Boston Pensioner - Religions are fairy stories for adults
You may have heard this one, it was in the news recently and
has caused a whole shed load of discussion about what freedom of speech is and
also how freedom is protected. Now although this is specifically about religion
and atheism I personally have no axe to grind, I am an atheist but enjoy a good
discussion and believe strongly that everyone is free to have any belief they
wish so long as it does not cause harm to others.
Now there’s the crux of this. Harm
So the link I’ve posted is the pensioner in Boston , Lincs that put an
A4 sign in his window that reads:
“Religions are fairy stories for adults”
Seems innocuous enough however there is an oft used law that
has been invoked in this case - Protection of Freedoms Bill: section 5 of the
Public Order Act (POA). There is a section in this piece of legislation with a
very key word, that being “insulting”. I’ve copied the actual section below,
have a read and then see if you think that this could be misused.
Harassment, alarm or distress.
- A person is guilty of an offence if he uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
- 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 piece of legislation was used in the above case to warn
the pensioner that he may be subject to criminal proceedings if anyone was
“insulted” by the sign. A little high handed and unreasonable don’t you think?
Surely intent is the more important issue here. So the legislation goes on to
say that it is a valid defence if the accused can prove:
- that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, or
- that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or
- that his conduct was reasonable.
Reasonable. I’ve highlighted this because surely it is reasonable to question for a person with a set of beliefs to question an opposing belief that has no evidence. So irrespective of the fact that “insulting” is purely subjective and can be interpreted differently by any number of people if this was an offence then the accused has the defence that his statement which is clearly and obviously a catalyst for discussion, is reasonable. Ok now to break it open a bit more have a look at this:
Is this offensive. Has the organisation in question caused
offense. Does it denigrate and belittle anyone who does not share their
beliefs. Would any complaint raised actually be acted on or does our society
value the religious over the secular. Or are we afraid to question. I know
quite a lot of people with faith. I say faith because it is personal to the
person that feels it and is (to me) distinctly different to religion which is
organised worship. I enjoy discussions with those people of faith, I enjoy
questioning both mine and their beliefs and feel that this is right of every
human being. I don’t agree with rules that protect a majority’s (or minority’s)
to discriminate against others because of their belief.
And just to clarify, no complaints were received regarding the
pensioners sign yet he received a caution from Boston police.
The National Secular Society and the Christian Institute are
challenging this law; it stifles debate and is open to abuse.
And to anyone of faith out there that feels I have
"insulted" them. Use common sense and contact me to discuss. As i
said this is not about religion bashing, it’s just unfortunate that there are
some very good examples of the misuse of this law from a religious viewpoint.
See links below
Comments