UK atheist given asbo

Stercus Accidit

Herbal Deity wrote: »

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.

Which should be a crime?

Zombrex

opinion guy wrote: »

Is this the start of militant atheism ?

No, this is the an example of knob atheism.

A militant atheist would have blown up the church.

dlofnep

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

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.

No, I was demonstrating the stupidity of your request.

It's not an issue of expressing ourselves. It's an issue of somebody purposefully going out of their way to offend people, and knowingly breaking the law. Anyone with an ounce of sense knows that this guy did it just to harass people.

He deserves what he got. Good riddens.

Stercus Accidit

dlofnep wrote: »

No, I was demonstrating the stupidity of your request.

My request was intended to demonstrate the stupidity of your point.

It's not an issue of expressing ourselves. It's an issue of somebody purposefully going out of their way to offend people, and knowingly breaking the law. Anyone with an ounce of sense knows that this guy did it just to harass people.

He deserves what he got. Good riddens.

Yes, it is. I am an advocate of free speech, regardless of who speaks or what they say. The consensus is that this mans actions in the short term were pointless, I agree, I think he was juvenile and tactless, but does that matter in the bigger picture?

I don't like that in the UK offending religion is criminally prosecutable, as I see it as counter to freedom of speech, that is the bigger picture, and the only one I really care about.

Zombrex

Herbal Deity wrote: »

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.

Actually the law makes reference to racial or religious harassment. A closer example would be going into a black youth center and leaving a bunch of neo-Nazi pamphlets lying around.

Though such an act would carrying implications of violence, which I don't think this did.

I don't really agree with the sentencing, but I do agree this guy was being a dick.

sponsoredwalk

Wicknight wrote: »

A closer example would be going into a black youth center and leaving a bunch of neo-Nazi pamphlets lying around.
.

sponsoredwalk

I'm surprised all these people condone stifling expression of free speech.

Regardless of the knobbery of the guys action, he has a right to do it and it's not like he ate a baby in a big sandwich or anything.

You are supporting the right of government to act on behalf of religion to stifle expression of opinion, historically that has only led down dark alleys.

dlofnep

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

My request was intended to demonstrate the stupidity of your point.

It was a stupid demonstration.

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Yes, it is. I am an advocate of free speech, regardless of who speaks or what they say. The consensus is that this mans actions in the short term were pointless, I agree, I think he was juvenile and tactless, but does that matter in the bigger picture?

I don't care what you are an advocate of. He broke the law, and knowingly did it. That is why he is in trouble.

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

I don't like that in the UK offending religion is criminally prosecutable, as I see it as counter to freedom of speech, that is the bigger picture, and the only one I really care about.

Well, don't move there and you'll be ok. If you don't purposefully go out of your way to insult people, you won't have an issue - but going into a prayer room to insult religious people is asking for it.

If anything, he should have been prosecuted for disturbing the peace. I believe that anyone has the right to criticise religion. That's not the issue here. It's a guy acting the complete and utter prat - and then people claiming how his liberties are being infringed upon because he tried to cause a scene.

3hn2givr7mx1sc

billybigunz wrote: »

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.

:rolleyes:
Racism is a crime, religion isn't, ffs.

billybigunz

baz2009 wrote: »

:rolleyes:
Racism is a crime, religion isn't, ffs.

Where is the racism?

opinion guy

Wicknight wrote: »

No, this is the an example of knob atheism.

A militant atheist would have blown up the church.

Oh. Did I forget to put in my sarcasm smiley again ? :rolleyes:

Zombrex

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Anyone who brings up Goodwin's law is worse than Hitler! :P

Zombrex

As far as I know this is an example of the wishy-washy bs laws that New Labour brought in that were supposed to show how tolerate we are of everyone and everything and everyone group hug.

I in no way support what this guy did, but I'm not really seeing where the actual criminal harassment comes from.

A most it was unwanted soliciting of material, which I don't think is a crime.

Herbal Deity

But going to a prayer room to distribute anti-religious material clearly shows intent to aggravate.

While the punishment was OTT, I definitely think that it was a punishable offence.

kiffer

no point preaching to the converted, gotta go to where your target demographic are hanging out...

man should have had better flyers...

Zombrex

Herbal Deity wrote: »

But going to a prayer room to distribute anti-religious material clearly shows intent to aggravate.

Yeah but when has an intent to aggravate been considering a criminal offense (I mean before Blair came along)

The prayer room was a public space as far as I can tell. If he was trespassing that would be a different matter.

Ickle Magoo

According to various sources he was found guilty on three counts of religiously aggravated intentional harassment, alarm or distress...the court case came about after the leaflets were reported to police by the prayer room chaplain;

...airport chaplain Nicky Lees who told of her alarm after finding the images.

She said: “I was insulted, deeply offended and I was alarmed.”

http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2010/03/03/militant-atheist-found-guilty-of-leaving-offensive-images-in-liverpool-john-lennon-airport-s-prayer-room-100252-25957177/

billybigunz

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

According to various sources he was found guilty on three counts of religiously aggravated intentional harassment, alarm or distress...the court case came about after the leaflets were reported to police by the prayer room chaplain;



http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2010/03/03/militant-atheist-found-guilty-of-leaving-offensive-images-in-liverpool-john-lennon-airport-s-prayer-room-100252-25957177/

What a [...INAPPROPRIATE LANGAUGE DELETED...]

Ickle Magoo

billybigunz wrote: »

What a [...INAPPROPRIATE LANGAUGE DELETED...].

I hate that word....and I don't believe in hell.

Anywhoo, that wasn't my point...I was referring to the issue of the man being denied free speech - he was found guilty of causing aggravated intentional harassment, alarm or distress to someone who has stated they felt alarm and distress, according to the current laws in the UK, it's an open and shut case.

kiffer

having read the new link... Well well over the line...

bnt

Wicknight wrote: »

As far as I know this is an example of the wishy-washy bs laws that New Labour brought in that were supposed to show how tolerate we are of everyone and everything and everyone group hug.

Well, not everyone in the current administration is convinced ...

The Government has apologised to the Pope over official documents that mocked his forthcoming visit to Britain by suggesting he should bless a gay marriage and even launch Papal-branded condoms.

The astonishing proposals, leaked to The Sunday Telegraph, were contained in secret papers drawn up earlier this month by senior civil servants following a 'brainstorm’.

The ideas, included in a memo headed 'The ideal visit would see ...’, ridiculed the Catholic Church’s teachings including its opposition to abortion, homosexual behaviour and contraception. Many appeared to be deliberately provocative rather than a serious attempt to plan an itinerary for the September visit.

The proposals, which were then circulated among key officials in Downing Street and Whitehall, also include the Pope opening an abortion ward; spending the night in a council flat in Bradford; doing forward rolls with children to promote healthy living; and even performing a duet with the Queen.

link :cool:

sink

bnt wrote: »

Well, not everyone in the current administration is convinced ...

link :cool:

lmfao

Ickle Magoo

It rates Susan Boyle, the singer, as more influential than Vincent Nichols, the Archbishop of Westminster.

Deary me! Ouch! :pac:

MrPudding

Interesting take on it here:

http://blog.echurchwebsites.org.uk/2010/03/03/philosophy-tutor-and-atheist-harry-taylor-in-court-for-leaving-anti-religious-cartoons-in-john-lennon-airport/

MrP

Galvasean

Alarmed? Someone left a few bad taste posters lying around and she got 'alarmed'? Someone is a bit touchy.

MrPudding

Galvasean wrote: »

Alarmed? Someone left a few bad taste posters lying around and she got 'alarmed'? Someone is a bit touchy.

Yeah, some people do everything in their power to be offended. This kind of offendedness has previously only been seen in muslims. It is good to see the christians catching up. There are probably webinars on how to get properly offended.

MrP

Bottle_of_Smoke

Criminal sentence is stupid. This guys an idiot but he's not a danger to society.

Wacker

dlofnep wrote: »

No, I was demonstrating the stupidity of your request.

It's not an issue of expressing ourselves. It's an issue of somebody purposefully going out of their way to offend people, and knowingly breaking the law. Anyone with an ounce of sense knows that this guy did it just to harass people.

He deserves what he got. Good riddens.

Really? I wouldn't have thought this was illegal myself. Granted, if I were to start leaving offensive pamphlets about I'd probably check out the legality of the matter, but we really have no way of knowing whether this chap knew it was illegal.