Thinking Christian

1. SteveK wrote:

   September 27, 2011 at 12:47 pm   Link

   Here is Section 5 that they supposedly violated, and below is what it says:

   An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling.

   Clearly they are not in violation. I think the police need some additional training.
2. peterc wrote:

   September 27, 2011 at 6:54 pm   Link

   that part might not be applicable depending on how the term “dwelling” is defined.
3. SteveK wrote:

   September 27, 2011 at 7:48 pm   Link

   peterc,
   Since the offense can be committed in a public or private place, I’m leaning toward “dwelling” being any public or private building. You could be right though.
4. Justaguy wrote:

   September 28, 2011 at 2:02 pm   Link

   Ahhhh. Someone complains the video/text is “homophobic.”

   So, it is likely not an issue of the Bible, per se, but merely that the Bible and the transmission of its message happens to be contrary to the particular agenda to which the complainant has sympathies.

   ‘Tis a PC/hate-speech intervention, not necessarily a “let’s crack down on the dissemination of the Bible” intervention (though the results in this application are the same.)
5. Justaguy wrote:

   September 28, 2011 at 2:08 pm   Link

   There are quite a few clarifications to the broad law that have been submitted since its initial codification in 1986, which seem to protect the establishment (and churches, etc.), such as:

   “29JA Protection of freedom of expression (sexual orientation)

   In this Part, for the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred.”
6. Justaguy wrote:

   September 28, 2011 at 2:17 pm   Link

   SteveK and peterc,

   It appears the definition of dwelling may not seem to matter, given the grounds on which the complaint was filed. It is still troubling that the error was made in favor of political correctness, though.

   (I’m not sure of the laws re: freedom or lack thereof of religion in the U.K., so it would be in appropriate of me to comment re: that dynamic here.)
7. daveb wrote:

   September 29, 2011 at 11:04 am   Link

   If the police can take action regarding the use of biblical text in a cafe then what’s to say this woudn’t apply equally to a church building – both are public places?

   But yeah, PC lunacy for sure.
8. Justaguy wrote:

   September 29, 2011 at 12:54 pm   Link

   daveb,

   It seems that the law has been misapplied when one considers the clarification in the statute.

   I imagine that the action taken was prompted by the alarm/indignation of the one complaining, and the (probably beat-level) officers weren’t aware of the protections/nuances within the law, as noted in comment #5. It does seem to be a knee-jerk reaction toward PC though, doesn’t it?
9. Holopupenko wrote:

   September 29, 2011 at 1:14 pm   Link

   In the context of this discussion (meaning: what kind of society actually permits such violations of basic human rights) and with the nonsense of moral relativism promulgated by the likes of d, DL, etc., you must watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y2KsU_dhwI … and cry.
10. SteveK wrote:

    September 29, 2011 at 5:12 pm   Link

    That video is disturbing. I didn’t watch it all the way through, but I was encouraged by some of the comments. Moral relativism is rotting our souls – sin is rotting our souls.

Comments are disabled for this post