Now We Have Witnessed The Censoring Of The Bible, Can We Now Expect To See Some Censorship Of The Koran?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/street-preacher-quoting-from-the-bible-fined-for-calling-homosexuality-an-abomination-10141768.html

[retrocop]

sp
In another post you whinge,as usual,that people of colour will never be accepted by the white people of this country as (sic) English. An English man in a English Street quotes from a christian Bible and you also deny him that priviledge because his book says the likes of you practice abominable sexual practices.You ,in turn an apparent apoligista for Muslim atrocities against gays,seem to support the very un English carp who wish to throw you off the top of a building.We infidels haven't sunk to such base savagery as those who you wish to defend with there interpretation of the Holy Koran on the streets of this country so don't whinge if this man should wish to promote his beliefs.

[Khandro]

An 'abomination' is something subjective which causes abhorrence and disgust, and is how this man views homosexuality.
I view cruelty to animals and many other activities of fellow man as abominations, should I therefore be fined and/or imprisoned for my beliefs?

[New Judge]

Somewhat as an aside, I fail to see how a Crown Court judge has become involved in this.

Section 5 POA (even racially or religiously aggravated) is a "summary only" offence which means it can only be dealt with in the Magistrates' Court.

[sp1814]

Khandro

Certainly not!

The difference is that cruelty to animals illegal, and if you got on a platform in public and openly denounced cruelty to animals, you're very unlikely to offend anyone.

[sp1814]

retrocop

I hope you don't mind, but I've decided to ignore you because I've formed an opinion of you which precludes me from having a dialogue with you without being personally abusive to you.

It's now the end of March and I've successfully managed to go a whole three months without being personally rude to anyone on AB, and I want to keep it going as long as possible.

Therefore, with all due respect, I'm just going to hop over your posts, because the one thing I notice is that you get personal very quickly, and I...I just don't want to engage.

Enjoy AB, and of course - you can fire a many comment my way as you want...I just won't be responding. I reckon it will make AB News a much nicer place for both of us.

[vetuste_ennemi]

Ah, pleading the 5th.

[sp1814]

vetuste_ennemi

No...definitely not that. I'm happy to debate with anyone on AB, but I honestly don't think there's much point in having a dialogue with retrocop, because to be fair, I think both of us have an extremely low opinion of each other.

When I notice that happening, it's better to disengage entirely, because it becomes difficult to discuss a topic without being personal.

And like I say - I've gone three months on AB without resorting to pejoratives, and I don't want to break my streak now!

;-)

[Peter Pedant]

well section 5 of the POA is here

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/5

and so long as someone complains then it would be usable against someone quoting bit so the Quran they didnt like

I am surprised ( but surprises never cease ) seeing Retrocop arguing that the POA doesnt work very well
usually they p'lice say well that's the law and we are here to enforce it.....

modern police training for you I think

[sp1814]

PP

I had no idea that act was so old!

Also, interestingly it states that an offence is not committed if within a 'dwelling'...but only if the potential offendee is also within that dwelling.

...which means that all the names I used to call my sister were perfectly legal.

I will email her with this tomorrow.

[Peter Pedant]

h\i sp - the 1986 act replace the Public Order Act 1936 which was famed for being brought in specifically to control Oswald Mosley and his black shirts

and even then some bleeding heart liberals protested that it was not the functionn of parliament to enact something against one particular person and his views. Ignored of course

[mikey4444]

SP ( 23:29)....well said...I am proud of you. Ignore all Trolls, as nothing annoys them more !

[naomi24]

Khandro, //An 'abomination' is something subjective which causes abhorrence and disgust, and is how this man views homosexuality.//

You’re missing the point. This man quoted the bible as supporting evidence that abhorrence of homosexuality is justified, but since the book is proffered by courts of law as a moral code upon which oaths may be sworn, thereby serving to reinforce the merit of witness evidence, in fining him for quoting it as a guide to morality the judge has directly overturned the belief that the bible is worthy of the unquestionable reverence it has, up until now, been afforded.

You might find this interesting.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24588854

[anotheoldgit]

mikey4444

/// Nobody is "censoring" the Bible. The Judge said Overd “knew full well the power of words to hurt” and claimed he could have used other less offensive parts of the Bible to quote from on the issue of homosexuality. ///

Picking and choosing what passages of a legitimate publication can or cannot be publicly read out seems like censorship to me.

[mikey4444]

The Judge disagreed AOG !

[naomi24]

Mikey, where did the judge disagree? As far as I can see from that report the judge didn't mention 'censorship' - even though this is most definitely censorship.

[mikey4444]

Typo and poor grammar on my part Naomi...the Judge disagreed with AOG was what I meant to say.

[naomi24]

Mikey, perhaps 'censorship' hadn't occurred to the judge - but censorship it is. AOG is right.

[jackthehat]

There is a difference between preaching God's Word, in the High Street, and speaking out against homosexuality using the Bible as your authority to do so.

It is quite possible to preach about God's 'love' in public without having to resort to those passages likely to cause offence to passers-by.

[anotheoldgit]

Having read yet another of Peter Pedant's post, I have come to the conclusion that he does not speak or write English.

He must first interpret by the use of Google translation what is put and then write his answer down in his own language his post and then put that through Google translation, hence the hard to understand result.

Nothing wrong in that of course, but I do wish he would explain the reason why his posts are often hard to understand.

[mikey4444]

Don't agree Naomi. This chap caused offence and that is why he was charged and convicted. Strange to see you of all people coming to a bigots defence.

( coming to Mr Overd's defence, I hasten to say, not AOG )