Still shouldn’t be a criminal offence. Laws should protect bigots as much as everyone else..

You missed this bit from the BBC’s coverage:

‘And his 54-year-old wife told Mrs Tazi her Islamic dress represented “oppression” and was a form of “bondage”, the court heard.’

Frankly I can’t get worked up over a verbal exchange between two pairs of religious fucknuts.

Let them yell across the breakfast table – what business is this of the State?

Harrassment/alarm/distress is a criminal offence. Whether you think it should be or not, (and it’s probably not the most problematic bit of the 1986 Public Order Act) the behaviour described by the BBC would surely fall into that category. So whatever else the arrest may have been, it certainly wasn’t persecution.

I liked the christians with the free speech banners. Does anyone know where the protest is? I’d like to test the free speech theory by turning up with my ‘Jesus was a homosexual’ banner.

Unfortunately for you, the case was dismissed.

This wasn’t the common or garden “behaviour likely to cause harassement/alarm/distress ” public order offence. Nu labour tacked on an extra bit of statute which means that if the behaviour is motivated by “hatred” based on religion, sexual orientation/pc cause of your choice, it is somehow worse than if it’s based on er abuse motivated by something other than hate. In effect giving certain minorities a privelidged status in law, totally contrary to the blind justice principle
Anyway, glad it got thrown out, it smacked of an opportunistic complaint designed to whip up a religious debate and/or a compensation claim.

#5

I’m glad the case was dismissed, but it’s also clear that the couple behaved in an inappropriate and upsetting manner, and that they were not persecuted. I would like to feel (but am not confident) that they feel chastised rather than vindicated by the process.

It’s probably best that the case was dismissed; I don’t think this kind of thing is really the state’s business. If cases like this succeed then half the stand-up comedians in the country will have to edit their acts or go to jail.

But the nub of it isn’t religious persecution at all is it? The woman wasn’t being insulted by being called a Muslim, but by being called a terrorist. I wonder if she might not have better had a go at an action for slander. She was called (near as dammit) a terrorist in front of witnesses, no?

The really unfortunate thing is that this deeply unpleasant couple of f*ckwits will probably take it as a state issued licence to be even more insulting to people who don’t fit in with their 19th century worldview.

@3: Harrassment/alarm/distress is a criminal offence. Whether you think it should be or not, (and it’s probably not the most problematic bit of the 1986 Public Order Act)

I am regularly alarmed and distressed by various government legislation. Are these ciminals going to be brought to book? I thought not.

I’m not sure what your point is, but if it’s that the 1986 Act is not good legislation, you should take the argument up with Mrs Thatcher.