Pastor James McConnell & freedom of speech

recedite

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".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfZA_aBld4E

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).

Hotblack Desiato

Fair play to this fella if he inadvertently forces the removal of blasphemy legislation :pac:

recedite

The trial finally went ahead in Belfast over 2 or 3 days just before Christmas, and the verdict will be out on 5th January.

The judge watched a video of the offending sermon, but was hoping to avoid sitting through the entire recording of the service. Sadly for him, that was not to be...

After about an hour Judge McNally, who had a transcript of the service and had already questioned the value of watching it in its entirety, asked for the DVD to be stopped.
The judge said: "I am as keen as the next man on an uplifting tune but the rest of this is three songs and then the pastor asks everyone to go upstairs to get a cup of tea."
However, Judge McNally accepted defence arguments stressing the importance of the remaining few minutes....

I think we can all feel his pain :pac:

One English based Muslim academic took to the witness stand on the side of freedom of speech.

While these are sentiments with which, as a Muslim academic and clergyman, I’m hardly going to agree, nevertheless I believe it is the very freedom of speech of Christians and Muslims to disagree and critique religious ideas that is on trial here - wherein lies the moral imperative to take a stand.

Well done.

Hotblack Desiato

Would he defend me if I said Mohammed was a paedophile?

Currently it suits him to protect the position of religions against legal threat. It just so happens that the religion in question is christianity.

I, ehh, would have my doubts that a sincere and egalitarian commitment to free speech is what is motivating this.

Nick Park

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Would he defend me if I said Mohammed was a paedophile?

Currently it suits him to protect the position of religions against legal threat. It just so happens that the religion in question is christianity.

I, ehh, would have my doubts that a sincere and egalitarian commitment to free speech is what is motivating this.

Yes, I think he would defend you.

I had lunch with the imam during the first day of the trial. I think he is very sincere about defending free speech. He has been threatened himself by extremists who view him as being too liberal in his interpretation of Islam.

The verdict came back today as "Not Guilty". Contrary to much of the media coverage, the pastor was not prosecuted for calling Islam 'satanic' or 'heathen.' He was prosecuted for saying, concerning Muslims, "But I don't trust them."

recedite

Strange, there are lots of people I don't trust, including some of my own relatives. If they were looking to borrow something from me and I said I didn't trust them with it, they would not be particularly surprised or offended. But if I then told them they were satanic heathens, they would probably be very offended.

Anyway, any thoughts on the case Nick, seeing as you were obviously closer than most of us to it?

Hotblack Desiato

Nick Park wrote: »

Yes, I think he would defend you.

Good for him, so.

He has been threatened himself by extremists who view him as being too liberal in his interpretation of Islam.

That's a great shame but sadly, not surprising.

Fleawuss

I liked Boyd Sleator's remarks from NI Atheist. He said the pastors words lacked sense or reasoning but he had to support free speech. A nice dig at the religious waffle and yet making an important point.

recedite

As Voltaire, the French enlightenment philosopher and campaigner for the separation of church and state said;
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
And that was way back before the French revolution.
So this is an appropriate result coming up to the anniversary of the Charlie Hebdo massacre. It does leave one unanswered question though. Where is the line between "offensive" and "grossly offensive" and who is going to define it?

Daily Mail reports the verdict;

The court heard although the words upon which the charges were based were offensive, they did not reach the high threshold of being 'grossly offensive'. Delivering his reserved judgment, District Judge Liam McNally said: 'The courts need to be very careful not to criminalise speech which, however contemptible, is no more than offensive. 'It is not the task of the criminal law to censor offensive utterances.
'Accordingly I find Pastor McConnell not guilty of both charges.'

Not surprisingly, both Islamic and Christian fundamentalists are remaining very tight-lipped about the whole thing, hoping it will all go away now.

MrPudding

recedite wrote: »

As Voltaire, the French enlightenment philosopher and campaigner for the separation of church and state said;
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
And that was way back before the French revolution.
So this is an appropriate result coming up to the anniversary of the Charlie Hebdo massacre. It does leave one unanswered question though. Where is the line between "offensive" and "grossly offensive" and who is going to define it?

Daily Mail reports the verdict;
Not surprisingly, both Islamic and Christian fundamentalists are remaining very tight-lipped about the whole thing, hoping it will all go away now.

I wouldn't have a lot of time for the man, and I have met plenty of preachers like him, and I find them most objectionable, but this was the correct result. I still don't understand why this case was taken, a complete waste of taxpayer's money.

MrP

Flint Fredstone

Sha-ra-ra Law :pac:

Nodin

MrPudding wrote: »

I wouldn't have a lot of time for the man, and I have met plenty of preachers like him, and I find them most objectionable, but this was the correct result. I still don't understand why this case was taken, a complete waste of taxpayer's money.

MrP

The phrase "But I don't trust them." has a particular connotation in relation to the North, in that its the same sentiment that was aimed at catholics/nationalists from before the formation of the statelet by unionist/loyalists and one frequently echoed throughout the decades by various 'firebrand' preachers. This kind of rhetoric frequently led to communal violence and pogroms as well as open sectarian discrimination by organisations, business and officialdom.

While certain of these preachers might have denied they condoned violence - Ian Paisley being a famous example - the fact is that their rhetoric is what helped and led many young men amongst the loyalist community to violent acts against nationalists - as a result certain leading members within loyalism greatly resented him. Seeing as theres any number of attacks on "foriegners" in loyalist areas and at least one grouping specifically targeting muslims, its more than likely the prosecution was an attempt - hopefully successful - to stop history repeating itself.

recedite

Nodin wrote: »

.. its more than likely the prosecution was an attempt - hopefully successful - to stop history repeating itself.

I doubt it was that complicated.
A couple of offended Muslims made a complaint, and I'd say nobody wanted to tell them to cop on to themselves, because that would be racist.

MrPudding

Nodin wrote: »

The phrase "But I don't trust them." has a particular connotation in relation to the North, in that its the same sentiment that was aimed at catholics/nationalists from before the formation of the statelet by unionist/loyalists and one frequently echoed throughout the decades by various 'firebrand' preachers. This kind of rhetoric frequently led to communal violence and pogroms as well as open sectarian discrimination by organisations, business and officialdom.

While certain of these preachers might have denied they condoned violence - Ian Paisley being a famous example - the fact is that their rhetoric is what helped and led many young men amongst the loyalist community to violent acts against nationalists - as a result certain leading members within loyalism greatly resented him. Seeing as theres any number of attacks on "foriegners" in loyalist areas and at least one grouping specifically targeting muslims, its more than likely the prosecution was an attempt - hopefully successful - to stop history repeating itself.

I spent the first 27 years of my life in NI, so I am reasonably familiar with what went on.

I met a few preachers like him, and i do dislike them, they are a nasty bunch, but to be honest, I think the leadership of the orange order do more to stoke up hatred. Clearly, I was not present during protestant sermons as I was growing up, and i am sure some were borderline incitement, but this one was really very tame.

I really don't like religion, but what a religious leader says to his gullible followers in their religious club should not be subject to censorship unless what is being said crosses the line into something criminal. Personally, I don't see how these comments crossed that line, in fact they obviously didn't, what I mean is it should have been obvious they didn't without having to go to court.

And remember, the judge in this case would be aware of all the points you make. He is likely from NI and will have seen, heard and experience a lot more of the nastiness NI has to offer that we, thankfully, ever will.

It was the right decision, just a shame common sense didn't have more to play in the first place.

MrP

MrPudding

recedite wrote: »

I doubt it was that complicated.
A couple of offended Muslims made a complaint, and I'd say nobody wanted to tell them to cop on to themselves, because that would be racist.

The DPP could not possibly have believe there was a reasonable chance of success here. That they wasted the time and money on this annoys me more than the asshole preacher.

MrP

Nodin

recedite wrote: »

I doubt it was that complicated.
A couple of offended Muslims made a complaint, and I'd say nobody wanted to tell them to cop on to themselves, because that would be racist.

You'll pardon me observing that given your tack on muslims, that view is hardly suprising.

recedite

What I said about the Muslims is undisputed fact, ie that a couple of them complained. And BTW they have not agreed with the court verdict; they still insist the remarks were grossly offensive.
The speculative part was about those civil servants who dealt with the complaint, which I freely admit is only speculation.

Akrasia

recedite wrote: »

Where is the line between "offensive" and "grossly offensive" and who is going to define it?

I think we all know where the line is, as elucidated by the Pope not so long ago, and It's a 'fat momma' joke