|
25th March
|
|
|
|
Man ludicrously arrested over non threatening tweet referencing the worldwide debate about support for terrorism
|
See article from telegraph.co.uk
See article from telegraph.co.uk
|
Matthew Doyle was arrested for posting a non threatening tweet with a rather blunt criticism of the muslim community. He tweeted:
I confronted a Muslim woman in Croydon yesterday. I asked her to explain Brussels. She said 'nothing to do with me'. A mealy mouthed reply.
His comment went viral, being retweeted hundreds of times before he eventually deleted it. Doyle told the Telegraph he had no idea his tweet would be the hand grenade it has proven to be - and that Twitter's 140 character limit made the encounter
sound vastly different to how he thought it went.
Doyle said the tweet was intended as a joke and explained further:
What everyone's got wrong about this is I didn't confront the woman, he said. I just said: 'Excuse me, can I ask what you thought about the incident in Brussels?'
I'm not some far-right merchant, I'm not a mouthpiece for any kind of racism or radicalism, he says. If I was xenophobic I wouldn't live in London.
He added however that he does believe Muslims aren't doing enough to speak out against terrorism.
Doyle was charged and was due to appear at Camberwell Green Magistrates' Court on Saturday. But on Friday night the Met police said the charge had been dropped after it emerged the police officer in question had jumped the gun and charged Mr Doyle when
in fact he needed CPS approval to do so. In a statement, the Met said:
Following discussion with the Crown Prosecution Service, Mr Doyle is no longer charged with the offence and will not be appearing at court. Police may not make charging decisions on offences under Section 19 of the Public Order Act. There will be further
consultation with CPS.
But of course the police arrest will have already sent the message that islam is beyond even mild criticism, adding to the undercurrent of feeling that people are censored from simply criticising a religion that begets so much violence around the world.
No wonder people are looking to the likes of Donald Trump to counter a world where political correctness has gone mad.
|
|
20th March
|
|
|
|
|
Index on Censorship says theatremakers are self-censoring plays to avoid islamic backlash
See
article from thestage.co.uk
|
|
16th March
|
|
|
|
Report finds an increase in support for restrictions on free speech about religion
|
See article from secularism.org.uk
See also fearandhope.org.uk
|
A new report on identity and immigration has found that nearly half of England's population support legal limits on free speech when religion is concerned, and that support for freedom of expression has fallen significantly since 2011.
A poll of 4,015 people conducted by Populus for the Fear and HOPE 2016 report found that only 54% agreed people should be allowed to say what they believe about religion. 46% said there some things that you should not be able to say
about religion .
In 2011 just 40% agreed that some statements about religion were off-limits, compared with 60% who agreed that people should be allowed to say what they believe about religion .
The report, on English attitudes towards identity, multiculturalism, religion and immigration was written by Professor Robert Ford of Manchester University and Nick Lowles of Hope Not Hate. The report notes that support for limiting free speech to
respect multicultural sensitivities had grown over the past five years . Limiting free speech is most popular among the young and among those most confident with multiculturalism. 58% of under 25s back similar limits on religion as exist for policing racial hate.
Stephen Evans, National Secular Society campaigns manager, said the report made for grim reading :
This report demonstrates how the concept of offense, and the violence that sometimes accompanies it, has created a chilling effect on freedom of expression in the UK. Whilst bigotry of all kinds should be robustly challenged, now is not the time to start
sacrificing fundamental freedoms in order to protect 'religious sentiments'. Restricting free speech will do nothing to improve social cohesion -- and one satisfied demand to 'respect' religion will only lead to yet further demands.
Stringent penalties are in place for religiously-aggravated crimes but the law is not there to prevent us from feeling offended. Free speech is the cornerstone of democratic life any new legal restrictions would be counterproductive, only serving to
stifle debate and erode hard-won civil liberties.
|
|
13th March
|
|
|
|
Birmingham's Education Commissioner bans the words 'Trojan horse' to describe attempts by groups to take over schools and covertly impose a muslim ethos.
|
See article from bbc.com
|
Birmingham's education commissioner says he has banned the use of the term Trojan Horse to describe alleged attempts by groups to take over schools and covertly impose a Muslim ethos.
Mike Tomlinson, appointed in the wake of the controversy, says the phrase was not helpful to attempts to improve Birmingham's schools. He claimed that it could have an adverse impact on teacher recruitment. Tomlinson said no-one in his department
was now allowed to use the phrase.
|
|
5th February
|
|
|
|
The Guardian notes that public opinion has turned against immigration and islam and the newspaper will end online comments for related articles so as to avoid toxic comment
|
See article from hurryupharry.org
|
The Guardian/Observer. has very recently announced that it will be heavily restricting comment on articles dealing with three sensitive subjects -- race, immigration and Islam, on the grounds that there has been a change in mainstream public
opinion and language that we do not wish to see reflected or supported on the site and those subjects in particular attract too much toxic comment.
Most pieces on those themes will not now not be open for comment. Occasional selected pieces will be open, but for a shorter period than the usual three days, and only when it is judged that enough moderation resources can be deployed there and that it
is possible to have a constructive discussion on them, whatever that means.
See full article from hurryupharry.org
|
|
15th January
|
|
|
|
|
Judge Liam McNally's decision to allow the unpleasant Pastor James McConnell walk free is a little triumph for free speech. By Padraig Reidy.
See
article from indexoncensorship.org
|
|
9th January
|
|
|
|
A few tweeters get all 'offended' by a stripy scarf on sale at H and M
|
See article from metro.co.uk
|
A few people have whinged on twitter about a scarf design sold by H&M. The scarf is apparently similar to a tallit scarf, a Jewish shawl worn during prayer. Both feature a cream colour, with the same black stripes and tassels.
A couple of trivial tweets were:
Dear Fashion: Please step off other ppl's ritual items (or symbols of liberation, really.)
Yo @hm this is exceedingly uncool.
An H&M spokesperson said:
We are truly sorry if we have offended anyone with this piece. Everyone is welcome at H&M and we never take a religious or political stand. Stripes is one of the trends for this season and something we were inspired by. Our intention was never to
upset anyone.
|
|
6th January
|
|
|
|
Judge finds high profile preacher's criticism of islam to be 'offensive' but not 'grossly offensive' so clears preacher of charges on internet insult
|
See article from dailymail.co.uk
|
Evangelical Protestant preacher Pastor James McConnell has been found not guilty of making grossly offensive remarks during a sermon in which he described Islam as heathen , satanic .
The high profile evangelical pastor had been charged with two alleged offences after the sermon delivered from the pulpit of his Whitewell Metropolitan Tabernacle on May 18, 2014 was streamed online.
But following a hearing he was cleared of improper use of a public electronic communications network and causing a grossly offensive message to be sent by means of a public electronic communications network.
Delivering his reserved judgment, District Judge Liam McNally said:
The courts need to be very careful not to criminalise speech which, however contemptible, is no more than offensive. It is not the task of the criminal law to censor offensive utterances. Accordingly I find Pastor McConnell not guilty of both charges.
In my view Pastor McConnell's mindset was that he was preaching to the converted in the form of his own congregation and like-minded people who were listening to his service rather than preaching to the worldwide internet. He is a man with strong,
passionate and sincerely held beliefs... his passion and enthusiasm for his subject caused him to, so to speak, 'lose the run of himself
The judge said the comments about Islam being heathen and satanic were protected under human rights legislation. When considering the remarks about mistrusting Muslims, Judge McNally said he was satisfied the pastor had not set out to
intentionally cause offence. If the preacher had qualified his remarks, as he did in subsequent media interviews, he could have been spared the legal battle.
|
|
2nd January
|
|
|
|
Art vandalism on the Isle of Wight
|
See article from telegraph.co.uk
|
A village's 6ft-tall Muslim angel has been censored by vandals after threats that the artwork was not in keeping with Christmas.
Artist Penelope Walford used a store mannequin and a curtain to make the angel, which was dressed in a burqa.
She said she was inspired by her fear of rising Islamophobia after the Paris terror attacks and the UK's decision for air strikes against Islamic State .
Walford displayed her work as part of the St Helens Village of Angels event, Isle of Wight. She said:
She had been up a few days when I had a call saying she should be taken down because people had been talking about the 'burqa-clad angel'. They said it was not in the spirit of Christmas and there was no place for a Muslim angel in a Christian event. One
chap was threatening to behead it and another said he was going to rip her burqa off.
|
|
|