Login |
New User
Books
Read the 1st Chapter!
The Greatest Show On Earth: The Evidence For Evolution
The God Delusion
Over 1.5 million copies sold
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology 'cult'
by Guardian
Thanks to PJG for the link.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/may/20/1
Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology 'cult'
By Anil Dawar
A teenager is facing prosecution for using the word "cult" to describe the Church of Scientology.
The unnamed 15-year-old was served the summons by City of London police when he took part in a peaceful demonstration opposite the London headquarters of the controversial religion.
Officers confiscated a placard with the word "cult" on it from the youth, who is under 18, and a case file has been sent to the Crown Prosecution Service.
A date has not yet been set for him to appear in court.
The decision to issue the summons has angered human rights activists and support groups for the victims of cults.
The incident happened during a protest against the Church of Scientology on May 10. Demonstrators from the anti-Scientology group, Anonymous, who were outside the church's £23m headquarters near St Paul's cathedral, were banned by police from describing Scientology as a cult by police because it was "abusive and insulting".
Writing on an anti-Scientology website, the teenager facing court said: "I brought a sign to the May 10th protest that said: 'Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult.'
"'Within five minutes of arriving I was told by a member of the police that I was not allowed to use that word, and that the final decision would be made by the inspector."
A policewoman later read him section five of the Public Order Act and "strongly advised" him to remove the sign. The section prohibits signs which have representations or words which are threatening, abusive or insulting.
The teenager refused to back down, quoting a 1984 high court ruling from Mr Justice Latey, in which he described the Church of Scientology as a "cult" which was "corrupt, sinister and dangerous".
After the exchange, a policewoman handed him a court summons and removed his sign.
On the website he asks for advice on how to fight the charge: "What's the likelihood I'll need a lawyer? If I do have to get one, it'll have to come out of my pocket money."
Writing on the same website, another anonymous demonstrator said: "We also protested outside another Scientology building in Tottenham Court Road which is policed by a separate force, the Metropolitan police, who have never tried to stop us using the word cult.
"We're completely peaceful protesters expressing a perfectly valid opinion. This whole thing stinks."
Liberty director, Shami Chakrabarti, said: "This barmy prosecution makes a mockery of Britain's free speech traditions.
"After criminalising the use of the word 'cult', perhaps the next step is to ban the words 'war' and 'tax' from peaceful demonstrations?"
Ian Haworth, from the Cult Information Centre which provides advice for victims of cults and their families, said: "This is an extraordinary situation. If it wasn't so serious it would be farcical. The police's job is to protect and serve. Who is being served and who is being protected in this situation? I find it very worrying.
"Scientology is well known to my organisation, and has been of great concern to me for 22 years. I get many calls from families with loved ones involved and ex-members who are in need of one form of help."
The City of London police came under fire two years ago when it emerged that more than 20 officers, ranging from constable to chief superintendent, had accepted gifts worth thousands of pounds from the Church of Scientology.
The City of London Chief Superintendent, Kevin Hurley, praised Scientology for "raising the spiritual wealth of society" during the opening
of its headquarters in 2006.
Last year a video praising Scientology emerged featuring Ken Stewart, another of the City of London's chief superintendents, although he is not a member of the group.
The group was founded by the science-fiction writer L Ron Hubbard in 1952 and espouses the idea that humans are descended from an exiled race of aliens called Thetans.
The church continues to attract controversy over claims that it separates members from their families and indoctrinates followers.
A spokeswoman for the force said today: "City of London police had received complaints about demonstrators using the words 'cult' and 'Scientology kills' during protests against the Church of Scientology.
"Following advice from the Crown Prosecution Service some demonstrators were warned verbally and in writing that their signs breached section five of the Public Order Act.
"One demonstrator continued to display a placard despite police warnings and was reported for an offence under section five. A file on the case will go to the CPS."
A CPS spokesman said no specific advice was given to police regarding the boy's placard.
"In April, prior to this demonstration, as part of our normal working relationship we gave the City of London police general advice on the law around demonstrations and religiously aggravated crime in particular.
"We did not advise on this specific case prior to the summons being issued — which the police can do without reference to us — but if we receive a file we will review it in the normal way according to the code for crown prosecutors."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/may/20/1
Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology 'cult'
By Anil Dawar
A teenager is facing prosecution for using the word "cult" to describe the Church of Scientology.
The unnamed 15-year-old was served the summons by City of London police when he took part in a peaceful demonstration opposite the London headquarters of the controversial religion.
Officers confiscated a placard with the word "cult" on it from the youth, who is under 18, and a case file has been sent to the Crown Prosecution Service.
A date has not yet been set for him to appear in court.
The decision to issue the summons has angered human rights activists and support groups for the victims of cults.
The incident happened during a protest against the Church of Scientology on May 10. Demonstrators from the anti-Scientology group, Anonymous, who were outside the church's £23m headquarters near St Paul's cathedral, were banned by police from describing Scientology as a cult by police because it was "abusive and insulting".
Writing on an anti-Scientology website, the teenager facing court said: "I brought a sign to the May 10th protest that said: 'Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult.'
"'Within five minutes of arriving I was told by a member of the police that I was not allowed to use that word, and that the final decision would be made by the inspector."
A policewoman later read him section five of the Public Order Act and "strongly advised" him to remove the sign. The section prohibits signs which have representations or words which are threatening, abusive or insulting.
The teenager refused to back down, quoting a 1984 high court ruling from Mr Justice Latey, in which he described the Church of Scientology as a "cult" which was "corrupt, sinister and dangerous".
After the exchange, a policewoman handed him a court summons and removed his sign.
On the website he asks for advice on how to fight the charge: "What's the likelihood I'll need a lawyer? If I do have to get one, it'll have to come out of my pocket money."
Writing on the same website, another anonymous demonstrator said: "We also protested outside another Scientology building in Tottenham Court Road which is policed by a separate force, the Metropolitan police, who have never tried to stop us using the word cult.
"We're completely peaceful protesters expressing a perfectly valid opinion. This whole thing stinks."
Liberty director, Shami Chakrabarti, said: "This barmy prosecution makes a mockery of Britain's free speech traditions.
"After criminalising the use of the word 'cult', perhaps the next step is to ban the words 'war' and 'tax' from peaceful demonstrations?"
Ian Haworth, from the Cult Information Centre which provides advice for victims of cults and their families, said: "This is an extraordinary situation. If it wasn't so serious it would be farcical. The police's job is to protect and serve. Who is being served and who is being protected in this situation? I find it very worrying.
"Scientology is well known to my organisation, and has been of great concern to me for 22 years. I get many calls from families with loved ones involved and ex-members who are in need of one form of help."
The City of London police came under fire two years ago when it emerged that more than 20 officers, ranging from constable to chief superintendent, had accepted gifts worth thousands of pounds from the Church of Scientology.
The City of London Chief Superintendent, Kevin Hurley, praised Scientology for "raising the spiritual wealth of society" during the opening
of its headquarters in 2006.
Last year a video praising Scientology emerged featuring Ken Stewart, another of the City of London's chief superintendents, although he is not a member of the group.
The group was founded by the science-fiction writer L Ron Hubbard in 1952 and espouses the idea that humans are descended from an exiled race of aliens called Thetans.
The church continues to attract controversy over claims that it separates members from their families and indoctrinates followers.
A spokeswoman for the force said today: "City of London police had received complaints about demonstrators using the words 'cult' and 'Scientology kills' during protests against the Church of Scientology.
"Following advice from the Crown Prosecution Service some demonstrators were warned verbally and in writing that their signs breached section five of the Public Order Act.
"One demonstrator continued to display a placard despite police warnings and was reported for an offence under section five. A file on the case will go to the CPS."
A CPS spokesman said no specific advice was given to police regarding the boy's placard.
"In April, prior to this demonstration, as part of our normal working relationship we gave the City of London police general advice on the law around demonstrations and religiously aggravated crime in particular.
"We did not advise on this specific case prior to the summons being issued — which the police can do without reference to us — but if we receive a file we will review it in the normal way according to the code for crown prosecutors."
Comments 1 - 50 of 129 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #182581 by mmurray on May 20, 2008 at 2:59 pm
So what does Section 5 of the Public Order Act say ?Michael
Other Comments by mmurray
3. Comment #182586 by theantitheist on May 20, 2008 at 3:08 pm
I seriously doubt this kid needs a lawyer, and if he does i'm sure one that is cheap enough to afford on pocket money will be sufficient.
I'm in Oz at the moment and there has been several protests recently (part of the same movement i believe) and no problems like this.
Other Comments by theantitheist
4. Comment #182587 by decius on May 20, 2008 at 3:11 pm
What happened to those officers who accepted "gifts" from the cult of scientology? Other Comments by decius
5. Comment #182588 by Szymanowski on May 20, 2008 at 3:12 pm
OK, for one thing I had no idea such an oppressive Act was in force, here. For another, surely the police don't have a leg to stand on re. accepting hospitality from the Church of $?(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he:
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
This offence has the following statutory defences:
(1) The defendant had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be alarmed of distressed by his action.
(2) The defendant was in a dwelling and had no reason to believe that his behaviour would be seen or heard by any person outside any dwelling.
(3) The conduct was reasonable.
Presumably defence no. 3 would work.
Other Comments by Szymanowski
6. Comment #182589 by Styrer- on May 20, 2008 at 3:13 pm
This ballsy 15-year old kid deserves a fucking medal.I expect that the Cult Information Centre will be receiving a little visit from City of London police officers shortly, once their rituals at Scientology HQ are over, urging a re-think on its name.
While I think anti-hate speech laws are important in facing up to the violence which can follow from faith-based words, there is clear need to make these laws crystal clear so that shit like this never happens again. The legalities are unclear when they should be transparent, in circumstances where the victim becomes the accused. I suggest criminalization of 'faith-based hate speech' would be at least a start.
In any case - how we can we raise the roof on this one?
Oh, and cue Dr. Benway...:)
Best,
Styrer
Other Comments by Styrer-
7. Comment #182591 by Auraboy on May 20, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Actually I know a member of the Metropolitan police force who described the City of London police as 'like something out of the Wicker Man'. Which I assume means strange and occult as opposed to looking like Christopher Lee and burning people. But you never know I suppose...
I will try to recall which police force it was that let the Islamist 'beheading' signs walk off without interruption...
Can I submit the Christian cross as a sign that causes me distress in public? I live in a city centre very close to a Cathedral and it offends me quite often when they display anything.
Other Comments by Auraboy
8. Comment #182592 by MPhil on May 20, 2008 at 3:20 pm
In Germany, Scientology is rightly under observation by the "Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz" (Federal Bureau for the protection of the constitution) because of anti-constitutional activities.Well, seeing as freedom of thought, liberty of conscience, freedom of expression, human dignity etc are the highest values in the constitution - The Christian dogma is certainly anti-constitutional, and the religious indoctrination, the official status of Christianity - all of these are anti-constitutional.
But Scientology is rightly considered even worse.
Anyway - the summons is a farce
Other Comments by MPhil
9. Comment #182593 by Epinephrine on May 20, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Absurd. It is a cult.
Cult -
2.a. a particular form or system of religious worship; esp. in reference to its external rites and ceremonies.
What about it isn't a cult?
Other Comments by Epinephrine
10. Comment #182594 by Auraboy on May 20, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Damn so all my "Scientology is a cu#t" signs are wasted now...
Can we reasonably suggest that spelling mistakes would be unable to cause offence? Sceintology is a Clut that bills people...
I'll get writing...
Other Comments by Auraboy
11. Comment #182595 by Auraboy on May 20, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Unfortunately I think regulating speech is just a dangerous area full stop. Insult and humiliation are part of humour and the essence of freedom. I suppose legislating against incitement to violence and murder is valid but I'd have to say currently that freedom to offend is part of freedom. I'll respect someone's right to call me a Godless infidel son of a whore, as long as I'm legally unrestricted from comparing him to an anatomically awkward act in return. Other Comments by Auraboy
12. Comment #182597 by Valiant on May 20, 2008 at 3:35 pm
We are anonymous! Other Comments by Valiant
13. Comment #182598 by annabanana on May 20, 2008 at 3:39 pm
The church continues to attract controversy over claims that it separates members from their families and indoctrinates followers.
I didn't realize this was controversy. I thought it was common knowledge and could apply to any church.
Other Comments by annabanana
14. Comment #182599 by Grantaire of JC on May 20, 2008 at 3:42 pm
The Webster's Dictionary describes a cult as "a devoted attachment or admiration to a person or principle". Well, there was no insult here. If you chose to accept the more vulgar definition that is open to interpretation. We know which definition he was going for, but the message is left to the reader's judgement. Now as far as we are descendants from Thetans, I ask you which religion is the most wrong on this issue and does it really matter?Other Comments by Grantaire of JC
15. Comment #182600 by decius on May 20, 2008 at 3:43 pm
MPhil, I am under the impression that Germany, being a federation of states, has very contradictory -and even conflicting- sets of rules. I remember the appalling case of the abused muslim wife, whose plea was rejected in court on the basis of the preposterous notion that, as a muslim, she had to submit to her tormentor. It is incredible for a nation which rightly prides itself on its advanced equality laws, to allow the vilest of crimes to go unpunished, while failing to protect a defenceless individual for the sake of a twisted conception of multiculturalism.
I may be mistaken in the assumption that the law actually granted the interpretation given by the ruling judge. Perhaps you know more about this?
Other Comments by decius
16. Comment #182601 by Styrer- on May 20, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Comment #182591 by Auraboy on May 20, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Can I submit the Christian cross as a sign that causes me distress in public? I live in a city centre very close to a Cathedral and it offends me quite often when they display anything.
Stranger things have happened. Witness the ingenious and ignoble ASBO. At what level of 'harrassment, alarm or distress' in any viewer's mind can the label of 'anti-social behaviour' be assigned? There are some real horror stories of injustice relating to these 'orders'.
At least this terrific young chap is being charged with a real crime, which raises the whole profile of the debacle, the better to attract wide condemnation. He could simply have received an ASBO, rendering a non-criminal act (such as handling a placard) a criminal one on any subsequent 'violation'. We may then never have heard about this at all.
The police's unreasonable severity here ought to be their undoing. And nothing less than a full public apology, with compensation, public inquiry and investigation into the officers themselves for possible corruption will do.
Best,
Styrer
Other Comments by Styrer-
17. Comment #182602 by Valiant on May 20, 2008 at 3:53 pm
#182598
Scientology has a disconnection policy, it's quite different from other churches.
Get educated:
http://www.vimeo.com/951467
Other Comments by Valiant
18. Comment #182603 by annabanana on May 20, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Valiant,Operative word being *could*. I didn't say that it necessarily did apply, but it's not exactly uncommon for someone to join some church or religiously affiliated group and cut contact with members of the family who aren't religious enough for their liking.
Other Comments by annabanana
19. Comment #182604 by Dr Benway on May 20, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Oh, and cue Dr. Benway...:)Ooo. Me ears is burnin'.
Regarding public speech in a public place, I'd draw the line at:
- threats to harm
- inciting a riot
- fraud
- loud talk disruptive of usual business
Expression of unpopular personal opinion should be protected, because we might need the right ourselves one day.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
20. Comment #182605 by NJS on May 20, 2008 at 3:59 pm
My defence would be that all religions are cults.That's why having a sign saying its "not a religion, its a cult" means I have no sympathy.
Of course I would also ask why the west midlands police force didn't prosecute the Channel 4 Muslim preachers for far worse.
Other Comments by NJS
21. Comment #182606 by Auraboy on May 20, 2008 at 4:00 pm
An excellent point Styrer. I had not considered the general nonsense principle of the humble ASBO being applied. Perhaps it really is a (ha) blessing in disguise that the police inspector in charge took such an unreasonable and egregious decision. Other Comments by Auraboy
22. Comment #182608 by Auraboy on May 20, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Personally I just think it's best we keep our heads down before the level 6 Thetan witnesses running the City of London police take after the Free masons running the Metropolitan police. If it's hammers against ray guns, London may tremble... Other Comments by Auraboy
23. Comment #182609 by Styrer- on May 20, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Comment #182595 by Auraboy on May 20, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Unfortunately I think regulating speech is just a dangerous area full stop. Insult and humiliation are part of humour and the essence of freedom.
Yes, but faith-based hate speech is hardly the measure of 'freedom of speech'. When fanatical Muslim clerics are beseeching their faith-doped flock to 'kill the infidel', the core of free speech - the free discussion of ideas - plays no part at all. Such words from the verminous clerics to their faithoholic, indoctrinated young become weapons, and are as representative of the whole notion of freedom to challenge ideas as a decapitated head held high.
We all here know what horrible violence can ensue from mere words - pick a holy text as you will - and we need laws to stop such faith-based hate speech leading to all the terrible things we see here, day in, day out.
Real freedom of speech will not be hurt, once anti-hate speech laws based on faith are properly clarified.
Best,
Styrer
Other Comments by Styrer-
24. Comment #182610 by Tagred on May 20, 2008 at 4:10 pm
They're all a bunch of cults.Other Comments by Tagred
25. Comment #182611 by Auraboy on May 20, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Of course Styrer which is why I did carefully say that incitement to violence or murder could and should be an honorary exception to the rule. The freedom for a muslim cleric to insult (or at least attempt to insult me)is as valid as my right to insult him. But I believe there has to be a careful judgement made on the difference between 'offence, insult and humiliation' and 'kill/beat/rape/torture this person or persons...'. The same way I believe you can legislate against planning to commit crime, but couldn't legislate against thinking about it in fantasy terms. Other Comments by Auraboy
26. Comment #182612 by DalaiDrivel on May 20, 2008 at 4:18 pm
The London Police can stick it up their corrupt, rights-breaching rear.
The only thing "abusive" is the treatment of individual liberty here by the London Police. Peaceful protest and the presentation of dissident opinion is not abuse. Full stop.
The only thing "insulting" is the treatment of that word when it is misapplied to a serious statement of opinion that the Church of Scientology is a cult, and any investigation of its practices by way of interviewing its former members should lend credence to that opinion, as if ANY opinion needed credence to be expressed in protest.
This is of course to be considered after the matter of the Police accepting bribes from the Church and appearing in Church propaganda is sorted out.
Other Comments by DalaiDrivel
27. Comment #182615 by Styrer- on May 20, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Comment #182611 by Auraboy on May 20, 2008 at 4:11 pmYes.
Mix and serve any of what you said with a dollop of faith.
Stand back.:)
Best,
Styrer
Other Comments by Styrer-
28. Comment #182616 by Auraboy on May 20, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Sorting out the corruption and bribery rampant in the Greater London Police forces is about as likely as the Catholic Church sorting out paedophilia amongst its ranks. Other Comments by Auraboy
29. Comment #182618 by wiz220 on May 20, 2008 at 4:29 pm
First of all, is there a British equivalent to the US's ACLU? If there was this kid would be getting represented for free.Second, the term "abusive and insulting" is about the WORST thing you could have put into this rediculous piece of legislation. It's far too broad, not to mention that rights to free speech exist specifically FOR this purpose, to protect speech that "insults". Every time some IDiot says Darwin is to blame for the Holocaust I'm insulted, but I'm not taking any of those morons to court.
Other Comments by wiz220
30. Comment #182619 by Neuro on May 20, 2008 at 4:30 pm
People are stupid. The boy/man was within his rights, especially if he had a court judge say it!Do these idiots even know the definition of the word 'cult'?
Merriam-Webster Dictionary <http://www.merriam-webster.com>
Main Entry:
cult ˈkəlt (noun)
1: formal religious veneration; worship
2: a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also its body of adherents
3: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious
4: a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator
5 a: great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad
b: the object of such devotion
c: a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion
Let's see. Which ones apply to Scientology, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, et cetera.
#1, 2, 4, 5[a,b,c]
#3 counts, if you're an atheist!
Granted 'cult' today typically means #3, an unorthodox (often dangerous) assembly, but the kid could claim that he meant any of the other four definitions. He could refer to Christianity as a cult, which is true.
Other Comments by Neuro
31. Comment #182621 by Auraboy on May 20, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Yes, the police missed turning his sign over for part 2...
Scientology is a cult---
---hit on youtube.
Other Comments by Auraboy
32. Comment #182623 by mmurray on May 20, 2008 at 4:37 pm
People are stupid. The boy/man was within his rights, especially if he had a court judge say it!
Do you mean he was within his legal rights ? I don't see that on the basis of the Public Order Act as posted above. It doesn't appear to me that telling the truth is a defense. Unless the courts have in the past used the reasonable clause as including telling the truth.
Michael
Other Comments by mmurray
33. Comment #182625 by MPhil on May 20, 2008 at 4:49 pm
decius, I may be mistaken in the assumption that the law actually granted the interpretation given by the ruling judge. Perhaps you know more about this?
It got on the news - and an outcry went through the population. Everyone condemned the actions of the judge and the case was taken from her.
I seriously don't know what happened - the good intentions of multiculturalism gone crazy if you ask me. Anyway - Once it happened, everything went right. Case taken away from her, public outcry, condemnation by politicians etc.
Also, the federalism is not as strict, it's much more unified than the US for example - but still there are many topics where the "Länder" can decide on their own (within the framework of federal law of course) and manage their own finances and policies. But still, very unified.
-Michael
Other Comments by MPhil
34. Comment #182627 by un-united on May 20, 2008 at 4:55 pm
this is of course related to project chanology, check your local wikipedia for more info.the fact of the matter is that scientology is too new and organized and gets away with a lot of stuff other religion would come under heavy fire for. however, scientology is old enough that it isnt that much different than other religions.
to fellow anon: the /i/ is taking place because the chons are world class at trolling, their methods are bringing up morals. only the newfags (for those unfamiliar this is not a term of sexual degradation) actually seem to care about the moral aspect while the oldfags (again, no sexual discrimination) are either sitting back or invading purely for the lulz. the chans have never been a place for morals and while they have a high percentage of atheist population, many still go to church on sunday and are hypocrites, including wise beard man who comforts ex-scientologists with the word of jesus!
Other Comments by un-united
35. Comment #182630 by Don_Quix on May 20, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Guess it sucks not having a single, unified constitution that guarantees freedom of speech and expression (especially as it pertains to political and religious matters). ;)
Other Comments by Don_Quix
36. Comment #182633 by Elles on May 20, 2008 at 5:30 pm
My Flying Spaghetti Monster...
I once said that Scientology was a cult in my Chemistry class and had five people tell me that I shouldn't say that in case any scientologists in the class got offended. I didn't know that THAT could happen.
i can has freedom of speech back plz? kthnx
Other Comments by Elles
37. Comment #182634 by Diacanu on May 20, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Ayup, this is how Scientology operates.Terrorize all opposition into silence with lawsuits.
Goes right back to L. Ron.
Fuck 'em, they're a cult.
Cult, cult, cult, culty-cult cult.
Other Comments by Diacanu
38. Comment #182635 by brian_d_w on May 20, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Canada should submit a request to the UK for the surrender of the original copies of the Magna Carta. It's clearly not a document that is relevant there anymore. The Star-chamber days are both ahead and behind of modern England.Other Comments by brian_d_w
39. Comment #182636 by WaffleHouse67 on May 20, 2008 at 5:39 pm
I'm confused. Brits don't have guaranteed freedom of speech?Other Comments by WaffleHouse67
40. Comment #182637 by MaxD on May 20, 2008 at 5:39 pm
MMurray,
I think it will all depend on how offence is defined. Is it the party being critiqued, Scientology that matters. Or is it something more general, like something that would be broadly construed as offense taking by the general public. Like inciting violence, or being ridiculously obscene or something like that.
Imagine the precedent if the kid loses. Anyone being criticised can cry foul and appeal to the thought police.
Fuck all that.
Other Comments by MaxD
41. Comment #182647 by Neuro on May 20, 2008 at 6:25 pm
mmurray:To me, if a judge said it (and it was not taken as an offense), then the man should be allowed to say it, too. He may not have legal rights to do so; I don't know.
Plus, I don't see how they can possibly say he was offending people by saying it was a cult. By definition, /organized/ religion IS, in fact, a cult!
In my opinion, I don't see the word 'cult' as a vituperative or nefarious word.
Then again, I'm not the judge and jury.
Other Comments by Neuro
42. Comment #182648 by GordonYKWong on May 20, 2008 at 6:34 pm
They need more clever placards:
"$cientology is not a religion,
It is a dangerous CULTure"
"Do Not CULTivate Disconnection"
"Down with all CULTS!!!
(Not that $cientology is not one)"
You can't police ambiguity and word association :-)
Other Comments by GordonYKWong
43. Comment #182649 by moderndaythomas on May 20, 2008 at 6:38 pm
London Chief Superintendent, Kevin Hurley, praised Scientology for "raising the spiritual wealth of society"
A wealth of steaming horse shit maybe.
So the word cult is not to be used in England eh?
Is there a site that someone from a humble commonwealth country such as mine, can email a little note on what I/he thinks of that I wonder?
Other Comments by moderndaythomas
44. Comment #182653 by AoClay on May 20, 2008 at 6:55 pm
I'm a short drive away from Tampa and Clearwater. I need to give them a shipment of xanax or something.All scientology needs to add is the whole messiah end of world will be great deal and they can be on Ayatollah level.
Other Comments by AoClay
45. Comment #182654 by kaph on May 20, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Imagine the Scientology HQ at Tottenham Ct. Rd. Then imagine the Anonymous demonstration, with a bunch of City of London police around. The bit that strikes me is this. Of all the people who are demonstrating, the only person they manage to bother was a 15 year old kid carrying a sign that calls Scientology a cult. I bet they'd have felt terribly guilty had they not done at least something to deserve the financial AHEM spiritual wealth they gain.
I really think someone from RDF should give that kid a real medal. Seriously styrer, very well said.
Other Comments by kaph
46. Comment #182660 by frikle on May 20, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Only one problem with the sign, should have read'Scientology IS a religion, it is a dangerous cult.'
Other Comments by frikle
47. Comment #182663 by Atheist_from_Hell on May 20, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Maybe I should write a book: "The Freedom of Speech in England Delusion." Other Comments by Atheist_from_Hell
48. Comment #182665 by cam9976 on May 20, 2008 at 7:59 pm
This is how freedom begins to die. Other Comments by cam9976
49. Comment #182668 by Styrer- on May 20, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Comment #182654 by kaph on May 20, 2008 at 6:56 pm
I really think someone from RDF should give that kid a real medal. Seriously styrer, very well said.
Kaph
And how much time, effort and pain did it take me to utter these words?
How long you?
One or two minutes? Fucking nothing.
This lad - FIFTEEN!!!- does deserve a medal, and its earning will surpass any sympathetically clever words we may have on this thread.
I propose that RDFRS swiftly inaugurates a MEDAL - to be given to those unswervingly facing down the enemy of faith and religion who have no financial or political clout whatsoever.
How about making this young lad our first?
The Atheist Medal of Honour. Thoughts?
I'll put forward a quick 1000 pounds, if I'm assured it will go somewhere.
Great profile-raising, too. No?
Best,
Styrer
Other Comments by Styrer-
50. Comment #182669 by Ohnhai on May 20, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Thy hypocrisy is staggering. Hauling a kid off to court for using a label that a Judge has used in an official decision for this cult, and then allowing far worse in political and other religious demonstrations.
I guess political mud slinging is fine and our mighty boys in blue are scared to take the disgusting, hate filled signs away from those nice calm men from the 'religion of peace'.
An un-armed,calm, rational, educated and atheistic teen telling it simply as it is, now that's a different story.
Jut goes to show that we still have a long way to go in dismantling the wall of un-due privilege afforded to religion.
Does the RDF have any lawyers they could lend to this case?
Other Comments by Ohnhai
Comment Entry: Please Login
Register a new account
Upcoming Events:
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD
'The Enemies of Reason: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008' DVD
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Root of All Evil?' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
1. Comment #182580 by Luthien on May 20, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Other Comments by Luthien