you point to areas where the natives are moving in on the immigrants and gradually forcing them out?

No. I can't. But I also think that you are over egging the pudding.
People have a right to live wherever they want and many immigrants choose to live in certain areas.

I can understand how this can change the character of an area and the natives might no longer feel at home and choose to leave. I don't think that these people are being 'forced' out; they might feel differently.

I can also understand how people get territorial about their own areas; I've seen it in Dublin where youngsters put it on themselves to 'protect' their estates and areas from outsiders (i.e. those from the estate across the road).

I've no doubt that in some cases this type of behaviour is more organised with the likes of the BNP on one side and other extremists on the other.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Or are you saying one shouldn't tell it like it is - pretend there is no take over, no intimidation? Head in the sand a cure for trouble?

No. I think people should be honest and accurate about the problem (and what the realistic solutions are). Otherwise the mainstream will continue to choose to not get involved in any debate.

wolfsbane

dvpower said:

I think that there are high levels of immigration, and in recent years perhaps too high. Most immigration to the UK and Ireland in recent years has been from EU ascession states, mostly Christian.

That's got its own problems, but the ones the BNP exploits centre on the influx of Muslims - and that seems to be a lot higher than the official numbers. The government even admit they have no idea about how many illegals have come in.

I fully agree that anti-social and intimidatory abuse is not on. I'd be confident that this works both ways. Immigrants have as much right to get on with their lives without being abused as natives.

I agree. But it is not the immigrants who are being squeezed out in the areas I listed. As far as I can see, it is only where the immigrants are as small minority that they face violence and intimidation. In parts of Belfast, for example.

No. I can't. But I also think that you are over egging the pudding.
People have a right to live wherever they want and many immigrants choose to live in certain areas.

Certainly. And if I'm exaggerating then nothing will come of the situation. But if I'm accurate, then big trouble is coming if immigration is not checked.

I can understand how this can change the character of an area and the natives might no longer feel at home and choose to leave. I don't think that these people are being 'forced' out; they might feel differently.

As I said, if that were the extent of the problem I would agree.

I can also understand how people get territorial about their own areas; I've seen it in Dublin where youngsters put it on themselves to 'protect' their estates and areas from outsiders (i.e. those from the estate across the road).

I've no doubt that in some cases this type of behaviour is more organised with the likes of the BNP on one side and other extremists on the other.

The big problem is not the BNP or the Muslim extremists. It is the government failing to recognise there is a problem and so allowing bitterness to fester until an extreme solution is sought.

No. I think people should be honest and accurate about the problem (and what the realistic solutions are). Otherwise the mainstream will continue to choose to not get involved in any debate.

The mainstream stand idly by, hoping that something will turn up, or even try token solutions. When it blows, the mainstream will be just as passive when the militant minority tells them how its going to be. At least, that's my reading of history.:(

MrPudding

Court case began today, could be interesting...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8401685.stm

MrP

Zaynzma

Now that the case has come to court it shows that the Christian hoteliers were indeed threatening, intimidating and abusive towards the elderly woman guest, the man following her when she tried to walk away and shouting angrily and waving his arms around, as testified by other Christian guests, and his wife joining in saying "you started it by wearing that".

I hope now that the facts have come out no-one will feel obliged to defend this kind of behaviour as surely it is unchristian?

MrPudding

Zaynzma wrote: »

Now that the case has come to court it shows that the Christian hoteliers were indeed threatening, intimidating and abusive towards the elderly woman guest, the man following her when she tried to walk away and shouting angrily and waving his arms around, as testified by other Christian guests, and his wife joining in saying "you started it by wearing that".

I hope now that the facts have come out no-one will feel obliged to defend this kind of behaviour as surely it is unchristian?

I would not be quite so quick to say the facts have come out. If we only listen to the muslim woman it seems quite a nasty incident. I don't think the other witnesses are quite so damning. One said it was a "very upsetting and volitile exchange" and the other reported hearing the word "nazi" and "warlord" shouted. Personally I don't think there is enough info in the story to blame the hoteliers, unless of course you believe the muslim woman is being 100% truthful. I await the rest of the trial with interest.

MrP

MrPudding

In fact...

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

Case dismissed.

It would appear that the poor muslim lady might not have been 100% truthful.

MrP

Zaynzma

I believe the judge said that the evidence was "not conclusive".

In my post I was referring to the evidence of other hotel guests that the man was shouting angrily, red in the face and shaking his fists. They did not say that the Muslim lady was behaving in the same manner.

Regardless of the outcome of the case, if the other guests, who were not Muslim and one of whom was a committed Christian, are to be believed, this man did indeed behave in an extremely angry and abusive way. Whether that constitutes a criminal offence was for the court to decide.

Either way, I hope that no-one would accept that screaming and shouting and shaking the fists at someone is an acceptable way to behave. whatever religion you are.

PDN

Zaynzma wrote: »

I believe the judge said that the evidence was "not conclusive".

He said it was "inconsistent" - which would indicate that some of it may have been porkie pies.

Either way, I hope that no-one would accept that screaming and shouting and shaking the fists at someone is an acceptable way to behave. whatever religion you are.

And I don't think anyone is defending such behaviour.

JimiTime

Zaynzma wrote: »

Either way, I hope that no-one would accept that screaming and shouting and shaking the fists at someone is an acceptable way to behave. whatever religion you are.

Depends on the provocation tbh. Its easy to be an armchair judge. Ideally, we should resist such behaviour, but ideals are not always reality. I'm sure we can all empathise with someone who gets angry when provoked in certain ways. If not, then enjoy living in that perfect world. All in all, we don't know truthfully whats happened in the above case, but simply condemning someone for getting angry when you don't know the 'whys', is ignorant at best.

Zaynzma

we'll have to agree to disagree on this one jimitime, as I don't think there's ever any excuse for shouting and roaring and shaking your fists at someone, no matter what the discussion is about.

I am quite prepared to discuss my beliefs (religion or politics or whatever) with someone who holds different beliefs from me. If they became abusive or insulting I hope I would try to end the discussion by walking away or whatever. There's no point in having screaming matches.

Zaynzma

PDN wrote: »

He said it was "inconsistent" - which would indicate that some of it may have been porkie pies.


And I don't think anyone is defending such behaviour.

The judge may have used the word "inconsistent", I didn't read that in any of the reports I read but it was reported (in the Daily Mail, for instance) that he said the evidence was "not conclusive".

I'm not sure which evidence you think may have been porkie pies. The witnesses who gave evidence in court were not Muslims, and at least one was a committed Christian, and they testified that the man was intimidating in his manner when he spoke to the woman about her faith. They testified that he was shouting loudly (one woman heard him from her room shouting "Nazi" and "warlord" and shaking his fists. It doesn't seem likely that they would be lying.

PDN

Zaynzma wrote: »

The judge may have used the word "inconsistent", I didn't read that in any of the reports I read but it was reported (in the Daily Mail, for instance) that he said the evidence was "not conclusive".

I was quoting the BBC report linked to in Mr Pudding's post.

I'm not sure which evidence you think may have been porkie pies.

If I read something in the Daily Mail I would be tempted to think it's all porkie pies. :eek: However, it's what the judge thought that matters - and he said the evidence was inconsistent. 'Inconsistent' means it can't all be true.

Zaynzma

PDN wrote: »

I was quoting the BBC report linked to in Mr Pudding's post.


If I read something in the Daily Mail I would be tempted to think it's all porkie pies. :eek: However, it's what the judge thought that matters - and he said the evidence was inconsistent. 'Inconsistent' means it can't all be true.

can you possibly be accusing the Daily Mail of shoddy journalism! gasp!

It was reported elsewhere that the judge said the evidence was "inconclusive" eg:

http://www.clickliverpool.com/news/local-news/127173-liverpool-hotel-couple-not-guilty-of-racial-harassment.html

He may have used both words. I believe there was a difficulty with the Muslim woman's evidence as she admitted her medical condition (or maybe the medication) made her confused in her recollections. Don't call me on that though, check up for yourself if it interests you.

There was a lot of talk about this case when it was first reported months ago, everyone was basically saying that Christians are not allowed to criticize Islam. When every day there are headline stories in the papers criticising Islam and Muslims, including untrue allegations (eg, the Muslim bus driver who was reported to have thrown all his passengers off his bus so he could pray - this was all lies. I have lots more examples. Ask me. Go on.)

Since reading the testimony of witnesses I believe it wasn't simply a case of having a discussion, the guy lost his temper and shouted and shook his fists - he even lost his temper in the witness box!

PDN

Zaynzma wrote: »

can you possibly be accusing the Daily Mail of shoddy journalism! gasp!

It was reported elsewhere that the judge said the evidence was "inconclusive" eg:

http://www.clickliverpool.com/news/local-news/127173-liverpool-hotel-couple-not-guilty-of-racial-harassment.html

He may have used both words. I believe there was a difficulty with the Muslim woman's evidence as she admitted her medical condition (or maybe the medication) made her confused in her recollections. Don't call me on that though, check up for yourself if it interests you.

There was a lot of talk about this case when it was first reported months ago, everyone was basically saying that Christians are not allowed to criticize Islam. When every day there are headline stories in the papers criticising Islam and Muslims, including untrue allegations (eg, the Muslim bus driver who was reported to have thrown all his passengers off his bus so he could pray - this was all lies. I have lots more examples. Ask me. Go on.)

Since reading the testimony of witnesses I believe it wasn't simply a case of having a discussion, the guy lost his temper and shouted and shook his fists - he even lost his temper in the witness box!

While losing one's temper & shaking one's fists is hardly Christian behaviour, it is not illegal.

The case appears to have been a load of codswallop and it was chucked out of court. No-one involved in it emerges with much credit.

hivizman

PDN wrote: »

While losing one's temper & shaking one's fists is hardly Christian behaviour, it is not illegal.

In certain cases, in English law, "losing one's temper & shaking one's fists" could amount to "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour" giving rise to fear or provocation of violence, an offence under section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986, or "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour", either intended to cause "harassment, alarm or distress" (section 4A Public Order Act 1986 as amended) or "within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress" (section 5 Public Order Act 1986 as amended). These are potential offences whether or not the words or behaviour are "racially or religiously aggravated" under section 28 Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (as amended by Section 39 Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001), defined as: "the offender demonstrates towards the victim of the offence hostility based on the victim's membership (or presumed membership) of a racial or religious group". Incidentally, the definition of "religious group" is "a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief", so beware if you shake your fists at atheists .

PDN wrote: »

The case appears to have been a load of codswallop and it was chucked out of court. No-one involved in it emerges with much credit.

The case wasn't "chucked out of court" in the sense that, after hearing the prosecution's evidence, the judge decided that there was "no case to answer". The judge heard the defence evidence and then decided that the evidence given by the various witnesses was "inconsistent" so there was not enough evidence to convict the hoteliers. Your last comment, though, is spot-on.

JimiTime

Zaynzma wrote: »

we'll have to agree to disagree on this one jimitime, as I don't think there's ever any excuse for shouting and roaring and shaking your fists at someone, no matter what the discussion is about.

Did I say discussion? I said the following, and I've bolded for emphasis:

Depends on the provocation tbh. Its easy to be an armchair judge. Ideally, we should resist such behaviour, but ideals are not always reality. I'm sure we can all empathise with someone who gets angry when provoked in certain ways.

If you can't empathise with someone having the very normal emotion of anger in certain circumstances, then you are what I'd class as unreasonable. Certainly, getting angry because someone disagrees with you is poor form. However, certain circumstances provoke such emotion, and finger waggers detached from the situation is at the very least an irritation.