Comments on: Mail implies Christians persecuted. Were they?

By: tim f

tim f — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:48:13 +0000

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.

By: Philip Hunt

Philip Hunt — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:59:57 +0000

@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.

By: Roy

Roy — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 17:26:32 +0000

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.

By: tim f

tim f — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 23:09:18 +0000

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.

By: Matt Munro

Matt Munro — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 20:52:40 +0000

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.

By: sean fear

sean fear — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 20:11:29 +0000

Unfortunately for you, the case was dismissed.

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 09:54:50 +0000

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.

By: Paul Evans

Paul Evans — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 01:21:12 +0000

Have a look? Mail implies Christians persecuted. Were they? http://url4.eu/tvYK

By: tim f

tim f — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 21:39:21 +0000

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.

By: Shatterface

Shatterface — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 21:26:20 +0000

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?

By: Nick

Nick — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 20:54:38 +0000

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

By: Jonathan Foster

Jonathan Foster — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 20:22:33 +0000

RT @libcon: classic Daily Mail -implies Christians persecuted in recent incident, but were they? http://bit.ly/7URFO2

By: Chica Lolita

Chica Lolita — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 16:03:38 +0000

Because asking if you're a terrorist is "reasonable discussion about religion" (via@chris_coltrane @technicalfault) http://bit.ly/7L8w4x

By: Chris Coltrane

Chris Coltrane — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 15:45:15 +0000

RT @technicalfault: Daily Mail: Fair And Balanced, as always. http://bit.ly/7L8w4x

By: Stephen Mullen

Stephen Mullen — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 14:57:31 +0000

RT @technicalfault: Daily Mail: Fair And Balanced, as always. Where have I heard that before? http://bit.ly/7L8w4x

By: Daniel Selwood

Daniel Selwood — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 13:45:51 +0000

RT @libcon: :: Daily Mail implies Christians persecuted in incident http://bit.ly/7URFO2

By: hannahnicklin

hannahnicklin — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 13:22:13 +0000

RT @technicalfault: Daily Mail: Fair And Balanced, as always. http://bit.ly/7L8w4x

By: Naadir Jeewa

Naadir Jeewa — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 13:18:46 +0000

Daily Mail implies Christians were persecuted when they asked a Muslim if they were a terrorist, a murderer & nazi: http://bit.ly/5vhJlk

By: Chris P

Chris P — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 13:12:49 +0000

RT @technicalfault Daily Mail: Fair And Balanced, as always. Where have I heard that before? http://bit.ly/7L8w4x

By: Josh R

Josh R — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 13:09:57 +0000

Daily Mail: Fair And Balanced, as always. Where have I heard that before? http://bit.ly/7L8w4x

By: Lesley Bruce

Lesley Bruce — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 12:38:06 +0000

Liberal Conspiracy » Daily Mail implies Christians persecuted in incident http://bit.ly/6uGwMy

By: Claire Butler

Claire Butler — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 12:30:15 +0000

Two very different views of the same event – RT @libcon Daily Mail implies Christians persecuted in incident http://bit.ly/80GfUa

By: Gordon Thomson

Gordon Thomson — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 12:24:06 +0000

@stuartstuart123 In reference to that Washington Post article you posted, here's a much more extreme example: http://bit.ly/6uGwMy

By: Liberal Conspiracy

Liberal Conspiracy — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 12:16:38 +0000

:: Daily Mail implies Christians persecuted in incident http://bit.ly/7URFO2