Has Ireland gone even madder?

[nath]

you missed the point, which is that nutters of any persuasion, or fanatics if you prefer, are impossible to argue with cos they 'know' they are right

it doesnt matter if its people blowing up planes, or deciding that gays arent real people and god hates them.. its a waste of time talking to them

Making extreme ideas illegal won't prevent people from having them either. Still, you're right, some positions can't be argued with but it can still be entertaining to try .

 

[Tom]

you missed the point, which is that nutters of any persuasion, or fanatics if you prefer, are impossible to argue with cos they 'know' they are right

it doesnt matter if its people blowing up planes, or deciding that gays arent real people and god hates them.. its a waste of time talking to them

What, like Nelson Mandella?

 

[Mabs]

What, like Nelson Mandella?

feel free to expand on that

 

[Tom]

I shouldn't need to, the implication is self-evident.

 

[Wij]

Well bugger me. The UK is madder than Ireland:

Atheist In Liverpool Sentenced To 6 Months In Jail For Blasphemy Camels With Hammers

 

[Tom]

This is a bloke who (IIRC) despite being told to fuckoff repeatedly, kept leaving material which he knew some would find offensive, in a room purpose-built for those people.

I have zero sympathy. Yes, people who worship an invisible mystical sky-fairy are deluded, but they at least have the right to be left alone if they prefer.

 

[Chilly]

I have zero sympathy. Yes, people who worship an invisible mystical sky-fairy are deluded, but they at least have the right to be left alone if they prefer.

In a public place? No they dont.

 

[Tom]

It isn't a public place.

 

[Ctuchik]

Religion should have NO protection from criticism; its an idea, not a person, and ideas should always be fair game for deconstruction and no idea deserves legal protection.

HAH!

wonder if nazism fits in there to...


imagine this.

someone talks bad about nazism and gets sued....

 

[DaGaffer]

This is a bloke who (IIRC) despite being told to fuckoff repeatedly, kept leaving material which he knew some would find offensive, in a room purpose-built for those people.

I have zero sympathy. Yes, people who worship an invisible mystical sky-fairy are deluded, but they at least have the right to be left alone if they prefer.

Turnabout's fair play if you ask me. I have to look at bullshit evangelical ads at the train station every morning, fuckers aren't leaving me alone are they?

 

[Tom]

So complain to the station owner.

 

[DaGaffer]

So complain to the station owner.

No, I, don't complain because I don't have a right not to be offended. And in a sane universe, neither would the religious numpties who've moaned about this.

 

[tierk]

No, I, don't complain because I don't have a right not to be offended. And in a sane universe, neither would the religious numpties who've moaned about this.

Sorry but if you cannot tell the difference between a station - clearly a public place which is open for everyone who wants to travel - and a prayer room - which is clearly a place for people that wish to pray ......


A bit like going to AA meetings and spamming the place full with adverts for booze. Maybe not the best comparison but i hope you get the idea.

 

[DaGaffer]

Sorry but if you cannot tell the difference between a station - clearly a public place which is open for everyone who wants to travel - and a prayer room - which is clearly a place for people that wish to pray ......


A bit like going to AA meetings and spamming the place full with adverts for booze. Maybe not the best comparison but i hope you get the idea.

...who should be strong enough in their convictions that they don't need to send a man to prison because they're offended. It is NOTHING like spamming an AA clinic.

I seem to remember something in scripture about turning the other cheek. Hey ho, guess that was another piece of selective reasoning from the church.

 

[tierk]

...who should be strong enough in their convictions that they don't need to send a man to prison because they're offended. It is NOTHING like spamming an AA clinic.

I seem to remember something in scripture about turning the other cheek. Hey ho, guess that was another piece of selective reasoning from the church.

He isn't in prison as his sentence is suspended, though i do strongly feel that should he reoffend yet again he should be locked up. I can understand that people have a right to free speech and a freedom to express themselves, however, everything has a place, time and a limit. This clearly is a case where the person in question has crossed the line and his punishment should come as no suprise.

 

[mr.Blacky]

...who should be strong enough in their convictions that they don't need to send a man to prison because they're offended. It is NOTHING like spamming an AA clinic.

I seem to remember something in scripture about turning the other cheek. Hey ho, guess that was another piece of selective reasoning from the church.

it is kinda the same, you as a strong oponent of religion might want to see it as a crutch, a room where people go to gather strenght for another week without alcohol or, if the trainsystem is anything like the irish one, for a journey through hell..

oh as for turning the other cheek, well thats only in christianity. A prayer room would be for all religions unless they are discriminating

 

[Tom]

No, I, don't complain because I don't have a right not to be offended. And in a sane universe, neither would the religious numpties who've moaned about this.

They're not numpties. They have a private prayer room set aside just for them, and this twonk, despite being repeatedly told to clear off, keeps coming in and leaving behind material which is clearly designed to offend that room's occupants.

He's a bellend if you ask me, and deserves to be slapped for what he's done. Regardless of the morality of having a law which punishes for hateful religious discrimination, he's only got himself to blame.

 

[rynnor]

They're not numpties. They have a private prayer room set aside just for them, and this twonk, despite being repeatedly told to clear off, keeps coming in and leaving behind material which is clearly designed to offend that room's occupants.

He's a bellend if you ask me, and deserves to be slapped for what he's done. Regardless of the morality of having a law which punishes for hateful religious discrimination, he's only got himself to blame.

I think the mistake was to prosecute him under anti-religious discrimination legislation - a simple Asbo should have been enough.

I dont see the case under the religious law - if religious types push religious leaflets through the door of my private abode and I'm also shocked and alarmed surely I can have those pesky Jehovas witnesses jailed under this law?

 

[Chilly]

They're not numpties. They have a private prayer room set aside just for them, and this twonk, despite being repeatedly told to clear off, keeps coming in and leaving behind material which is clearly designed to offend that room's occupants.

He's a bellend if you ask me, and deserves to be slapped for what he's done. Regardless of the morality of having a law which punishes for hateful religious discrimination, he's only got himself to blame.

So fine him, give him an ASBO.

Custodial sentence is way ott if you ask me, suspended or not.

 

[Wij]

Wot Chilly and Rynnor said. If he was being a cock use existing laws and give him an ASBO. Using religious laws is unnecessary and could be the thin end of the wedge.

 

[tierk]

Wot Chilly and Rynnor said. If he was being a cock use existing laws and give him an ASBO. Using religious laws is unnecessary and could be the thin end of the wedge.

The offence is created by section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986:

"(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he:

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior, or disorderly behavior, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby."

This offence has the following statutory defenses:

(a) The defendant had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be alarmed or distressed by his action.
(b) The defendant was in a dwelling and had no reason to believe that his behavior would be seen or heard by any person outside any dwelling.
(c) The conduct was reasonable.

By that definition it is clear that he is bang to rights guilty as charged and his statutory defenses are non-existent. The law he was charged under is an existing law and it’s designed exactly to stop this kind of behavior. As for the custodial sentence, I would imagine that he got that because he has clearly stated that he will continue doing what he has been found guilty of at any time he chooses and the fact that he has previous convictions dating as far back as 2006 for similar offences.

 

[Tom]

Zede left a comment on my user cp - "freedom of speech u twat"

I'd like him to come here and tell me exactly why a person should have the right to offend others present in a private reserved room on private property, and why the people to whom those comments were directed do not deserve the right to go about their daily business free of interference.

Maybe I should go to his mum's house (where he undoubtedly lives), and repeatedly shout through his letterbox that he is a twat? It's freedom of speech, after all.

 

[Ch3tan]

Zede is a twat though, so ignore him.

tierk, I agree he is in the wrong, but Wij is right. We don't need laws giving religion extra protection. It's a slippery slope when you can't criticise something because it is protected by law.

 

[rynnor]

Wow - that laws so loosely worded you could interpret that to mean whatever you like.

If its an offence to say something that someone else might find insulting then we really dont have freedom of speech in this country anymore.

 

[tierk]

tierk, I agree he is in the wrong, but Wij is right. We don't need laws giving religion extra protection. It's a slippery slope when you can't criticise something because it is protected by law.

The law in question is not one designed to give religion extra protection per say as the definition I have quoted makes no mention of religion, specifically. However, it can be used to prosecute people for offenses that are involving religion if it is deemed to cause offense and in this instance, it is clear why he has been charged and found guilty. As Tom, rightly points out in the post above why should not people be entitled to go about their business free from interference in a room set aside expressly for them to pray in.
My mentioning of the AA meetings is good example of what is not considered acceptable yet the moment you mention religion in sort of connotation its suddenly open season for abuse and people should just accept that it is ok sorry it is not, Everything has a limit.

 

[xane]

However, it can be used to prosecute people for offenses that are involving religion if it is deemed to cause offense

That's the kicker, you can't allow the religion itself to define what "causes offence", otherwise you end up like a stupid country.

British couple are jailed in Dubai for kissing in public | The Sun |News

It's up to the law to define what's offensive, not some fantasy document made up hundreds of years ago, or because it's "cultural".

 

[tierk]

It's up to the law to define what's offensive, not some fantasy document made up hundreds of years ago, or because it's "cultural".

The law in this case has done just that.

As for the link you posted, lets try and keep things on track shall we and not start with the comparing things to other countries as if they are benchmark for this case or even worse try and turn it into a Anti-Muslim thread like someone else did in Off Topic.

Also please next time at least try and post a link from any paper other than The Sun, who are not exactly renowned for high quality journalism.

 

[Wij]

OK - explain the "religiously aggravated" bit to me.

Atheist given Asbo for leaflets mocking Jesus - Telegraph

 

[DaGaffer]

By that definition it is clear that he is bang to rights guilty as charged and his statutory defenses are non-existent. The law he was charged under is an existing law and it’s designed exactly to stop this kind of behavior. As for the custodial sentence, I would imagine that he got that because he has clearly stated that he will continue doing what he has been found guilty of at any time he chooses and the fact that he has previous convictions dating as far back as 2006 for similar offences.

You keep saying he was sentenced under the Public Order Act, I can't find that reference. Link please, because all I can find is that he was given an ASBO and banned from carrying anti-religious material in public. Now irrespective of whether you define an airport as a public place or not (and if in airport isn't public than neither is a railway platform btw, in relation to my earlier comment), if this is saying he's not allowed to display an anti-religious opinion in public, that's a fucked up slippery slope.

 

[rynnor]

OK - explain the "religiously aggravated" bit to me.

Rather cynically I believe I can - the Police have targets for 'hate crimes' so when they saw this had a religious angle they were bound to go for it for the stats.