A British evangelical Christian, Stephen Green, has been charged with using ‘threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour’ after he handed out leaflet contained Biblical quotes critical of homosexuality at a homosexual event in Wales. The article indicates neither he nor his leaflets were abusive or threatening, just that they pointed out that the Bible states that homosexuality is a sin and so it urged homosexuals to ‘repent’ and stop sinning.
What caught my eye about this case was…
Several thousand people attended the event, which included a gay rugby tournament and a ‘top gayer motor show’, and which was addressed on the importance of tolerance by Liberal Democrat council chief Rodney Berman.
So as Rodney Berman is such a strong supporter of tolerance, presumably he will soon also be arguing for Mr. Green’s right to be tolerated for his views and behaviour. After all, tolerance does not imply acceptance or approval and so even if Mr. Green calls for gays to stop being gay (i.e. he does not approve of their sexual behaviour and wishes to convince them to act differently), unless there is more to this story unreported, there seems no evidence Mr. Green does not tolerate gays. Yet some homosexuals who disapprove of Mr. Green’s views of their behaviour are clearly unwilling to return the favour and tolerate him. They called for the law (i.e. force) to be used to prevent him peaceably expressing himself.
As the LibDems pride themselves on supporting (non-economic) liberty, will they come to Mr. Green’s defence and demand tolerance for everyone? I wonder what Mr. Berman has to say on this matter.
Sorry Perry, but you clearly have no understanding of the modern meaning of ‘tolerance’.
The word is now naught but a synonym for ‘approval’, and you are being naive if you think otherwise.
No dice, Chris. I have no intention of rolling over every time some leftist decides to go 1984 newspeak on yet another word of the English language. I know what tolerance means and I regularly beat bigots over the head with that definition to very good effect.
Congratulations coppers, for giving this looney even more publicity. If it weren’t for the media and the Police, this guy would be a fundamentalist crank sitting at home bemoaning all the things that fundamentalists bemoan. Now he’s a fundamentalist crank with a persecution complex.
Well Mr Green has his own agenda,
but he has refused a caution and been charged.
This means a court case where public ridicule can be heaped on this nonsense!
It comes to something when a few firemen who REFUSE to hand out leaflets get sent for re-grooving, and a harmless pair of Christians get busted for TRYING to give out leaflets.
I thought Nancy Reagan had the answer to this decades ago.
If strange people try to hand you things in public
Just Say NO!
Well, my question is: was it the intent of Parliament that the law they passed should be used in this way?
If not, they should change it, so that it cannot be so used.
Best regards
I’ve never understood the particularly British insistence on the importance of Parliament. As far as I’m concerned, they’re just a bunch of finger-waggers with salaries obtained through coercive force who spend their time in a glorified debating society.
Does it matter what their “will” or “intent” is? It’s been the will of Parliament for the last fifty odd years to keep marijuana illegal. It’s still a bloody silly decision.
Liberty matters – Westminster doesn’t.
Does it matter what their “will” or “intent” is?
Yes; because that’s the (effectively sole) foundation of our constitution and determines what the law is. Unless and until Britain gets a different constitutional settlement, the construction of the will of parliament is the only protection people in Briatin have from arbitrary executive power.
It’s been the will of Parliament for the last fifty odd years to keep marijuana illegal.
Tho’ certain uses were banned in 1928, it has only effectively been illegal (to possess, supply, usw) since 1971, when parliament idiotically did what the US president wanted for his War on Drugs.
The trouble is, save for common law, which they trump, the acts of parliament are the only way we get law that is subject to discussion or argument at all.
The moves away from parliamentary deliberation, however crap that frequently has been in the past, have made things markedly worse. Delegated legislation, despite the invention of judicial review, has become precisely the New Despotism that Lord Hewart warned of. Parliamentary consideration itself has been deliberately constrained by executive manipulation of procedure: Every bill now guillotined, at every stage, so more guillotines a year under Blair than in the whole of the Thatcher/Major era, or the entire 20th Century up to 1979. But it is all we’ve got.
Modern leftie when talking to council tolerance committee –
[sweet reason] People must be tolerant at all times [sweet reason]
[emphatic] But they must also be tolerant in the manner in which we want them to be tolerant [emphatic]
[agitation] And if they are not tolerant in precisely the manner we require them to be tolerant then [agitation]
[shouting][spittle flying] They are obviously fascist and nothing they say or do will be tolerated. [spittle flying][shouting]
To be self-consistent, tolerance has its limits.
We should not – must not – be tolerant of intolerance.
I agree…
Here and Here and here
So, let me get this straight, Muslim radicals march in the street and demand the death of infidels and the police do nothing.
A Christian fundamentalist passes out pamplets and the police charge him with a crime.
Seems some animals are more equal than others.
Yosemite, the Muslims were celebrating diversity.
The Christian was preaching hatred.
gottit?
Reality is whatever our masters decide reality to be.
I just think the cops got the wrong guy. I mean…
top gayer motor show
must violate the dreadful puns act of 1856?
HUH??? The Nixon Administration was responsible for the National Comission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse which recommended marijuana be decriminalized. Nixon himself didn’t like its conclusion, and so the Administration never formally endorsed it. However, by 1978, decriminalization had occurred to some extent or other in Oregon, Colorado, Alaska, Ohio, California, Mississippi, North Carolina, New York and Nebraska. If Nebraska can “just say no” to Nixon’s personal prejudices, then there’s really no reason Britain should have had any trouble.
Perry,
Do you remember the following?:
On Easter Sunday, 12th. April 1998, Peter Tatchell and six other members of the queer rights group OutRage! interrupted the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Easter sermon in Canterbury Cathedral to protest against Dr. Carey’s support for anti-gay discrimination. The OutRage! activists walked into the pulpit, holding up placards. Tatchell spoke to the congregation, criticising Dr. Carey’s opposition to gay and lesbian human rights.
Peter Tatchell was subsequently charged with “indecent behaviour in a church”, contrary to section 2 of the 1860 Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction Act, formerly part of the Brawling Act of1551.
I do not support what Tatchell & co did (it could have been regarded as offensive to many Christians) but think that they should not have been charged.
I do not support what Green & co did (it could have been regarded as offensive to many homosexuals) but think he should not have been charged.
However, in both cases, the activists were aware of the law before they embarked on their deliberate acts of provocation – and took the consequences – and knowingly used the media coverage as part of their political strategies.
Your representation of this case, therefore, as being one-sided in terms of discrimination, does not really stand.
The implications for freedom of expression in both cases are miniscule.
David,
As I understand it, Mr Green was in a public park, so I think your argument only stands by virtue of the establishment of The Church of England.
Alan,
It’s the application of a legal principal – and not who owns the land – that is significant in assessing the similarity of the two cases.
Peter Tatchell was not prosecuted for trespassing…he was prosecuted for offending Christians by exercising freedom of speech – just as Stephen Green has been charged for offending homosexuals by exercising freedom of speech.
My understanding is that Stephen Green was in the midst of homosexuals and Peter Tatchell was in the midst of Christians (of course some homosexuals are Christian and vice versa!) when the offences occured…
FYI – As a strong believer in freedom of expression Peter Tatchell appeared as a witness for the defence when Harry Hammond was prosecuted for a similar offence to Green a few years back.
I seem to remember Stephen Green & Co trying to close down freedom of expression – ie the demonstrations outside theeatres showing Jerry Springer the Opera.
But I could not care less about legal principal, it is only moral theory which interests me.
For me who owns the land is of considerable importance as it changes the moral and practicle dynamics considerably.
It is quite reasonable for the Church of England to be able to control who does what on their own property. Moreover Tatchell was disruptive and prevented the people in the church from doing what they were trying to do (hold a religious service on Church property).
On the other hand Stephen Green was not only on public land when he was doing his loopiness, he was just distributing leaflets to whoever would , not trying to break up the gay event. The incidents are really not that similar at all.
And… when did distributing leaflets become a criminal matter?
“But I could not care less about legal principal, it is only moral theory which interests me. ”
I am sorry – I thought that the whole basis of your post was to argue that Green should NOT have been charged under a particular law…so I had presumed that the legal principles were therefore relevant. If he had not been charged, there would not have been a story, would there?
In terms of moral equivalence, there is no difference between gay activists standing outside a church and handing out anti-religious leaflets and religious activists standing outside a gay event and handing out anti-gay leaflets.
Both acts are intending to provoke rather than to convert. Both acts are expressions of freedom of expression. Both acts are difficult to police because a careful judgement has to be made as to where the dividing line is between freedom of expression and harassment or intimidation.
Neither should be criminalised unless they turn into harassment, intimidation or incitement.
Absolute freedom of expression is not an absolute right in any society.
In the USA, the Reverend Fred Phelps and his followers are free to stand outside funerals of homosexuals and shout abuse thought megaphones at the families gathered at the grave side. That, to me, is an extreme version of freedom of expression.
I am glad – from both a legal and moral perspective – that this form of freedom of expression would not be permitted in the UK – just as gay activists would rightly be arrested and charged for harrassing family members at the funeral of a religious zealot.
Yes, because of the moral principles involved. Legal principles are only incidental.
Indeed… but there is considerable difference between going inside a church and disrupting a service and refusing to leave the property…and standing outside on public land and handing out leaflets.
I disagree. Handing out leaflets in public and disrupting someone’s event on their property are not the same thing.
“That, to me, is an extreme version of freedom of expression.”
So who gets to define what is extreme, the government?
That is no freedom at all. Thank you, but I think we’ll keep our extreme version of freedom of expression here in the United States.
It’s worth dealing with idiots like Fred Phelps to not have the government dictating what is or is not extreme.
By the way, have you ever thought what happens when people with extreme views are forced into silence. The hate will fester and will finally explode into violence.
I really must read all the links before I post!
So Mr Green is Christian Voice is he!!
I heard that voice around the time of Gerry Springer the Opera, on radio 5. I and a shedload of people emailed the Drive programme. None of which the Beeb felt they could read out.
Mine, with only a modicum of expletives concluded
If that man is a Christian- book me a spot next to Satan, surfing out on the sea of fire!
I am sure he got, given what I heard on the radio, ah choppsy. I’m sure they could have had him bang to rights on “Threatening words and behaviour”.
Ah but instead they try out their new legislation.
Had I read the link earlier I would never have used the word harmless in regards to this Cretin. He is a Christofascist. Er but entitled to his , spit poo opinion.
The Marijuana laws came about because of an International conference agreement back in the 20’s or 30’s I seem dimmly to remember. It also had to do with a Mayor of New York , who was up for election on a fantasy peril ticket.
Britain signed up because what was the harm in banning something nobody did or much knew about anyway. The Law of unintended consiquences indeed!
I don’t think it’s a complex, he actually is being persecuted.
I am sorry – I thought that the whole basis of your post was to argue that Green should NOT have been charged under a particular law…so I had presumed that the legal principles were therefore relevant.
I may be putting words into Perry’s mouth here, but the point is NO ONE should be charged under that particular law for handing out leaflets. Apart from anything else, one does not have to take a leaflet that’s offered to one.
I’d go a bit further and say that particular offence, causing harassment alarm or distress contrary to s4A Public Order Act 1986 (as inserted by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994) ought to be struck out completely. There’s not a lot of the Public Order Act 1986 I’m keen on, except its abolition of “sus”.
I have renewed sympathy for law abiding Muslims who claim profiling is radicalising their youth.
As a Christian, non-violent, middle class motorist (who ocassionally speeds and parks on double yellow lines) i am increasingly beginning to hate the police.
Reciprocity isn’t strong in the lexicon of the left and those who support and gather around their causes. Pointing out that there just might be something amiss in the gay life style isn’t PC or, in any manner, tolerable. The religion of socialism, and its fellow travelers, gets a free pass but any other view is just not allowed.
So much of modern politics, and PC commentary, is about “do as I say not as do”. The moment when gays are of no use to the left they will be ditched, the same goes for any other “useful” minority that fails to be useful.
Monomaniacal opinionated twits these people may be, a meme out of place in the gay firmament and all hell is let loose. Privilege and exclusion are grist to the mill of these folks’ politics; keeping out gay lifestyle objections is just not PC, only the opinions of the master clique are acceptable for the time being. The difference between a communist and a Nazi is thin, either will use a minority for a cause and turn on them a moment when their utility is past its use by date. What if there is a health of spiritual issue? “Sod that mate” is perhaps the norm.
The simian nature of primate behaviour is never far beneath the surface in much of human discourse. What monkey see is what monkey do. Telling numbskulls that a life style isn’t good for them, and God forbid that it just might be a sin is too much to take on board. After all, it is only an opinion, not a fist in the face. The visceral fear of obtuse opinion scares the equine sensibilities more than a gush of blood.
Guy,
“I’d go a bit further and say that particular offence, causing harassment alarm or distress contrary to s4A Public Order Act 1986 (as inserted by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994) ought to be struck out completely. There’s not a lot of the Public Order Act 1986 I’m keen on, except its abolition of “sus”.”
I agree with your comments about handing out leaflets. It is utter folly that Stephen Green was arrested and charged. However, this is the same Stephen Green who picketed Jerry Springer the Opera and tried to force its closure…a tactic that – with a threat of intimidation – worked to close down a play in Birmingham to which some Sihks objected thus quashing the playwright’s freedom of expression – something that, one assumes, was also Stephen Green’s intention with JSTO.
A line has to be drawn between free speech and harassment, intimidation and incitement.
For example, a mob turning up at a funeral with megaphones and shouting abuse at family members in mourning during the burial is not acceptable freedom of speech but harassment and is IMO rightly illegal. This is what regularly happens in parts of the USA when the Reverend Fred Phelps and his followers picket the funerals of homosexuals. This kind of behaviour would become legal in England were that particular offence to be struck off.
It is a fallacy – often promoted by middle class, white, middle-aged male ‘libertarians’ (sorry, couldn’t resist that) who laughably think that being told not to do something by anyone in authority – ie, park on double yellow lines – is tantamount to totalitarian oppression – that ‘asbolute’ freedom of speech is attainable: it exists nowhere, never has and never will. Fortunately so, given that its existence would threaten other essential freedoms.
David, it seems to me that you are granting that “a line has to be drawn somewhere”, but, at the same time, you seek to put Mr Green personally on the wrong side of that line by a) referring to a different incident from that in which he was most recently involved b) invoking a demonstration which can be shown to have acted to intimidate, when that is not as evident of the earlier demonstration in which Mr Green was involved c) making assumptions as to Mr Green’s intentions.
I believe that you are arguing in good faith, but I also believe that, if you were to resist giving in to your tribal distaste for white, middle-aged, middle-class, male, heterosexual (?) “libertarians”, then you might recognise that, as drawn by you, the “line that has to be drawn somehere” might look to others a bit like the lines that delimit minority-majority districts for US Congressional Elections.
Civil rights are property rights. No one should have the “right” to go into another person’s house (or other property – whether a shop or a church) and say things that person does not wish to hear.
Even if someone has invited someone in, there must always be the right to say “please leave”.
I agree that there should not be special law protecting a clergyman from being intertrupted in his own church (indeed pushed away from his own lectern during a sermon) – but there should not need to be a special law about this.
“Please leave” should be followed by the clergyman (or other people) using all the force that is needed to remove the intruders from the church.
Just as if someone refuses to leave one’s house, one must have the right to kick them out (quite literally). There should be no demand to contact the government police or go to the government courts.
Physical force in defence of one’s property must be allowed.
Of course there are many pacifist Christians – and if they do not wish to use force, or have other people use if for them, this wish should be respected.
As for “free speech” generally – this is also a property right.
“Freedom of the press” does not mean “free” (taxpayer provided) printing presses on broadcasting time.
A person must pay – or find some charity or kind individual to pay for them.
Resources are limited, they are not “free” in the sense of costless.
Freedom is a matter of the government getting out of the way – not the government providing everyone with a newspaper or whatever.
In reference to legislation caused specifically by Fred Phelps –
I’m dissappointed that we felt the need to selectively outlaw specific forms of genuine harassment and assault while so often the laws we already have are somehow sufficient for curtailing certain opinions even when they are politely expressed.
There is much suspicion here in the USA that Fred Phelps’ “church” is not a Christian Church at all but a bunch of radical leftists performing street theater of their twisted idea of what a Christian Church would be like. As expected, the relation to reality is minscule, if that.
Alan,
I have clearly expressed the view above that Mr Green should NOT be prosecuted for handing out leaflets. He should be free to express his views in writing and in public – as long as this does not infringe upon the rights of others to NOT be harassed or intimated as they go about their own lawful business.
So:
— demonstrations by gay activists outside religious events – OK as long as there is no intimidation, harassment or incitement to violence AND
— demonstrations by religious activists outside gay events – OK as long as there is no intimidation, harassment or incitement to violence.
Freedom of expression should be treated equally under the law in both scenarios.
Alan,
I have clearly expressed the view above that Mr Green should NOT be prosecuted for handing out leaflets. He should be free to express his views in writing and in public – as long as this does not infringe upon the rights of others to NOT be harassed or intimated as they go about their own lawful business.
So:
— demonstrations by gay activists outside religious events – OK as long as there is no intimidation, harassment or incitement to violence AND
— demonstrations by religious activists outside gay events – OK as long as there is no intimidation, harassment or incitement to violence.
Freedom of expression should be treated equally under the law in both scenarios.
There was a good article on these matters in yesterday’s (the tenth of September) “Mail on Sunday” by Peter Hitchins.
Mr Hitchins compared Mr Green’s case to that of Mr Harry Hammond back in 2001.
Mr Hammond held up (in a public street) a placard with the words “Stop Homosexuality, Stop Lesbianism” written upon it.
Mr Hammond was set upon by a group of men who threw clods of earth at him, flung him to the ground, and then poured water over his head.
The police arrived – and arrested Mr Hammond.
Harry Hammond was then charged under the Public Order Act 1986 (which shows that some of the police state stuff goes back even to Mrs Thatcher’s time, although there were no such uses of the Act in her day) with holding up a placard with words on it that other people found offensive.
The Public Order Act of 1986 had been intended to deal with Association football (soccer) scum who had the habit of writing words that rival Assciation football scum found offensive. But as the late Enoch Powell pointed out, whan he was virtually the only member of Parliament to vote against the confiscation of money from drug dealers, a law that comes in to hit a group of people we do not like is soon used against other people.
Many people (including me) may not like Association football supporters – but their freedom has turned out to be inseperable from the freedom of everyone else.
A previous case had gone against the powers-that-be when a Judge (I can not remember his name) ruled that freedom of speech that only protected “nonoffensive” speech was worthless – freedom of speech is only real if it defends words that some people DO regard as offensive.
One need not tolerate offensive words in one’s home (or other property), but it is not a crime to hold up a placard containing a point of view in a public place – accept in Britain it is now a crime if the powers-that-be wish to make it so.
You see Mr Hammond was convicted and so we go on to Mr Green.
Mr Green’s leaflets were folded (so that he could not be accused of “displaying” offensive words under the terms of the 1986 Act) and the “offensive words” were direct quotes from the Bible.
If Mr Green is found guilty it will have been shown that even handing out quotations (and they were quotations in context) from the Bible is a criminal offense.
Of course controls on actions will come to – are not Christian principles against employing (in certain positions) people who engage in homosexual activity “discrimination”? Ditto Roman Catholic principles about employing women as priests (and so on).
Peter Hitchins wrote that he found Stephen Green an unlikeable man – rather an unpleasant man in fact. But (of course) the state tends to hit unlikeable people first – then the power to control speech and action becomes general.
The powers-that-be lack courage (for example the Sunday Telegraph pointed out that it was odd that no Muslims had been prosecuted for their “homophobic” remarks), but they clearly hate freedom. The interesting question is how far will the general population go along with this?
I must confess that I was surprised when even self proclaimed pro freedom people such as “Watching Them Watching Us” came out in favour of the “Standards Board” and its war against freedom of speech among local councilors.
It may be that even my low opinion of my fellow British people is not low enough.
But then this is the counrty where (in accord with various Acts of Parliament) the honest population have largely given up their firearms (something that the millions of people who were members of the British National Rifle Association and Constitutional Club network before 1914 would have regarded as unthinkable).
The British supposedly pride themselves on their lack of “paranoia” (what used to be called “eternal vigilance in the defence of liberty”) and “pragmatism” (what used to be called being unprincipled).
But I find it hard to believe that we really are a nation of David Camerons.