Cookie Notice

However, this blog is a US service and this site uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and analyze traffic. Your IP address and user-agent are shared with Google along with performance and security metrics to ensure quality of service, generate usage statistics, and to detect and address abuse.

Wednesday, 4 October 2017

Dear Evening Standard - saying "Death to Allah" is not illegal

From the strapline in the ES, you'd think the bloke was facing jail for saying something rude about the Muslim fetish-god, wouldn't you? One needs to read the story to discover that the crime was actually criminal damage, for writing on an expensive business class seat, or rather for 'religiously aggrevated' criminal damage. This is a curious quirk of English law; saying 'Mohammed Sucks' in criticism of the Muslim idol is fine, printing it on a blog is perfectly legal; indeed, one's right to do so is clearly enshrined in s.29j of the 2006 Racial and Religious hatred Act:-
Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.
However, spraying a wall with the same message in a way that causes criminal damage can be 'upped' to the more serious offence. Clear?
Otherwise, saying 'Death to Allah' only becomes illegal when it escapes from the umbrella of s.29j - when it is proclaimed with the intention of breaching public order, causing hatred or violence, when it is used to harass to intimidate. When, in other words, the aim is other than legitimate 'discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse'

I know this entire concept may just be too hard for many simple minds to understand. It seems to have defeated Tristan Kirk, the author of the piece. Or this may be wilful obtuseness; it suits a certain metropolitan cabal to try to threaten, bluster and shock folk into saying absolutely nothing derogatory about religion. So let's thank goodness for all the Greg Tingeys out there who do such sterling service in the cause of free speech.  


Poisonedchalice said...

There ought to be a law that metes out some punishment or censure against people who claim incorrectly, that something is "against the law", when it isn't. In the same way, there ought to be similar punishment to people who claim, incorrectly, that something contravenes "Health & Safety".

Budgie said...

"So let's thank goodness for all the Greg Tingeys out there who do such sterling service in the cause of free speech."

Actually G Tingey takes great exception to attacks on his own belief system (*). There is often a degree of hypocrisy in those who make an issue of the free speech of some, but not others.

(*) G Tingey's belief system can be adequately described as re-creating Man as a "mere trousered ape", a phrase used by C S Lewis in "The Abolition of Man" (1943).

miker22 said...

According to the report he faced charges of religiously aggravated harassment, as well as religiously aggravated criminal damage, and it seems a mighty fine line between "harassment" and expressing a candid opinion of Islam which might have "offended" some passengers.

Anonymous said...

Raedwald said:

'So let's thank goodness for all the Greg Tingeys out there who do such sterling service in the cause of free speech.'

Mr Tingey's itch is not toward 'free speech' my Lord. On the contrary he would have us deny that wonder which man has about his creator. At heart he's a nihilist who possibly suffers from haemorrhoids.


Dave_G said...

So much for 'sticks and stones....'

The idea is create 'criminals' of everyone such that you're on record for whatever future offence they fabricate to further close down your ability to protest.

Simple criminal damage isn't sufficient to warrant the punishment they want to mete out but 'upping it' by including 'religious', 'harassment' and 'aggravated' on the charge sheet suits their purpose.

I wonder who's going to be the first to be done for religiously aggravated parking or religious litter dropping? £75 fixed-penalty fine? Nah.... take 10 years at HM's pleasure instead.....

Raedwald said...

Steve - but why is it that we Christians are so certain in our faith that an entire army of Gregs could not make a dent in it, and therefore they are not to be feared, or persecuted, or forbidden, but ever encouraged to promulgate their faithlessness - for it sure scares the hell out of those who worship the false gods and fake prophets?

The more sensitive that people are to Greg, the weaker their certainty and the greater their doubt about their false idols - it's a negative feedback loop or something ;)

Pat said...

The more the followers of a faith demand legal protection for their views, or indeed impose their views by threats and violence, the less they believe in the power of their god.

meltemian said...

Well said Pat, absolutely true.

James Higham said...

Far right, Radders - 15 years!

Anonymous said...

Faith is what your party managers (aka bishop's, imam's, rabbi's whatever) demand of you once it has been observed that your party (aka religion) will never form a government again.

Most people of faith, go elsewhere for their politics like the rest of us, though some of us have a bit too much faith in the magic that is the Tory party, for instance.


mikebravo said...

WHERE IS TINGEY when you need him?

Dadad said...

The trouble with the muslims is that they don't go elsewhere for their politics. Islam is an ideology which includes all their politics.

That's why they are such a threat to the rest of nus.

G. Tingey said...

I don not have a belief or faith system, in the usual sense of belief - that is something accepted without evidence.
And we are somewhat evolved Apes, trousers are, err - optional.

Anonymous is also lying.
I have an enormous sense of wonder at the Universe.
In fact, without a BigSkyFairy it is even more wonderful & interesting & understanding even small parts of it are enough to take up a life's work.

Actually, not "death" to allah - how can y ou kill something that doesn't exist?
But bollocks to allah, certainly!

Although I starteted in Physics & have an Engineering higher degree, my current fascination is with some aspects of systematic Botany & Ladybirds & Bumblebees.
I LOVE Bumblebees - you can stroke them, when they are pissed out of their heads on Cardoon-flowers .....

Budgie said...

G Tingey, You are a real treat: you bluster and rant without producing evidence, and without even a ground for your rigidly held morals. Everyone has a belief system, even if you are unaware of it. Yours is what was fashionable amongst the moderately educated in the 1950s and 1960s.

It was Kierkegaard (following Hegel) who divided faith from the rational. Up until then the two existed together. So your views on faith are rooted in early C19th philosophy, but are not necessarily true. What would you do if it was found that "faith" was entirely rational?

We are not evolved from apes. Even Darwinist evolution says we are both evolved from a precursor. Anyway you must know that the complexity of the universe, from physical constants to the existence of enzymes, is too great to occur by chance. So Darwinism is false.

Dioclese said...

Mind you, it is a bit dumb wishing a dead prophet death.

Death to Islam makes more sense...