Criminal Conviction in England for Leaving Anti-Religious Leaflets in Airport Prayer Room

[paulsby]

not that we needed any more evidence that UK "free" speech laws suck, but...


(article and commentary by author of article follow...)
http://volokh.com/2010/04/25/criminal-conviction-in-england-for-leaving-anti-religious-leaflets-in-airport-prayer-room/#comments
Harry Taylor was convicted of “causing religiously aggravated harassment, alarm or distress,” and sentenced to six months in jail (suspended for two years), 100 hours of community service, and 250 pounds in costs; he was also barred from “carrying religiously offensive material in a public place.” A few details on the leaflets, from Asian News International/DailyIndia.com, which has the most comprehensive coverage I’ve found (though there’s also a similar story in the Independent (UK) and other British papers):


Among the posters, one image showed a smiling crucified Christ next to an advert for a brand of “no nails” glue.

In another, a cartoon depicted two Muslims holding a placard demanding equality with the caption: “Not for women or gays, obviously.”

Islamic suicide bombers at the gates of paradise were told in another: “Stop, stop, we’ve run out of virgins.” ...

He had adapted newspaper and magazine cartoons and added captions of his own — one made a crude joke on a picture of a woman kneeling in front of a priest.

But some of his cartoons went way beyond exercising freedom of expression, prosecutor Neville Biddle said.

One image showed a pig excreting sausages with insults to Islam, and others linked Muslims to attacks on airports....

An appalling restriction on freedom of speech; I realize English free speech rules aren’t the same as ours, but cases such as this remind me why I like our free speech rules much better. I should note also that this certainly wasn’t a content-neutral prohibition on leafleting in particular places (e.g., a ban on leaving any unsolicited material in prayer rooms) — the conviction was based on the content and viewpoint of the speech, and the “anti-social behaviour order” applied to carrying “religiously offensive material” in any “public place.”

Thanks to Josh Mize for the pointer. If anyone has the text of the leaflets, I’d love to see it and link to it, so people can better grasp exactly what the case was about.

[Gman]

1. Appalling restricitons on freedom of speech? Horse manure!

It's hate speech with a very hateful purpose. They should have made the guy serve the sentence.

[rfranklin]

2. Sorry, but the First Amendment disagrees with you...

Hi cartoons and pamphlets may be offensive, but a lot of people find Gleen Beck offensive. I am sure many people find what we say here offensive and even "hateful."

[Fumesucker]

4. They don't have a first amendment in the UK..

And strangely enough despite their draconian laws their incarceration rate is a small fraction of what it is in the US.

Not so much free speech when you're in jail or prison.

Oh, and Glenn Beck airs in the UK where I suspect he is offensive to an even bigger percentage of the population than he is here.

[rfranklin]

11. Yes, I was thinking of it in U.S.A. terms...

They also have the most ridiculous libel laws--another First Amedment issue.

Why would they air Glenn Beck in U.K.? Totally irrelevant I would think.

[paulsby]

20. which is exactly the point. i prefer freedom to govt. servitude

and the US has much freer speech than the UK.

of course the UK doesn't have a 1st amendment (or a right to remain silent (it can be used against you)... or an exclusionary rule...)

i prefer free speech, with all its warts and all

[Lionel Mandrake]

27. The Brits don't have any amendments to their constitution,

since they don't have a written constitution.

The first ten amendments to the US Constitution are called the Bill of Rights.

The Brits also have a Bill of Rights, which the framers of our constitution were well aware of.

[marshall]

10. US law doesn't cover the entire world---yet.

The "First Amendment" meme is only applicable within United States borders and jurisdictions.

[Bill McBlueState]

23. what's a meme?

Your sentence also makes sense without that word, so I'm wondering what it adds.

[marshall]

25. It's an idea that is common within a given culture

I use the term meme because the "First Amendment" idea is one that is fundamental to United States culture. Saying "First Amendment" brings up similar notions within US folk that are not the same as what the term brings up in other folk.

[MindPilot]

8. The stated purpose was to "convert people to Atheism"

To an Atheist the very existence of an airport "prayer room" is demeaning and offensive. It says believers deserve better accommodations than non-believers. Kind of a separate and almost equal sort of thing.

[Gman]

26. What?? So that makes it OK to say the hateful things that were said?

If the same or similar things were said about gays, liberals would be outraged. But it's religion so that's completely different.

[Codeine]

34. "Outraged" and prison are two different things.

DU gets more authoritarian by the day.

[Ignis]

49. That's because people don't choose their sexual orientation.

They do choose their religions.

:banghead:

[DaveinJapan]

33. I'm an atheist myself, but I don't see why that would be demeaning or offensive

why, exactly? Simply because of the word "prayer"? I suppose you could re-brand them "contemplation rooms", would that be more acceptable?

Are non-believers excluded from the room? If not, then I don't see why they're offensive at all (since believers and non alike have access to the facilities).

[Warpy]

3. In the UK, it's a crime to do things like that

In the US, it's just very bad manners.

[MadHound]

5. So one wonders how the Brits knew it was Taylor who was leaving the posters

Oh, wait, this is Britain, they probably have a camera or two in the loo. A situation that is rapidly becoming reality here as well.

[MindPilot]

6. Failure to mock and ridicule religion at every opportunity

is an act of cowardice.

Harry Taylor is a hero and has my full support.

[The Straight Story]

7. So go leave some anti-jewish pamphlets in a synagogue - hate is hate no matter how you dress it (nt)

[MindPilot]

9. So it's okay for religious people to spread their ignorant shit all over?

But us non-believers have to just shut up and take it? Got it.

[Rage for Order]

13. Oh yes, non-believers are SO oppressed

I have something for you:

:nopity:

:rofl:

[MindPilot]

28. Typical response from a believer.

We are not going away; we are not going to back of the bus, and and we are not going to shut up. Get used to it.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[paulsby]

21. and hate/hateful expression shouldn't be illegal

and isn't in a society that values free speech

hth

[Bill McBlueState]

24. because synagogues

and airport prayer rooms are exactly alike.

[Coyote_Bandit]

12. Our FIrst Amendment

does in fact give assholes the right to spew (and distribute) whatever crap they care to regardless of how intentionally offensive and regardless of whether that offense targets a personal and otherwise legal choice.

Folks have the right to choose their religious beliefs and that ought to be respected. But intolerance, bigotry and hate take lots of forms. People of faith need to respect the fact that others do not share their beliefs. The reverse is also true.

Since neither group seems to be able to govern their conduct acordingly, perhaps the US would benefit from a similar law. IMHO, both groups would do well to shut their fucking mouth and mind their own damn business. I resent those who try to convert me just as surely as I resent those who mock my faith. My faith is after all my choice.

[NoNothing]

14. Never, never, never

Look, other countries are entitled to have whatever laws they want but anybody who has a real commitment to *civil liberties* would condemn laws that are designed to shut down speech. And they certainly would not propose we import them here!

Freedom is far more important than civility. I really don't see how a liberal could think otherwise.

[msongs]

15. religionists cannot stand it when they are treated like they treat others lololol nt

[Coyote_Bandit]

18. Ummmm......

See my post #17.

[Coyote_Bandit]

17. My point is

that we abuse our freedoms because we do not truly understand and value them.

The free exercise clause means that I am free to hold whatever faith I choose - or no faith at all. If I value that right for myself then I will respect your choices even if they are different from my own - even if they are completely incompatible.

I also have the right to free speech which means that I am free to prosyeltize or ridicule various tenets of faith. If I use this right to ridicule your right to free exercise of religious faith then I abuse this right IMHO. The exception being a religious belief that results in a real threat to the health and safety of an indivdual or community (physical mutilation, human sacrifice, sexual or other abuse, religious warfare, etc).

Free speech does not take precedence over the free exercise of religion. But we use free speech as an excuse to ridicule (or to prosyeltize) those who do not share our beliefs.

Guess what? Unless my beliefs pose a direct threat to health and safety then they are none of your damn business and you ought to keep your fucking mouth shut.

The fact that someone would find it acceptable to ridicule my beliefs tells me that that person does not value my right to freely exercise my faith. I've got no problem with a law that restricts the ability of someone to utter hateful and distespectful speech regarding my exercise of faith when that speech is directed (1) toward me or (2) toward the place where I exercise that faith.

The right to free speech ought not be used to excuse what is often blatantly hateful behavior.

[MindPilot]

29. Yeah that free speech thing is awesome

until somebody says something you don't like.

I have no problem with your right to freely express your beliefs, and I will wholeheartedly defend that right for you. But there is no obligation on my part to respect those beliefs. I am not an employer, government entity, or commercial establishment offering public accommodation. Therefore I am as free to ridicule your beliefs as you are to express them.

[Coyote_Bandit]

30. The case in question here

involved some SOB that distributed religiously offensive material in a place of prayer. IMHO, he was just another asshole shoveling hate and bigotry - and, no doubt, considering himself some enlightened self-righteous keeper of folks who are entitled to make their own damn choices.

The asshat didn't have to respect the faith but his actions show that he clearly did not respect the right of others to practice their faith. There is a distinction. In the US, his right to free speech does not take precedence over the right to free exercise of religious faith of another. There is nothing that gives one of these rights precedence over the other. They have equal value and importance. Since some seem incapable of recognizing that I've got no problem with outlawing such offensive behavior. People ought to be able to practice their faith without being attacked for doing so - and that is particularly true in a place reserved for the exercise of faith.

Guess what? People are entitled to have their own religious beliefs - of lack thereof. Other folks ought to recognize that such choices are none of their fucking business. There is really little difference between a person of faith and an athiest/agnostic that proslyetize. Both groups need to learn that most of us simply don't give a damn what they think, we certainly don't require their approval, and we couldn't give a damn how enlighted or self-righteous they think they are.

You don't have to agree.

I think criticizing faith in a place of prayer is a form of hate and bigotry. You apparently have no problem with such conduct since you are defending it. I find no reason to entertain commentary from folks who defend hate and bigotry and I've got no problem with censorship. Welcome to my fucking ignore list.

[MindPilot]

32. "Welcome to my fucking ignore list."

And mine grows by one. I have no time for self-righteous pricks who think they are better than me because they believe in superstitious woo-woo.

[paulsby]

37. in the US, as anybody who understand constitutional law understands

his behavior would not be illegal.

as the commentary noted, it would be ok for them to have a CONTENT-NEUTRAL policy

criticizing faith in a place of prayer may or may not "a form of hate and bigotry"

that's irrelevant

hate and bigotry (in the respect of talking smack about something or somebody) is constitutionally protected in the US

but not in the UK etc. with their "hate speech" laws.

i prefer freedom

i don't need or want the govt. to protect me from icky ideas.

[Coyote_Bandit]

44. Ummmm......

Hate and bigotry in all its forms is ugly and offensive. I have little tolerance for those that would advocate, defend or participate in such conduct. People should tolerate and respect the differing views and beliefs of others.

But, hey, I guess those ideas are far too progressive. After all, it apparently is perfectly acceptable to go into a place of worship and ridicule the religious beliefs and practices of those presnt. But only a bigot would ridicule cultural beliefs and practices. Give me a fucking break. A bigot is a bigot and religious belief is a basis for hate and discrimination - and in the US is recognized as such.

There is no fucking way that attacking faith in a place of prayer should be considered acceptable behavior.

If you don't share the faith that is practiced in that place of prayer then stay the fuck away. Pretty simple really. You can shovel the hate elsewhere - but a place of prayer/worship should be respected as such.

And the religious folks ought not be entitled to knock on private doors.

Free speech isn't without restriction. Time, place and manner of speech can be restricted as well as its content. You can read all about that here:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-815.pdf

The report was prepared by the Congressional Reserarch Service - within the last year. If you're not familiar with the CRS you can read about them here:
http://www.loc.gov/crsinfo/whatscrs.html

While you're entertaining icky ideas consider that there is ample legal precedent to legally prohibit religiously offensive speech in a place of prayer and worship. Before you complain about that too much consider that this is the same reasoning that prohibits folks from picketing on public streets and sidewalks in front of the home of doctors that perform abortions.

[paulsby]

45. accepting the concept of free speech

means that it's not the govt's job to determine what speech is hateful and offensive, and what isn't

freedom comes at a cost

[Coyote_Bandit]

46. Like it or not

you live in a nation governed by laws. The government has determined that some conduct - and some speech - is unacceptable. This isn't an anarchy.

Freedom does come at a cost and it carries a responsibility. Tolerance and accepting differences is every bit as important - if not more important - than doing or saying whatever the fuck you want.

[paulsby]

48. the govt. has NOT determined that speech can be outlawed

merely for being "hateful" or "offensive" and we don't have hate speech laws.
our speech restrictions are MUCH narrower than countries like the UK, canada, france, etc. and i LIKE freedom and applaud this

we have, like every nation, laws against incitement (subject to the brandenburg standard), a true threats standard, etc.

however we do NOT prosecute speech because it is hateful, etc. which is a good thing. the govt. should not be the arbiter of what speech and what groups deserve protection for hateful speech. that's way too much power to cede to govt.

[LooseWilly]

40. Or- the religious could take their opinions (and condemnations) of the atheistic into a

... non-prayer space, like Hyde Park, or the Metro, and distribute materials offensive to the atheists in their non-prayer spaces to likewise offend—Ohh wait, they already do that.

And here in the States, they're liable to come knocking on your door to deliver odious god-stuffs to atheists.

Sounds to me like the religious believe that their concept of "sacred ground" should be respected, but they don't respect an atheists' claim that "secular ground" should likewise be respected.

I smell hypocrisy.

You can call it bigotry, and you may be right... but the irony of religious groups who won't take steps to reign in their own "atheist bigots" who like to roam the streets preaching about hellfire, damnation, and such like horseshit in the streets, leaves me with a paucity of sympathy for the suffering of the religious at the hands of atheist "bigotry".

You say "I think criticizing faith in a place of prayer is a form of hate and bigotry." Would you be willing to acknowledge the inverse?— that criticizing lack of faith outside a place of prayer is a form of hate and bigotry? Would you endorse passing a law against street corner (and university campus) evangelism? Would you endorse locking up the Christian groups that set up and sing evangelizing songs on the street?

Until you are willing to do so, you are a hypocrite... and you are endorsing a system of inequality that demeans the agnostic/atheistic by endorsing special privileges and territorial privileges to those who espouse religion- over those who espouse not being bothered with religion.

[DaveinJapan]

36. Two things.

"The fact that someone would find it acceptable to ridicule my beliefs tells me that that person does not value my right to freely exercise my faith."

Whether or not someone values your right to freely exercise your faith is irrelevant (so long as they don't actually take steps to prevent you from doing so, THAT would be a crime). It's the state which must respect such a right, not us as individuals.

Having said that, I'm pretty much a live and let live guy until THEIR faith interferes with MY rights (religions lobbying government for religious or morality based laws, suppression of equal rights, and so on).

"I've got no problem with a law that restricts the ability of someone to utter hateful and distespectful speech regarding my exercise of faith when that speech is directed (1) toward me or (2) toward the place where I exercise that faith."

Now that's a big problem, because such a law would certainly violate MY right to free speech. You have yours, I have mine. You really want a law that says you or I can be criminally punished for speaking disrespectfully (but only in particular to protect YOUR personal religious sensibilities)? That's absurd.

[Peace Patriot]

16. Interesting situation. Sounds like the guy went to A LOT of trouble to express his ideas

and should be considered an artist-without-big-rich-backers or a journalist-without-corpo/fascist-investors. In other words, the only thing that makes him punishable is his lack of money and power. Artists/journalists without money and power don't have a lot of choices as to venue. Art and journalistic commentary/news require some kind of public airing--whether a street corner art display or a soapbox in a park--by their nature. This is a fundamental human right, not to mention need--and not to mention the linchpin of democracy. The prayer room is obviously a public place where anyone may leave literature on their religious ideas. Why not literature about religions' failures and hypocrisies? Adherents of the different religions represented in this prayer room would be wise to think about these failures and hypocrisies of the institutions to which they belong. But they have a choice, too: they can think about it or not. A poster or a pamphlet does not force them to meditate on that subject. It's a PUBLIC place, not a church. Why not criticism of religion? That, too, is religious. In fact, every major religion on earth has a history of dissenters, some with excoriating criticism of established religious institutions.

His action is also comparable to Martin Luther's "95 Theses" tacked on the cathedral door--an attack on the corrupt practices of the Roman Catholic Church, for which Luther was threatened with arrest (he managed to slip out of town) and was ultimately excommunicated by the pope (a dire punishing in those days, meaning consignment to Hell). The Roman Catholic Church was a pervasive, powerful, international corporation (not unlike Exxon Mobil) which imprisoned the human soul in order to extract human coin. Although current religious institutions are by no means monolithic (thanks, in no small part, to Martin Luther), they do indeed-for all their squabbles--comprise a powerful establishment, which NEEDS criticism. What better evidence is there, of their power as an establishment, than that they were given a collective "prayer room" in a public airport? Why is the government of Great Britain defending this religious establishment FROM criticism in a public venue? Are they not acting just like Pope Leo X who tried to arrest Martin Luther and "excommunicated" him?

From any angle--art, journalism, democracy, religious dissent--this was an unjust prosecution and punishment. He did not vandalize the place; he merely added food for thought. How is that a crime? If Time-Warner had published a book of his expressions, would their execs/editors be sentenced to prison and fined? If Bill Gates had given him a gallery, would Interpol be hunting down Bill Gates so that he could be extradited to Great Britain and punished? Money and power, that is the key here. Money and power does what it damn well pleases--including slaughtering a million innocent people to steal their oil, torturing prisoners and massively looting and exploiting the poor. Who among the rich and powerful have been punished for those heinous acts? But dare to criticize one of their establishments--the one with a "prayer room" in a public airport, the one with chaplaincies in the military and the U.S. Congress--and the money and power that controls the state comes down on your head like a ton of bricks.

[paulsby]

22. how is that a crime? because in countries like the UK, france, etc.

they don;'t have free speech. they have hate speech laws.

look at the bardot case in france, for another silly example of this abuse of free expression

[Odin2005]

19. Mr. Taylor is a brave man. FUCK RELIGION!

[Codeine]

35. Fucking bullshit.

Religion is filth.

[hayu_lol]

38. Some good points here, but a couple of important things...

have been missed.

1. The UK has a STATE RELIGION. There is NO separation of church and state.

2. The provided room is a (allowed there)PRAYER ROOM.

We do not have a state religion here. We do have a separation of church and state.

The president does not rule over the church.

The Queen is the head of both church and state...at least in name.

Atheist or opposing viewpoints would not, in the UK, be allowed in that specially designated room.

Their perspective is different from our own.

[Codeine]

41. I understand the legal differences.

I just disagree with them.

[PavePusher]

39. Ah, yes.

Tolerance and inclusiveness.

How very fucking progressive of you.

[Codeine]

42. I personally believe that progressiveness

cannot coexist with odious Bronze Age goatherd mythologies. Your mileage may vary.

[Macoy]

43. Tolerance for others is a core value of progressiveness

I personaly believe that tolerance for others is a core value of progressiveness. A major tenet of my religion is the requirement to respect other people’s beliefs. I respect anyone who truly follows their beliefs, and I would never spend the time and money to print out/pass out leaflets mocking any ones belief system.


Macoy

[NashVegas]

47. Nice To See That Rudeness is a Prosecutable Offense In Some Places