UK atheist given asbo

equivariant

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/atheist-given-asbo-for-leaflets-mocking-jesus-1952985.html

Wacker

Aren't ASBOs a status symbol or something over there though?

sink

equivariant wrote: »

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/atheist-given-asbo-for-leaflets-mocking-jesus-1952985.html

While I don't agree with the sentence, he was being a knob.

opinion guy

Is this the start of militant atheism ?

Dades

opinion guy wrote: »

Is this the start of militant atheism ?

Pamphlets are the new AK47.

Sound like a dumbass prank that got blown out of proportion. There are cartoons in the "Funny Side" sticky worse than those, but they are at least tucked away in this forum.

billybigunz

What a joke. If he was handing out anti-racists leaflets at a BNP meeting would that be illegal? Surely you should be able to mock and argue against other peoples views.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

johnny_ultimate

Yeah he was definitely acting the idiot, so he deserved some sort of punishment. The one he got may be entirely OTT, but obnoxious people such as himself deserve to what they get, regardless of their ideology.

opinion guy

Hmm interesting interpretation in the law thou - that the sentence effectively amounts to a blasphemy law by setting precedent. That ain't good

Ickle Magoo

opinion guy wrote: »

Hmm interesting interpretation in the law thou - that the sentence effectively amounts to a blasphemy law by setting precedent. That ain't good

The UK abolished a specific blasphemy law three years ago and replaced it with the Religiously Aggravated part of "Racial and Religiously Aggravated Criminal Offences" - which actually covers more than the original. :eek:

sponsoredwalk

opinion guy wrote: »

Is this the start of militant atheism ?

I thought that originated with hitler and his atheist camps for children :rolleyes:

I don't get it, how was he being an ass If those Gideons get to leave bibles in hotel rooms and both them & the religious nuts formerly known as priests get to invade our schools every few months to pour a dead mans ashes on kids foreheads I think it's about time atheists made their voice heard, or read as the case may be... I think the bus campaign was a step in the right direction.

Do you think the kid would have been arrested if he had put the koran inside the room?

It's those damn atheists... :pac:

The professional 'offence takers' in religious communities will now feel that they have a strong weapon to use against anyone who is critical or disapproving of them.

ChocolateSauce

I don't think he should have gone into a prayer room to distribute the leaflets, but he should have had the right to do so.

Furthermore, more seriously, he has been banned from distributing the leaflets again. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that amount to being told he may not express an opinion in public?

Ickle Magoo

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I don't get it, how was he being an ass If those Gideons get to leave bibles in hotel rooms and both them & the religious nuts formerly known as priests get to invade our schools every few months to pour a dead mans ashes on kids foreheads I think it's about time atheists made their voice heard, or read as the case may be... I think the bus campaign was a step in the right direction.

Do you think the kid would have been arrested if he had put the koran inside the room?

It's those damn atheists... :pac:

I don't think he would have been arrested for leaving pro-atheist literature in hotel rooms - he was arrested for leaving anti-religious literature in a prayer room. He was charged in the UK, there are no religious nuts pouring ashes in the state schools.

I don't think a kid would have been arrested for placing a prayer book in a prayer room, that's what it is for. It is not a suitable place to put anti-religious material. As atheists have no reason to pray I don't think it's even a relevant place to put pro-atheism literature.

I'm all for promoting atheism but there are far cleverer and less abrasive ways of doing it than insulting people who want to pray in a prayer room. Worth giving a 60yr old an ASBO for? No. Self defeating? Yes.

dlofnep

Serves him right for being a prat. People who purposely go out of their way to offend people are nothing by trouble-makers.

calex71

What ever about this crack pot idiot, why do they get a to have prayer room at an airport we should be demanding equal comforts

opinion guy

calex71 wrote: »

why do they get a to have prayer room at an airport

Pteromechanophobia would be my guess....

Galvasean

calex71 wrote: »

What ever about this crack pot idiot, why do they get a to have prayer room at an airport we should be demanding equal comforts

What like a room where we don't pray? See you at the bar


On topic; Yeah he was acting the ass, but an (albeit suspended) ASBO is over the top. Do they plan to start handing out ASBOs to people who knock on your door and try to convert you to their religion?

opinion guy

Galvasean wrote: »

Do they plan to start handing out ASBOs to people who knock on your door and try to convert you to their religion?

Um..... actually now thats a good idea. Can we include door-to-door salesmen, telemarketers and most annoying of all.....charity-muggers ???

Galvasean

Charity muggesrs must fall under the 'anti-social' bracket. Their presence makes people uncomfortable going to certain areas and in some cases makes people avoid the areas altogether. But I digress...

opinion guy

Galvasean wrote: »

Charity muggesrs must fall under the 'anti-social' bracket. Their presence makes people uncomfortable going to certain areas and in some cases makes people avoid the areas altogether. But I digress...

I had one physically and aggressively block my path once. Now thats anti-social.

Zillah

Taylor denied three counts of causing religiously aggravated harassment

Are you shitting me? God damn it Britain.

Yes, it is understandable that people would be annoyed by this. Maybe the airport operators would be justified throwing him out of the building. But a criminal sentence? That's completely ridiculous and rather terrifying.

They can get away with it because of all the short sighted people in this thread going "Serves him right!" Haha yeah, what an idiot expressing an opinion that might annoy some people, let's give him a prison sentence.

kiffer

opinion guy wrote: »

I had one physically and aggressively block my path once. Now thats anti-social.

Man... he must have been miles behind his quota...
I've had a few interesting encounters with the auld Chuggers...

Me and a friend walking along Henry street having a conversation, Chugger starts following along beside us.
Chugger: Hello would you like to...
Me: No thanks.
Chugger: but I'll just take a moment of your time.
Me: No thank you.
Chugger: but
Me: No.
Chugger: think of the children!
Me: I said NO!
Chugger: There's no need to be rude...
Friend: He said no politely 3 times now F*CK OFF!
Chugger: *SHOCK*


Bloody Chuggers...

Back on thread topic...
Leaving the flyers in the prayer room may have been too much... but the posters sound great... Though of course putting them up with out permission could be vandalism.
6 months suspended seems like a lot for this...
what would happen if one of those guys that stands round in town telling us how, if we don't do what he says God says, we'll be tortured for all time got slapped with this?

vodafoneproblem

equivariant wrote: »

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/atheist-given-asbo-for-leaflets-mocking-jesus-1952985.html

He sounds fairly demented, alright. I've encountered several atheists who are close to this level, tbh.

sponsoredwalk

kiffer wrote: »

Chugger: think of the children!

No Way!!!

dlofnep

Zillah wrote: »

Yes, it is understandable that people would be annoyed by this. Maybe the airport operators would be justified throwing him out of the building. But a criminal sentence? That's completely ridiculous and rather terrifying.

No it's not. It serves him right.

Zillah wrote: »

They can get away with it because of all the short sighted people in this thread going "Serves him right!" Haha yeah, what an idiot expressing an opinion that might annoy some people, let's give him a prison sentence.

No, they can get away with it because he intentionally broke the law. He went in there (to a prayer room!) with intent of insulting people, and harassing them. Only a complete and utter idiot would go out of there way just to make other people feel bad.

I'm an atheist, but I'm happy he got taught a lesson. You can't go around intentionally trying to insult people and their beliefs. It's immature, and idiotic. It's people like him who give atheists a bad name.

Fúck him. Good riddens.

Stercus Accidit

Zillah wrote: »

Are you shitting me? God damn it Britain.

Yes, it is understandable that people would be annoyed by this. Maybe the airport operators would be justified throwing him out of the building. But a criminal sentence? That's completely ridiculous and rather terrifying.

They can get away with it because of all the short sighted people in this thread going "Serves him right!" Haha yeah, what an idiot expressing an opinion that might annoy some people, let's give him a prison sentence.

Exactly what I was thinking.

You may not like what he has to say, but he has the right to say it, there is a quote I vaguely recall along those lines, but it escapes me for now.

A criminal sentence for expressing an opinion, this is a disgrace to democracy, regardless of the opinion expressed.

It is as zillah said short sighted to approve of this sentence or denounce the mans actions. To hell with his actions, opinions or his age and other irrelevant minor points, the big picture here is the following.

You cannot express an opinion that offends a religion (atheism offends many religions, homosexuality offends religions, womens rights offends some religions, freedom of speech offends...) and the law of the land has prosecuted and convicted a man for expressing himself. Ha, we live in a secular utopia in blasphemy law wielding Eire by comparison.

Anyone who disagrees with me can call the British police on me, and I will do likewise, hurrah for freedom.

Stercus Accidit

dlofnep wrote: »

No it's not. It serves him right.



No, they can get away with it because he intentionally broke the law. He went in there (to a prayer room!) with intent of insulting people, and harassing them. Only a complete and utter idiot would go out of there way just to make other people feel bad.

I'm an atheist, but I'm happy he got taught a lesson. You can't go around intentionally trying to insult people and their beliefs. It's immature, and idiotic. It's people like him who give atheists a bad name.

Fúck him. Good riddens.

I find this offensive (really), will you retract and apologise?

sink

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Exactly what I was thinking.

You may not like what he has to say, but he has the right to say it, there is a quote I vaguely recall along those lines, but it escapes me for now.

A criminal sentence for expressing an opinion, this is a disgrace to democracy, regardless of the opinion expressed.

It is as zillah said short sighted to approve of this sentence or denounce the mans actions. To hell with his actions, opinions or his age and other irrelevant minor points, the big picture here is the following.

You cannot express an opinion that offends a religion (atheism offends many religions, homosexuality offends religions, womens rights offends some religions, freedom of speech offends...) and the law of the land has prosecuted and convicted a man for expressing himself. Ha, we live in a secular utopia in blasphemy law wielding Eire by comparison.

Anyone who disagrees with me can call the British police on me, and I will do likewise, hurrah for freedom.

There is a major difference between promoting ones own opinion and harassing others because of their opinions. The former is fundamental to a free and open society the latter is contrary to it.

billybigunz

Could I get an asbo for trolling in the christianity forum? Or telling the cyclists that cars are better.

AskMyChocolate

Sorry folks. I have nothing to offer. I'm a bit of a lurker, but unless I have 25 posts I'm not allowed thank what I consider to be well reasoned arguments. So that being said, thank you for your patience, I'm off to after hours to get my post count up.:)

Stercus Accidit

sink wrote: »

There is a major difference between promoting ones own opinion and harassing others because of their opinions. The former is fundamental to a free and open society the latter is contrary to it.

Pamphlets.

Seriously?

sponsoredwalk

sink wrote: »

There is a major difference between promoting ones own opinion and harassing others because of their opinions. The former is fundamental to a free and open society the latter is contrary to it.

So artistic expression, albeit in the form of jesus advertising special nails, is contrary to a free and open society.

Why, I've read this stellar logic rear it's face before somewhere....


OH YEAH!!!!

Didn't a particular group of people claim that a certain kind of art was contrary to their perception of what a "free and open society" is :rolleyes:

They also took it into their hands to censor this art, and we're still dealing with it...

GLaDOS

He's an idiot and a jackass, but a criminal sentance is a joke.

Stercus Accidit

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

So artistic expression, albeit in the form of jesus advertising special nails, is contrary to a free and open society.

Why, I've read this stellar logic rear it's face before somewhere....


OH YEAH!!!!

Didn't a particular group of people claim that a certain kind of art was contrary to their perception of what a "free and open society" is :rolleyes:

They also took it into their hands to censor this art, and we're still dealing with it...

Don't say it, for the love of Dawkins don't say it!

sponsoredwalk

billybigunz wrote: »

Or telling the cyclists that cars are better.

Don't you dare!!!

sink

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Pamphlets.

Seriously?

They were not informative, they were insulting. Their purpose was not to promote atheism or even to argue against religion, their sole purpose was to mock religious belief. While I don't think a conviction was necessary, his behaviour was still bang out of order and counter productive in any case.

seanybiker

Thats what he gets for acting the prick

Stercus Accidit

sink wrote: »

They were not informative, they were insulting. Their purpose was not to promote atheism or even to argue against religion, their sole purpose was to mock religious belief. While I don't think a conviction was necessary, his behaviour was still bang out of order and counter productive in any case.

Just the sort of thing our blasphemy law describes. This conviction is not in keeping with the idea of a free society, where we have the right to express our opinions, no matter who takes offence at them.

Insulting or not, he should be allowed distribute his pamphlets, harassment laws and trespassing laws could have prevented his return to that particular chapel.

A conviction based on the opinions expressed in the pamphlets says that some opinions are ok, and others are not.

Rev Hellfire

Some people are too clever for their own good.

sink

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

So artistic expression, albeit in the form of jesus advertising special nails, is contrary to a free and open society.

Why, I've read this stellar logic rear it's face before somewhere....


OH YEAH!!!!

Didn't a particular group of people claim that a certain kind of art was contrary to their perception of what a "free and open society" is :rolleyes:

They also took it into their hands to censor this art, and we're still dealing with it...

You can insult religion all you like but there is a time and place. That is not in a prayer room at an airport. If it really was art perhaps he should have display it in a gallery.

Stercus Accidit

sink wrote: »

You can insult religion all you like but there is a time and place. That is not in a prayer room at an airport. If it really was art perhaps he should have display it in a gallery.

They didn't convict him based on time and place, they convicted him for offending religious beliefs.

sink

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Just the sort of thing our blasphemy law describes. This conviction is not in keeping with the idea of a free society, where we have the right to express our opinions, no matter who takes offence at them.

Insulting or not, he should be allowed distribute his pamphlets, harassment laws and trespassing laws could have prevented his return to that particular chapel.

A conviction based on the opinions expressed in the pamphlets says that some opinions are ok, and others are not.

He can hand out pamphlets all he likes on the streets. He can place advertisements on the telly/radio/internet/billboards for all I care. It's not the material I object to it's the place where he decides to hand it out.

dlofnep

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

I find this offensive (really), will you retract and apologise?

No, and I'm offended by your request for an apology.

Stercus Accidit

sink wrote: »

He can hand out pamphlets all he likes on the streets. He can place advertisements on the telly/radio/internet/billboards for all I care. It's not the material I object to it's the place where he decides to hand it out.

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

They didn't convict him based on time and place, they convicted him for offending religious beliefs.

.

sink

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

They didn't convict him based on time and place, they convicted him for offending religious beliefs.

Who are you arguing against? I've said all along he didn't deserve a conviction, he is still acting like a dick.

sponsoredwalk

Damn that was quickshooting, you beat me to it!!!

Point, set match!

Stercus Accidit

dlofnep wrote: »

No, and I'm offended by your request for an apology.

So by your logic neither of us should be allowed express ourselves, for being offensive?

I am defending the right to express myself and offend if necessary, you are not.

Either do as you said regarding offence and retract, or realise that silencing and criminalising 'offence' is not becoming of free and open debate.

Stercus Accidit

sink wrote: »

Who are you arguing against? I've said all along he didn't deserve a conviction, he is still acting like a dick.

Original reply to me.

sink wrote: »

There is a major difference between promoting ones own opinion and harassing others because of their opinions. The former is fundamental to a free and open society the latter is contrary to it.

I am merely saying that where he expressed himself is irrelevant, I may have taken you up wrong on your opinion of the conviction, sorry.

sink

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

I am merely saying that where he expressed himself is irrelevant, I may have taken you up wrong on your opinion of the conviction, sorry.

We'll have to disagree, tact has everything to do with time and place.

Herbal Deity

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

They didn't convict him based on time and place, they convicted him for offending religious beliefs.

I see nothing in that article to indicate that the context in which he was distributing these pamphlets was not taken into account.

It's like going into an abortion clinic and distributing anti-abortion leaflets.

Stercus Accidit

sink wrote: »

We'll have to disagree, tact has everything to do with time and place.

Disagree about what?

You seem more concerned about whether or not he acted like a "dick" or was tactful, I am wholly unconcerned about that, I am only interested in the criminal conviction and people who say that that is acceptable.

We likely agree on both subjects, but it is only the conviction and the law that facilitated it that I care about.