The Vogelenzang Oppression

Sorry for the title, I was just going for a Robert Ludlum style title, in case this blog is ever printed and put on sale in airport bookshops.

I've just been reading about a Christian couple, who run, or rather, RAN, a hotel in Liverpool. They claim that they've lost the business because of the controversy, as a local hospital who referred about 80% of their guests now doesn't refer anyone.

The facts are they are being prosecuted for a "religiously aggravated" public order offence. What went on in their hotel is not clear, depending on whom you believe. It seems to have involved them getting into an argument with a muslim guest over her wearing a hijab. Feet were stamped, voices were raised and allegedly, insults to Jesus and Mohammed issued forth - "Jesus was only a prophet of Islam", "Mohammed was a warlord" and worse.

The police were called by the muslim guest (I imagine her shouting down the phone "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!") and now the couple face a day in court, possibly a fine, though probably, if they hadn't made a fuss, they'd have got bound over and that would have been the end of it.

Charging someone for a public order offence when the police aren't there to witness it is odd. Usually public order offences are the police officer's duct tape - used as a catch-all if someone doesn't do as they're told by a copper and is generally too drunk or stupid to know when to shut-up. I wouldn't be surprised therefore if it wasn't the original argument which was the problem, but what happened when the police arrived - these "evangelical" christians wouldn't co-operate and repeated some of the things they said and got very angry and wouldn't calm down.

The police will threaten you with arrest if you don't calm down, and just like a good parent, will always make good that threat if you don't.

The fact that the couple are being represented by the Christian Institute is quite telling, they are a right-wing pressure group very much opposed to anything that challenges christianity. They've put the full weight of their legal team, deep pockets and PR skills to a number of cases which on the face of it, were trivial and blown them up into a completely invented vision of a "christian nation under attack by looney lefty politically-correct new atheists" (my phrase and quotes).

I'm just as suspicious of anything they're involved with as I am with the latest Katie Price shock headline.

However, let's not let the facts get in the way.

Whether they deserve to be prosecuted for causing a public order offence, I think would have to be down to the police officer arresting them. Certainly if someone doesn't shut up and continues to try to provoke someone else, that's what I would call a public order offence, and the copper was right to nick them.

My big problem is with making this a special case because of the religious nature of the argument. It's bad enough that all sorts of other exceptions are made for religion: - normally, you aren't allowed to chop bits off your baby boy, for instance; normally, if you get a bunch of people with a delusion together and they elect a spokesman, he's NOT given an automatic seat in the house of lords; People with a variety of unproven whacky ideas aren't given 10 minutes each morning on Radio 4.

Let's be clear, it's already an offence to offend someone - if you're trying to incite them to violence or you're shouting it and disturbing people. it's already an offence to incite racial hatred. The new law brings religion under the same protection, which is odd.

Religion is merely a belief or set of beliefs indoctrinated into you as a child (most of the time). What this law means on the face of it, is that challenging someone's beliefs can be a criminal act. I'm an Atheist, so I see religious belief as delusional belief, dangerous and wrong - as, let's face it, does practically everyone, though in the case of religious believers, they just believe everyone else is delusional, dangerous and wrong.

I can't help feeling more than a little schadenfreude about this couple. I'm sure, if they've got involved with the Christian Institute, they wouldn't be averse to calling on this law themselves if the opportunity for publicity arose in the future.

Let's not get on our high-horses and start pontificating about freedom of expression without the facts. We don't know the actual circumstances of the arrest. All we know is what the Christian Institute has managed to get printed and from experience, that's going to be about as far from the truth as the Bible.