In the UK Blasphemy law returns with a vengeance

[moobu2]

The National Secular Society said this week that blasphemy law had been reintroduced by the back door after a Manchester man was convicted at Liverpool Crown Court on Wednesday of causing “religiously aggravated intentional harassment, alarm or distress”.

One of the images left by Mr. Taylor

Harry Taylor left anti-religious cartoons and other material he had cut from newspapers and magazines in the prayer room of John Lennon airport in Liverpool. He did this as an act of provocation because he says he regards himself as a militant atheist. He is now on bail awaiting sentencing – religiously aggravated offences carry a potential seven-year prison term.

Among the literature left by Mr Taylor was a spoof ad for No More Nails, a wood glue used by DIYers. It showed a smiling Jesus, glued rather than nailed on the Cross (you can see a filmed version of the ad on Youtube which, incredibly, seems to have passed under the “I’m-offended” brigade’s radar, but not for much longer, I fear).

Another image found was of Islamic suicide bombers at the gates of paradise being told, ‘Stop, stop, we’ve run out of Virgins’. Another was of two Muslims holding a placard demanding equality alongside the caption: “Not for women or gays, obviously.

Taylor, from Salford, claimed that he was trying to ‘convert’ believers to atheism and that he had left the materials at the airport as a tribute to John Lennon, whose song Imagine envisages a world with ‘no religion’. He insisted that people would only be offended if their faith was “weak” and that the images were meant to be seen as satire.

Taylor denied the three counts of religiously aggravated harassment, alarm of distress and has said that he is not hostile to people but that he is hostile to religion.

No more nails glue

More from The National Secular Society

[no_hypocrisy]

1. Come and get me Copper!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3f72CTDe4-0

[BrklynLiberal]

2. Did he glue the worshippers' eyes open and FORCE them to look at this stuff???

[northofdenali]

3. Heh.

Blasphemy = victimless crime.

[struggle4progress]

4. Lots of jurisdictions have provisions against harassment or disorderly conduct. Where the lines

get drawn may vary somewhat

I once lived in a town where a very unpleasant street preacher regularly stood on a elevation and shouted insults (interspersed with Bible quotes and some sermonizing) at passers-by. He was there constantly for months -- and he was loud and aggressive, and his comments were extremely ugly and personal in nature: he singled strangers out and tried to embarrass them. I suspect he had a few loose bolts. Anyway, the town finally shut him with a harassment complaint

Not every obnoxious asshole is simply exercising free speech rights: sometimes being a jerk is just disorderly conduct. I personally prefer the US standard for free speech to the English standard, but in England it is disorderly conduct to use insulting language against people, unless both the insulter and the insulted are inside one-and-the-same dwelling place:

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=2236942

Mr Taylor seems to have been convicted of this well-established offense by a jury of his peers

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. What I'd question is whether the langauge or drawing were insulting against the chaplain

Since they do not appear to attack a group of people (eg Christians), but instead specific figures such as the pope, Jesus and so on. The law was made out of a previous law about racial hatred, in which membership of the group under attack was fairly straightforward.

Insulting an entity that the chaplain worships, or one that a Catholic looks on as the head of their church, is not the same as insulting the chaplain. Indeed, Ian Paisley has been able to say things like "the pope is the antichrist" without any apparent problem with the law.

[struggle4progress]

6. The headline and your interpretation appear to state the charges incorrectly:

"... The defendant ... is charged with ... harassment ... under the Crime and Disorder Act ..."
Philosophy tutor in court for leaving anti-religious cartoons in John Lennon airport
By Matthew Moore
Published: 7:30AM GMT 03 Mar 2010
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7353643/Philosophy-tutor-in-court-for-leaving-anti-religious-cartoons-in-John-Lennon-airport.html

I cited a relevant portion of the Crime and Disorder Act above: it is not an anti-blasphemy statute but generally proscribes public insult and similar annoyances

Since the gentleman has prior history of such silly stunt, it's plausible that there is an outstanding order against him:

" ... Taylor already has two convictions from May 18, 2006 for using abusive, insulting words or behaviour ... Taylor had left similar offensive material in St Anne's Church in the centre of Manchester. A postcard he left featured a picture of a monk with his middle finger raised and the words 'Father f*****' ..."
Militant atheist found guilty of leaving offensive images in Liverpool John Lennon airport's prayer room
Mar 3 2010 Chloe Griffiths
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2010/03/03/militant-atheist-found-guilty-of-leaving-offensive-images-in-liverpool-john-lennon-airport-s-prayer-room-100252-25957177/2/

A mature man, repeatedly entering dedicated quiet spaces (like a church or an airport "chapel") to deposit such material, might naturally raise questions about his intent -- and twelve "sworn and true" had little difficulty finding offense against public order:

"... jurors took just 15 minutes to convict ..."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/mar/04/nantwich-starlings-botcherby-ghost-northerner

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. It's not a general 'disorderly conduct' charge, it is a specific religious one

Section 5 of the 1986 Public Order Act says a person is guilty of "Harassment, alarm or distress" " 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."

That was later made the basis of the "racially aggravated harassment, alarm or distress" offence, and then religiously aggravated even later. The normal use of this is for insults of the person who hears or sees them, or a group they belong to. You can say "Tony Blair is a wanker", and Labour supporters can't say "I'm distressed, I want you arrested"; but if you said it to Blair's face, or said "Labour supporters are all wankers", then you might be charged.

This was writing, not words or behaviour (the person wasn't present at the time). It wasn't threatening, it wasn't abusive of the chaplain (or anyone else likely to see it) and it wasn't insulting of anyone likely to see it.

So what this jury seem to have decided very quickly is that an insult against anyone, that might cause distress to a third party, is enough to count as "harassment, alarm or distress"; and is the insulting person is important in a religion (eg the pope), it's religiously aggravated. I do find this very surprising, because it potentially makes a lot of what is said in the UK illegal (eg a lot of the content of the DU UK forum; each time we insult Nick Griffin, it would seem a BNP supporter could have us up on the (non-aggravated) form of the charge.

[struggle4progress]

8. It is a qualification of an existing charge: the man cannot be guilty (say)

of "religiously aggravated harassment under the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act (as amended by the 001 Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act), without first being guilty of "harassment" under the 1986 Public Order Act; so leaving these materials in the airport "chapel" under same circumstance must per se constitute the offense of "harassment," for otherwise, it cannot constitute the offense of "religiously aggravated harassment"

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/ukpga_19980037_en_4#pt2-pb1-l1g31
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2001/ukpga_20010024_en_5#pt5-l1g39

I do not know how UK law would regard distribution of these fliers in a general public space, such as an airport parking lot. In the US, handing out these materials on a public street would usually be protected speech; on simultaneous private property and public space, I think the law has varied somewhat during my lifetime; on private property in general, the property owner can prevent such distribution as trespass. But I suspect that placing such materials in an airport "chapel" here in the US might not be protected, the "chapel" being a quiet space set aside for persons to collect themselves calmly -- so the airport authority, faced with such an act, might be upheld in telling the actor to stay off the premises unless in possession of a travel ticket, even if general distribution of such materials in airports were upheld

[ZombieHorde]

9. Burn the witch!!!!111!!!

We have seen this before and we will see it again.

I hope Harry Taylor has a good lawyer. The UK blasphemy law is scary.