Christian Hoteliers Charged with Insulting Muslim Guest

[Eugene Zolo]

Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang are charged with breaching Section 5 of the Public Order Act – causing harassment, alarm or distress. If convicted, they face fines of £2,500 each and a criminal record.

The Muslim woman was staying at the Bounty House Hotel in Liverpool, which is run by the Vogelenzangs, when a conversation arose between the hoteliers and their guest about her faith.

It is understood that among the topics debated was whether Jesus was a minor prophet, as Islam teaches, or whether he was the Son of God, as Christianity teaches.

Among the things Mr Vogelenzang, 53, is alleged to have said is that Mohammad was a warlord. His wife, 54, is said to have stated that Muslim dress is a form of bondage for women.

Full Article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... guest.html

They have been charged under public order laws with using ‘threatening, abusive or insulting words’ that were ‘religiously aggravated’.

Full Article Article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... guest.html

Clip from BBC's Question Time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqWosLCL ... r_embedded

What do you guys think?

[Tagmatium]

We had this one a while back.

[SaintB]

This kind of stuff gets said on NSG every single day....

[Crabulonia]

I read this in the Daily Mail (grandparents copy, I wouldn't read that dreck) and it tried to downplay what the couple did and blame it on "political correctness" at which point all the 100 year old mustachioed Tory Generals shout "outrageous!". The Telegraph seems to report it more like the couple actually did something.

Strange how papers work innit?

[Ejitology]

I read this in the Daily Mail (grandparents copy, I wouldn't read that dreck) and it tried to downplay what the couple did and blame it on "political correctness" at which point all the 100 year old mustachioed Tory Generals shout "outrageous!". The Telegraph seems to report it more like the couple actually did something.

Strange how papers work innit?

This pretty much sums it up.


Hacker: Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers: the Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by people who actually do run the country; the Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; the Financial Times is read by people who own the country; The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country; and The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it already is.
Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?
Bernard: Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits.

[North Suran]

I think this conclusively proves Gauthier's signature:

The Ebil Mozlem Theorem: A crime committed by individuals with belief X will not implicate all other members of that belief if X ≠ Islam. If X = Islam however, "Ebil Mozlemz lulz" comments are inevitable.

If the roles had been reversed and it was Muslim guests insulting Christian hoteliers, or Muslim hoteliers insulting Christian guests, I can imagine how many people would flock to this thread to spew some "Islam is a religion of intolerance!" vitriole.

[Eugene Zolo]

I read this in the Daily Mail (grandparents copy, I wouldn't read that dreck) and it tried to downplay what the couple did and blame it on "political correctness" at which point all the 100 year old mustachioed Tory Generals shout "outrageous!". The Telegraph seems to report it more like the couple actually did something.

Strange how papers work innit?

I don't think the couple did anything worthy of getting arrested for. They are getting arrested for speaking their mind, the government in the UK is arresting people for saying what they want to say. Does the UK have a Constitution granting its citizens freedom of speech?

[Eugene Zolo]

I think this conclusively proves Gauthier's signature:

The Ebil Mozlem Theorem: A crime committed by individuals with belief X will not implicate all other members of that belief if X ≠ Islam. If X = Islam however, "Ebil Mozlemz lulz" comments are inevitable.

If the roles had been reversed and it was Muslim guests insulting Christian hoteliers, or Muslim hoteliers insulting Christian guests, I can imagine how many people would flock to this thread to spew some "Islam is a religion of intolerance!" vitriole.

I think what you're saying is 100% untrue. You're trying to change the topic, we aren't talking about what would have happened had the roles been reversed we're talking about what did happen.

[North Suran]

I think this conclusively proves Gauthier's signature:

The Ebil Mozlem Theorem: A crime committed by individuals with belief X will not implicate all other members of that belief if X ≠ Islam. If X = Islam however, "Ebil Mozlemz lulz" comments are inevitable.

If the roles had been reversed and it was Muslim guests insulting Christian hoteliers, or Muslim hoteliers insulting Christian guests, I can imagine how many people would flock to this thread to spew some "Islam is a religion of intolerance!" vitriole.

I think what you're saying is 100% untrue. You're trying to change the topic, we aren't talking about what would have happened had the roles been reversed we're talking about what did happen.

Just an off-the-cuff remark.

As it stands, I don't see why the hoteliers are going to court over what seems like a minor religious discussion; I am merely pointing out, however, double-standards when it comes to Christianity and Islam on NSG.

[Tagmatium]

I think what you're saying is 100% untrue. You're trying to change the topic, we aren't talking about what would have happened had the roles been reversed we're talking about what did happen.

Your other post in this thread is also trying to change the topic, to be fair. This isn't necessarily a thread about whether the UK has fredom of speech as a constitutional right.

[New Kereptica]

I think this conclusively proves Gauthier's signature:

The Ebil Mozlem Theorem: A crime committed by individuals with belief X will not implicate all other members of that belief if X ≠ Islam. If X = Islam however, "Ebil Mozlemz lulz" comments are inevitable.

If the roles had been reversed and it was Muslim guests insulting Christian hoteliers, or Muslim hoteliers insulting Christian guests, I can imagine how many people would flock to this thread to spew some "Islam is a religion of intolerance!" vitriole.

I think what you're saying is 100% untrue. You're trying to change the topic, we aren't talking about what would have happened had the roles been reversed we're talking about what did happen.

On what grounds?

[Aperture Science]

That's...uh...pretty tame sounding, to me. Maybe I'm just inured by years of NSG, but, seriously, the best they could come up with is 'Mohamed was a warlord'? Until one side starts making comparisons to Hitler (GODWIN LOL) it's just standard debate. If you're that easily offended, grow a skin. From the sound of the article things maybe got a little heated, but this is not news. You should expect such things when you engage in religious debate.

I don't live in the UK, so I'll ask our UK correspondents here on NSG, if the situation were reversed, do you think this would have made the news?

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

That's...uh...pretty tame sounding, to me. Maybe I'm just inured by years of NSG, but, seriously, the best they could come up with is 'Mohamed was a warlord'? Until one side starts making comparisons to Hitler (GODWIN LOL) it's just standard debate. If you're that easily offended, grow a skin. From the sound of the article things maybe got a little heated, but this is not news. You should expect such things when you engage in religious debate.

I don't live in the UK, so I'll ask our UK correspondents here on NSG, if the situation were reversed, do you think this would have made the news?

Most religious people are easily offended and very sensitive when it comes to anything they consider to be sacred.

[Eugene Zolo]

I think this conclusively proves Gauthier's signature:

The Ebil Mozlem Theorem: A crime committed by individuals with belief X will not implicate all other members of that belief if X ≠ Islam. If X = Islam however, "Ebil Mozlemz lulz" comments are inevitable.

If the roles had been reversed and it was Muslim guests insulting Christian hoteliers, or Muslim hoteliers insulting Christian guests, I can imagine how many people would flock to this thread to spew some "Islam is a religion of intolerance!" vitriole.

I think what you're saying is 100% untrue. You're trying to change the topic, we aren't talking about what would have happened had the roles been reversed we're talking about what did happen.

On what grounds?

I'm not going to answer, and I wont answer, because this is just going to stray the thread further off topic. If you guys want to start a thread about supposed double standards on NSG, go ahead, but this thread isn't about that, and I won't discuss it any further.

[Eugene Zolo]

I think what you're saying is 100% untrue. You're trying to change the topic, we aren't talking about what would have happened had the roles been reversed we're talking about what did happen.

Your other post in this thread is also trying to change the topic, to be fair. This isn't necessarily a thread about whether the UK has fredom of speech as a constitutional right.

No, its not, my post was clearly on topic. Whether the UK has freedom of speech as a constitutional right is on-topic, because this is a freedom of speech issue.

[Semeuke]

I think what you're saying is 100% untrue. You're trying to change the topic, we aren't talking about what would have happened had the roles been reversed we're talking about what did happen.

Your other post in this thread is also trying to change the topic, to be fair. This isn't necessarily a thread about whether the UK has fredom of speech as a constitutional right.

No, its not, my post was clearly on topic. Whether the UK has freedom of speech as a constitutional right is on-topic, because this is a freedom of speech issue.

You didn't really specify any topic in the OP; you left it up to the rest of the forum to decide what, if any, topic they'd like to discuss is. Don't cry foul now.

[Katganistan]

I think this conclusively proves Gauthier's signature:

The Ebil Mozlem Theorem: A crime committed by individuals with belief X will not implicate all other members of that belief if X ≠ Islam. If X = Islam however, "Ebil Mozlemz lulz" comments are inevitable.

If the roles had been reversed and it was Muslim guests insulting Christian hoteliers, or Muslim hoteliers insulting Christian guests, I can imagine how many people would flock to this thread to spew some "Islam is a religion of intolerance!" vitriole.

How many of those Christian guests would have taken out a lawsuit against a Muslim hotelier who was intolerant of their faith, I wonder?

[Conserative Morality]

Erm, that seems pretty tame to me.

[Cosmopoles]

The laws that allow prosecution for this sort of thing are an extension of the ridiculous laws that allowed annoying morality campaigners like Mary Whitehouse to bring prosecutions against people for blasphemy.

[North Suran]

I think this conclusively proves Gauthier's signature:

The Ebil Mozlem Theorem: A crime committed by individuals with belief X will not implicate all other members of that belief if X ≠ Islam. If X = Islam however, "Ebil Mozlemz lulz" comments are inevitable.

If the roles had been reversed and it was Muslim guests insulting Christian hoteliers, or Muslim hoteliers insulting Christian guests, I can imagine how many people would flock to this thread to spew some "Islam is a religion of intolerance!" vitriole.

How many of those Christian guests would have taken out a lawsuit against a Muslim hotelier who was intolerant of their faith, I wonder?

Just as many, I would imagine.

Surprisingly enough, Islam is not the only religion which includes conservatives who become easily offended whenever their religion is criticised.

[Katganistan]

I think this conclusively proves Gauthier's signature:

The Ebil Mozlem Theorem: A crime committed by individuals with belief X will not implicate all other members of that belief if X ≠ Islam. If X = Islam however, "Ebil Mozlemz lulz" comments are inevitable.

If the roles had been reversed and it was Muslim guests insulting Christian hoteliers, or Muslim hoteliers insulting Christian guests, I can imagine how many people would flock to this thread to spew some "Islam is a religion of intolerance!" vitriole.

How many of those Christian guests would have taken out a lawsuit against a Muslim hotelier who was intolerant of their faith, I wonder?

Just as many, I would imagine.

Surprisingly enough, Islam is not the only religion which includes conservatives who become easily offended whenever their religion is criticised.

Hmm. Except I haven't heard of any yet.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Just as many, I would imagine.

Surprisingly enough, Islam is not the only religion which includes conservatives who become easily offended whenever their religion is criticised.

Yeah, but most Muslims come from countries without any sense of free speech. They also tend to come from countries with laws that make it illegal to criticize Islam. They're not necessarily going to be used to living in places with more open dialogue.

[North Suran]

I think this conclusively proves Gauthier's signature:

The Ebil Mozlem Theorem: A crime committed by individuals with belief X will not implicate all other members of that belief if X ≠ Islam. If X = Islam however, "Ebil Mozlemz lulz" comments are inevitable.

If the roles had been reversed and it was Muslim guests insulting Christian hoteliers, or Muslim hoteliers insulting Christian guests, I can imagine how many people would flock to this thread to spew some "Islam is a religion of intolerance!" vitriole.

How many of those Christian guests would have taken out a lawsuit against a Muslim hotelier who was intolerant of their faith, I wonder?

Just as many, I would imagine.

Surprisingly enough, Islam is not the only religion which includes conservatives who become easily offended whenever their religion is criticised.

Hmm. Except I haven't heard of any yet.

Religious conservatives who become easily offended whenever their religion is criticised, or Christians launching a lawsuit against a Muslim hotelier?

If the former, you must be joking.

If the latter: because obviously, if you've never heard of an incident, it is an Undeniable Fact™ that it could not have possibly occurred.

[Fartsniffage]

Yeah, but most Muslims come from countries without any sense of free speech. They also tend to come from countries with laws that make it illegal to criticize Islam. They're not necessarily going to be used to living in places with more open dialogue.

They should feel quite comfortable in Britain then. We can't have that kind of open dialogue, as evidenced by these arrests.

[Fartsniffage]

How many of those Christian guests would have taken out a lawsuit against a Muslim hotelier who was intolerant of their faith, I wonder?

Why is that relevent? The muslim couple reported a crime, not began litigation.