Couple prosecuted for callling Mohammed 'a warlord'

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.