A small victory for sanity and the freedom of speech. It is absurd that charges were brought against them in the first place, but such is the Islamic victimhood industry. An update on this story. "Hotelier Ben Vogelenzang cleared of insulting Muslim guest," by Russell Jenkins for The Times, December 9 (thanks to all who sent this in):
A district judge yesterday questioned the character of a Muslim convert as he dismissed the case against husband-and-wife Christian hoteliers accused of offending her new-found religion.
Why is a Sharia prohibition a criminal offense in Britain?
Ericka Tazi, 60, who converted when she married a Muslim man, had claimed that Ben Vogelenzang, 53, had called her a terrorist and compared Muhammad to a warlord when she wore a hijab on the last day of her stay at the Bounty House Hotel in Liverpool last March. She also claimed that his wife, Sharon, 54, told her that wearing such a garment represented a form of bondage, or oppression, in a finger-pointing tirade that left her traumatised.
Poor little lamb. Even if this account of events is true, why is it such a big deal? Why not just check out of the hotel and resolve not to return? Why not just decide that the Vogelenzangs are thoughtless boors and tell all your friends not to stay at the Bounty House when in Beatlesville? Why the incredible thin skin? It is continually noteworthy that Muslims all too often present themselves either as bloodthirsty, violent thugs, or as cringing weaklings who are "traumatized" by an unkind word. It would be refreshing to hear from some Muslim spokesmen who would say to Ericka Tazi, "Oh, grow up!" -- but I am not holding my breath.
After a two-day trial, Richard Clancy, a district judge sitting at Liverpool Magistrates' Court, threw out the allegations of religiously aggravated threatening behaviour, suggesting that Mrs Tazi's account could not be relied upon and that she was not quite the religious person that she presented herself as in the witness box.
Shock horror!
The case is being seen as a victory for free speech and liberty by evangelical groups, notably the Christian Institute, which sponsored the defence costs. It is likely to cause widespread alarm in the Muslim community.
It is a victory for free speech, and it should cause alarm in the Muslim community, as a sign that their tried-and-true tactics of bullying and intimidation, and manipulation of the ridiculous culture of victimization that prevails in the UK and the US today, will not always be successful.
The 15-minute incident came as Mrs Tazi, who suffers from fibromyalgia, came down to breakfast at the hotel at the end of a four-week course of pain management at Aintree Hospital. She decided to wear her hijab, the traditional Islamic dress, in celebration.Mrs Tazi, a mother from Warrington, Cheshire, claimed that Mr Vogelenzang was transformed into a "whirling dervish", likened Muhammad to warlords down the ages and asked her: "Are you a terrorist or a murderer?"
Mr Vogelenzang denied the allegation and suggested that it was Mrs Tazi who had provoked the confrontation by stating that Jesus was a minor prophet and the Bible was not true.
Hugh Tomlinson, QC, the couple's counsel, said that it could not be objectionable under the laws of England that a person believed that women in Islam were oppressed. Even if it was said that Muhammad was a warlord, this could not be deemed offensive.
Indeed. For Muhammad was a warlord. Once it becomes "offensive" to speak the truth and this "offense" is given criminal penalties, we are done for.
"The fact that someone is upset or offended is not a reason for criminalising the speech used by the other person," he said. Dismissing the case, Mr Clancy said that it was often the case that religion and politics were the tinderbox that set the whole thing alight. "It would appear that is what has happened here," he said....
While this result is favorable in that this couple will no longer be legally harassed respecting this one incident, this is not the clear victory for free speech which some suggest. The judge dismissed this case based on the lack of evidence or inconsistent evidence. His ruling was based on the facts which he observed or interpretted; it was not directed at the so-called hate law itself. Certainly there would be cause for some satisfaction if he had ruled that the underlying law used by the prosecution was itself incompatible with the principles of a democratic society.
yet another weasely manipulation to a court(non)case,
but hey! good result :-)...ahh! every cloud :-D
no surprises to see the "usual suspects" that were backing her either.
hey!...muslim woman, hijab one day, not the next...perhaps the pennys beginning to drop finally.
makes you wonder why the police pursued this at best it had to be only a 50/50 case, a "veil" of political correctness moment, perhaps :-D
still nice to see the good old uk goverments
"Prevent" Initiative is really in full swing,(combatting radicalisation/extremism).
just listen in on bbc Iplayer
to this
v.derbyshire 5live 8 Dec...skip straight through to 20 mins from the end...UK Gov. Prevent Scheme, Wakefield, even our liberal host was non-plussed & confused,
you will be too :-D
In an earlier version of this story, Ms. Tazi blew her holier-than-thou image by using, um, non-Islamic language.
"Judge Clancy also highlighted Mrs Tazi's use of language. When describing how she was provoked by the couple about her hijab she used words to the effect of: 'Would you prefer it if I got my tits out?'"
"The district judge questioned Mrs Tazi’s version of events. He referred to Mrs Tazi’s conversation with an ambulance driver in which she said: 'They were taking the p*** out of me.'"
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1234509/Hoteliers-cleared-insulting-Muslim-guest-wearing-hijab-breakfast.html#ixzz0ZIoPZHR1
Dumb-de-dumb-dumb.
/Nelson voice ON:
Ha, ha!
/off
It is at least a blow against Muslims and their quest to criminalize any criticism of their ideology. They'd have it so you can't even talk to them without fear of being dragged into court for "offending" them.
Certainly there would be cause for some satisfaction if he had ruled that the underlying law used by the prosecution was itself incompatible with the principles of a democratic society.
True enough but this would be not a legal opinion but a political one and, as such, would be immediate grounds for appeal. I'm sure the judge would not want to visit more misery upon this couple to make a point. I don't claim to understand British law bit it seems to me that what the UK (and the rest of Europe) needs are stronger constitutional free speech provisions like we have here in the US. Then, and only then, can such laws be struck down from the bench for violating the principles (and constitution) of that democratic society.
I guess if these speech code laws continue to spread throughout the West there will have to be people in increasing numbers who put themselves out there in a sort of non-violent political protest making statements and being arrested and accepting the punishment. Fill the jails with Christians speaking the truth about Islam. The problem would be if they chose to place massive fines instead of jail time. If jail was the only penalty, and the protesters could afford to miss work long enough, perhaps if their family would be supported by Christian organizations, sort of pay for jail time, then they could just pay nothing for a lawyer and do the time in jail. But if the state imposed massive fines instead of jail time that would likely just bankrupt individuals or groups who continued to go up against that.
No one has the right to NOT be offended.
It is amazing that such a case would have even been considered by a court in a democratic country. Since when has not having "hurt feelings", if they were ever actually hurt, become an inalienable human right? Finally, I suspect that Ericka Tazi was seeking financial gain here, since a decision in her favor would have led to an award of damages.
Mrs Tazi, a mother from Warrington, Cheshire, claimed that Mr Vogelenzang was transformed into a "whirling dervish"
Aren't whirling dervishes Islamic in origin? The irony.
Worry01, come to Chicago were soon you will find self-serving behaviour among attorneys-at-law not surprising at all. Furthermore, the couple was accused of committing a crime that carries a fine up to 5,000 British quid, or so it reads in a related blog entry. (Follow the link in the first paragraph.) Now, you could get to your interpretation (gold digging by Musimahtoon) if it's true that most or all of the fine would be paid to the alleged victim. If not, no tort lawyer worth his oath to uphold civil law is likely to deprive a defendant of so much money when a civil suit could direct it to himself instead.
Pure vindictiveness is more likely the primary motive for the Muslimah's behaviour. Yet who can doubt that this Muslimahtoon's thin skin remains thin, as it usually does in thinskinned little girls---and in males predisposed to sympathize with them. (Several intemperate, Irish, Catholic girls, most of them old and one deceased, and their sympathizers, come to mind here.) Perhaps the Vogelenzangs' Muslimahtoon will direct her vindictiveness at a substitute for the Vogelenzangs since the courts won't give her satisfaction. And maybe the couple also had better get a gun, learn some martial arts, and grow eyes in the back of their heads and keep them open for the next 25 yrs.
In this story we have also a poignant reminder of ground shared by Muslims and PCMCists, even if the former do not harbor all political views common to leftists.
Imagine if Ericka, the 60 y.o, fibromyalgic, little girl, had invoked the rule called golden as follows:
"How would you, Christian, like it if you had a painful condition like fibromyalgia, and if I deliberately antagonized you...on the last day of my stay at your hotel, a fact which you surely figured out before my last day here?
"You wouldn't like it very much, now would you? So why don't you silence your tongue, Vogelenzang? Halts maul, too, and start living by your Golden Rule. Do unto me as you would have me do unto you, and don't imagine that if you were a Muslimah that you'd like to be antagonized about Islam as you antagonized me. You can't get to that notion without colourizing my thoughts with your own, nonislamic notions."
Fortunately, there are more important principles, even if we refuse to recognize that fact. For example, Muslimahs aren't entitled to be free of opposition to their ways given the criminalistic nature of those ways and the legitimate interests of nonmuslims not to be impaired by those ways.
Unfortunately, the people who clamour for speech codes don't see it that way, and Christians are in no way excluded from this group. For example, there was the great Aquinas, who prescribed homicide by secular authority for heretics who refuse to abandon their heresy. Related to this is a prescription of violence and intimidation found in Deut. 17. Every Christian apologist of the Bible is implicated here. Also related in a very unflattering way is Jesus' own solicitation of homicide in Luke 19, albeit via the mouth of a character in his parable.
At any rate, the Bounty House dustup reminds us of the common ground of Muslims and PCMCers. It also reminds that the gulf b/t Muslims and Christians is not quite so large as the latter would like us to believe. Not even when the latter are playing the victim of persecution...that they invite again and again with their habitually antagonistic tongues...from which you can frequently hear facile claims like "I love you."
I love that one. The last time I heard it was from the mouth of one of Jehovah's ambitious witnesses. She'd just been booted from the foyer of my house into which she'd trespassed. This Xian victim had rang the doorbell when she thought the front door locked, but then let herself in when she found it unlocked. I suspect that still she harbors utilitarian ethics with which to rationalize her childish behavior.
Hey Lakeview_Paul, in the U.K. the law says the loser pays, so it's not like here in the U.S. where it pays to bring frivolous lawsuits.
I enjoyed your post, I think you really opened Pandora's Box though and expect the usual defensive feeding frenzy of the devout.
"No one has the right to NOT be offended."
That seems to go too far. Clearly, Muslims take being offended to absurd heights, their hyper-reaction to every slight makes a mockery of normal human interaction, the very existence of infidels offends them, ironic in that their whole religion, the Koran, Muhammad, are all offensive to Christians, Jews, God, Jesus, humanity. But in normal Western society you do have a right to not be offended, there are limits. But mores or even laws limiting truly offensive behavior (public nudity or sex or shouting profanities for instance) should obviously not include merely making comments about Islam however disrespectful or derogatory they may be. Perhaps it would be correct to say that Western civilization and all of its inhabitants past present and future have the right to not be offended by Islam in the West!
Your post was long and rambling, and really had little to do with the case at hand. Also, the legal system in the United Kingdom is quite different from the one in the United States. Also, bizarre to push a Christians are as bad as Moslems viewpoint really just puts you in the ditch. Please show me where any mainstream Christian group supports the injunctions of Deuteronomy 17? This chapter dealt with the old Law of Moses, which was written by and imposed upon Jews for Jews. Also, these provisions have not been enforced against anyone since the fall of Judah in 587 B.C. by Babylon. Yes, and as for Luke 19 condoning genocide, it is a laughable contention. How does this chapter encourage Christians to slaughter others? You might try reading that chapter again, if you read it in the first place. The allegory you refer to involves the final judgment, and the king referred to is plainly the Christian god. There is no admonition for Christians to kill unbelievers in Luke 19. If you want to push your atheism, there are plenty of places to do it other than here.
Haiku, to you!
paradise for those,
with bill mahers’ “courage” to kill,
women and children
music will be banned,
kids and women beaten too!
our islam to you
Isabella,
Mr Spencer does admit that not all muslims think alike when he states " It is continually noteworthy that Muslims all too often present themselves either as bloodthirsty, violent thugs, or as cringing weaklings who are "traumatized" by an unkind word "(end of quote )
So if muslims dont think alike does that explain why we have 57 different muslim countries in the world, including numerous muslim countries that are non-sharia and democratic ?
Worry,
Just as you had a moderate interpretation of Luke 19, likewise, almost all muslims either ignore controversial parts of the Koran or interpret it to mean that those commands were for that period in time and not as commands for today.
For example : Matthew 15:1-7
Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!"
Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,' he is not to 'honor his father with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you (end of quote )
Comment :
How would you interpret what Jesus said; was He calling for the death penalty of rude children or was Jesus simply pointing out the fact that capital punishment for rude children was the Law since the Age of Grace only started after Jesus sacrificed on the cross to pay for the sins of all rude children.
Now, would Jesus have agreed to any children being put to death ? off course not, since He clearly said that anybody without sin is the only one who can put somebody to death.
Likewise, the commands in the Koran could be interpreted several different ways and that is the reason we have 57 different muslim countries including numerous muslim countries that do not have sharia and are democratic