In my opinion free speech - providing that no one is offended - is not really free speech at all.
-
-
jenray
Pro - http://www.jenniferhunter.co.uk
- 2009-06-23 @ 15:36:05
-
-
semafu
- 2009-06-23 @ 15:46:34
I havn't seen a street preacher in a long time now.
If they do it without a mega-phone, then I am for it.
Politicians used to do soap boxes, back in the day.
Vendors hand out leaflets.
why not.-
-
jenray
Pro
- http://www.jenniferhunter.co.uk
- 2009-06-23 @ 16:00:27
Oh, they're in Poole every Saturday and in Bournemouth as well...right in the centre of both places! Want to shout at them to shut up, they're hurting my brain!! LOL...GBHs...XXX
-
-
semafu
- 2009-06-23 @ 16:17:49
why don't you turn up with your own board and soapbox - you have free speech too.
out of interest, have you ever spoken to any of them.
right or wrong - I am impressed by the fact they have the balls to do this - I know I could not.-
-
jenray
Pro
- http://www.jenniferhunter.co.uk
- 2009-06-23 @ 16:22:01
No, I haven't...I don't want my day out spoiled by having to undo somebody's beliefs...LOL...besides, when somebody has arrived at the point of believing they have the whole truth and want to tell everybody else about it, there is little you can say to change their minds...blind is not the word...they are completely and utterly brain dead...you can't stimulate neural connections in brains that have shut off the fact that they may be completely wrong...
-
-
semafu
- 2009-06-25 @ 12:09:19
Is it really that painful?? I've just come from Stratford, there are a bunch of Muslims street preaching. Obviously I disagree with their content, but I found their presentation interesting and a little entertaining.
-
-
jenray
Pro
- http://www.jenniferhunter.co.uk
- 2009-06-25 @ 12:55:59
yes, it is to me...LOL...and would be equally irritating to hear Muslim preachers too...just don't think we should have to hear such things when we go out...
Proselytizing should be done within the confines of churches and mosques... -
-
-
-
-
-
-
- 2009-07-29 @ 13:54:54
You clearly do not believe in democrocy only when it suits you as I say now and repeate again pointed out by a barrister..
“Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society subject to paragraph 2 of Article 10. It is applicable not only to “information” or “ideas” that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference but also to those that offend, shock or disturb. Freedom of expression as enshrined in Art 10 is subject to a number of exceptions which, however, must be narrowly interpreted and the necessity for any restrictions must be convincingly established” (Sunday Times v United Kingdom (No.2) (1992) 14 EHRR 123, §50(a)) .
British law and Law on Human Rights states.
Summary of Law:
1. You have complete freedom to preach the Christian message in a Town Centre so long as you act sensibly, moderately and give the Christian Gospel. There must be no obstruction of a public highway such as to make the route impassable; nor noise of a disturbing level (use of loudspeaker, or disturbing residents at an unacceptable hour). Speaking at a volume so that ‘passers by’ can hear you in a busy street is acceptable; this can be relatively loud. A number of persons can engage in this without causing any obstruction.
2. The Police have powers under the Control of Pollution Act 1974, Noise Act 1996, and the Public Order Act 1986. The Police can also issues a PND (Penalty Notice for Disorder). None of these Police powers are relevant to individuals who wish to preach in the Town Centre.
3. It would be, in my Opinion, unlawful for the Police to use these powers. The Police could be sued if they used such powers.
4. Private Citizens and shopkeepers could commence a civil action for nuisance, but this would be unlikely to succeed (and such a civil act is of no concern to the Police). Furthermore, an action brought under the doctrine of common law nuisance, usually on behalf of the Attorney General, is for nuisance on a scale that is not a relevant consideration for this case.
5. Local authority powers for obstruction do not appear to be relevant and should be exercised by the local authority (and not the Police).
Freedom to Evangelize:
9. There is freedom of religion in the United Kingdom and there is freedom to evangelise to all persons of all religions or ethnic groups. The duty of the Police is to facilitate such ‘rights’. The European Convention on Human Rights protects freedom of religion (Article 9) and freedom of expression (Article 10). This is part of our law: Human Rights Act 1998.
6. Section 13 of the Human Rights Act 1998 grants additional rights to religious organisations.
7. This means that any restriction on your ‘right’ to evangelise will have to be justified by the Police by a ‘pressing social need’. In a free society, this is very difficult to do; and a few complaints by irate individuals will not suffice.
8. This position is supported by the case law. The case of Redmond –Bates v DPP (1999) illuminates the freedom to preach the Gospel (even where ‘passers by’ find the message offensive). The duty of the Police is to prevent individuals using violence to prevent Convention Rights being exercised (i.e. Violence or threats of violence directed against you).
9. The European Court was stronger in the case of Kokkinakis v Greece (1993), where it specifically held that Article 9 includes freedom to evangelise all individuals. I emphasize the word ‘all’; as no groups (atheists, Jews or Muslims) are excluded from hearing about an individual’s religious belief.
Freedom to say what people do not want to hear:
10. The importance of the right of freedom of expression is very well established. As the European Court of Human Rights said in a very well known passage: “Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society subject to paragraph 2 of Article 10. It is applicable not only to “information” or “ideas” that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference but also to those that offend, shock or disturb. Freedom of expression as enshrined in Art 10 is subject to a number of exceptions which, however, must be narrowly interpreted and the necessity for any restrictions must be convincingly established” (Sunday Times v United Kingdom (No.2) (1992) 14 EHRR 123, §50(a)) .
11. In another case; Percy v DPP , it was held that the ‘flag burning’ of the American flag at an Allied Air Base in protest at the ‘Star Wars’ weapons programme was lawful. The protest was to purposively insult American servicemen by the public degrading of their flag and the message could have been expressed in more moderate terms, but passionate messages can be expressed by passionate means.
Nuisance and Irritation:
12. It may be argued that your preaching is a ‘nuisance’ to passers by. Speaking at a volume so that ‘passers by’ can hear you in a busy street is lawful.
13. The use of loudspeakers is regulated by the Control of Pollution Act 1974, but if no loudspeakers are used, this provision is not considered further.
14. The use of common law nuisance is a civil action requiring normally the intervention (fiat) of the Attorney General: AG v PYA Quarries Ltd. [1957]. A common law nuisance normally requires a substantial number of residents to be seriously inconvenienced; in the case of AG v PYA Quarries Ltd, there were numerous mining explosions affecting some 30 households. This case is unlikely to be relevant.
-
-
jenray
Pro
- http://www.jenniferhunter.co.uk
- 2009-07-29 @ 14:30:44
I'm well aware they are within their rights to stand on the streets and preach their beliefs...LOL...all I'm saying is is that it drives me up the wall...I don't want them banned even if they annoy the hell out of me...I'd just prefer it if they were in a side street somewhere where I could avoid them if I wished to do so...
-
-
-
-
ianrthorpe
- 2009-06-23 @ 15:57:38
Over the pond the gay lobby seems to think the issue of resistance to same gender marriage is the biggest issue facing America. I wonder if they understand how much harm they do their cause
-
-
-
The_Walrus
Pro - http://www.doctor-dark.co.uk
- 2009-06-23 @ 16:17:49
There, you see. Those police did their job properly.
As for the silly man demanding the right to say publicly things that it is both illegal and offensive to say, lock him up and tell him to pray until it gets him out.-
-
semafu
- 2009-06-23 @ 16:19:15
It's not illegal to say homosexuality is a sin.
like this:
Homosexuality is a sin.
see, there, I just did it.-
-
SeasideMan
Pro - 2009-06-23 @ 16:33:48
A slight modification there and I'm with you. He could say:
"It is my opinion that homosexuality is a sin"
It's the absolutism that's problematic for me.
Tom.-
-
semafu
- 2009-06-23 @ 16:48:53
relativism - i've noticed absolute truth claims grate ppl a lot these days, it was less so when I was younger.
i guess you would say the statement is meaningless - as you don't think anything is a "sin" in the dictionary sense of the word.-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2009-06-23 @ 17:20:44
There are, and can be, NO absolute truths...
-
-
semafu
- 2009-06-23 @ 22:57:43
LOL.
-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2009-06-23 @ 23:27:02
Why do you think that is funny?
-
-
semafu
- 2009-06-25 @ 12:04:47
"There are, and can be, NO absolute truths..."
would be an absolute truth.
- I thought that was the joke. -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
The_Walrus
Pro
- http://www.doctor-dark.co.uk
- 2009-06-23 @ 16:41:47
We-e-e-ell...
The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 amended Part 3A of the Public Order Act 1986. The amended Part 3A adds, for England and Wales, the offence of inciting hatred on the ground of sexual orientation.
But where it all gets impossible to decide sensibly one way or another, is that to be any use, this law would require the prosecutor to prove that the speaker was "inciting hatred". Clearly, the speaker could claim that their purpose was to recruit others to their religion, and not to cause somebody to hate.
We get a man who shouts about his god in Melksham's main car park, frequently. It reminds us all that Thatcher's Tory cuts included selling off asylums, and letting mentally ill people wander the streets instead, which the barking mad hag called "Care in the community", when she wasn't saying there was no such thing as society.-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2009-06-23 @ 16:52:43
What we have there is an virtually useless law. Unless the preacher were being astonishingly vociferous it would be almost impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they were "inciting hatred". If the law is opened wide to people wanting to restrict others freedom of speech because they are offended then that is far too devastating a restriction. The implications would be very far-reaching indeed...
-
-
The_Walrus
Pro
- http://www.doctor-dark.co.uk
- 2009-06-23 @ 17:07:21
It's an excellent example of the standard procedure of the present government, and others before them, of tagging a bit of knee-jerk, populist, unenforceable nonsense onto a law about something else. "There", they shout, "We have done something about it!" So they think we won't think that they are just in it for the expenses, and actually give half a hoot.
-
-
SeasideMan
Pro
- 2009-06-23 @ 17:39:01
Indeed - New Labour were always primarily about show.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
neonmeatdreams
- 2009-06-23 @ 16:19:16
When you see a street preacher like this spouting what you consider to be rubbish gather your friends surround them in a circle and all simultaneously point and laugh.
To be honest I'm so sick of people getting offended!
I find it offensive that these dicks keep getting offended!
Don't we teach kids 'sticks and stones....' anymore.
There is no free speech anymore (if there ever was?) and increasingly Parliament who are making these daft laws are taking away our rights for peaceful protest as well, e.g. no protests within a mile of parliament, it makes it easier for them to ignore it you see.-
-
semafu
- 2009-06-23 @ 16:22:31
of course, if it's far away, they can ignore it - they would like it banned entirley.
They are trying to debate "extremism" on YouTube - check the BBC for today (23-June-2009) - in other words, they want to ban it.
by extremism, they mean anything other than the currently acceptable line. -
-
-
- 2009-08-05 @ 00:38:10
If street preaching was to be banned so should along with it, Civel Rights Groups, Communist Groups, Homosexual gay rights groups, Islamic Groups the list would be endless, we would have a society of Dr Who Cybermen.
-
- 2009-08-05 @ 00:40:02
or what George Orwell said "Ignorance is bliss"....
Street preachers drive me up the wall...if they want to do it, don't do it in the middle of town centre where it is both disturbing and intensely irritating...don't mind what people believe as long as they don't try to ram it down my throat which these people do...freedom of speech is good, my freedom not to be harassed by others is also good...and when I have to listen to claptrap that comes from the mouths of these individuals, my freedom is being abused...sorry, Semafu...definitely not with you here if you are for his right to continue....