Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Christians face trial for criticising Islam

Cranmer has been contacted by a personal friend of Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang, Christians and members of the Bootle Christian Fellowship who run the Bounty House Hotel in Liverpool. He has written that ‘they are the most inoffensive people you could meet’.

Yet they were arrested and charged under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 and Section 31 (1) (c) and (5) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, for using ‘threatening, abusive or insulting words’ that were ‘religiously aggravated’. They face prosecution for defending the Christian faith and for criticising Islam. A criminal trial has been set for 8th and 9th December at Liverpool Magistrates' Court. If convicted, they face a fine of up to £5,000 and a criminal record.

It transpires that a Muslim guest complained that she was offended by comments allegedly made on 20th March, during a discussion about whether Jesus is the Son of God or just a minor prophet of Islam. Although the facts are disputed, the Muslim says that Mohammed was referred to as a ‘warlord’ and that Islamic dress for women is ‘a form of bondage’.

As a result, a major client of the couple's hotel has ceased referring guests because of the incident. This has led to an 80 per cent drop in the hotel's income, leaving the couple in financial difficulty. They have been forced to lay off staff and run the nine-bedroom hotel by themselves, leaving them exhausted and demoralised. Their business may now fail altogether.

In another country, such economic persecution might be termed ‘cleansing’.

Mr and Mrs Vogelenzang say that when the Muslim woman in question realised they were Christians, she kept trying to provoke them and start arguments about religion. They were wary of her and kept trying to change the subject but were always measured in tone and reasonable in the defence of their faith. They deny that they were threatening, abusive or insulting. Then, on her final day in the hotel, the Muslim woman emerged from her room in a burkha and started ranting at them about their Christian beliefs in an abusive and insulting fashion.

Nothing provocative there, of course. No crime was committed. No prosecution will ensue. One cannot say that Mohammed was a ‘warlord’, but one can say that Jesus was ‘only a prophet’ and insist that he was not crucified.

Both assertions may be offensive to adherents of the respective religions.

The problem is that the Quar’an and Hadith rather confirm that Mohammed was indeed a warlord. The Bible states that Jesus was rather more than a prophet and was most certainly crucified.

This case raises very important issues of religious liberty. It only ever seems to be Christians who suffer unjust treatment because of their faith. Time and again, public bodies in particular misapply the law in a way that seems to sideline Christianity more than any other faith.

The purpose of the Public Order Act is to prevent violence, yobbish abuse or disorder. Is it designed to protect the peace and security of the realm; to guard private property and people’s safety. But it is increasingly being used by the police in cases where someone complains about being ‘offended’, the result of which is that they enforce the ideas and beliefs of a self-regarding and dogmatic elite.

It is bizarre that it should be used as a result of a private conversation in which personal views are expressed.

Could a schoolteacher now be prosecuted for suggesting that Mohammed was a warlord?

Could a Protestant be arrested for saying the Pope's a Catholic?

The police have a legal duty under the Human Rights Act to defend free speech, but this is apparently subsumed to their overriding concern to appease religious minorities, and one minority in particular.

The Public Order Act of 1986 was passed by Parliament to control public processions and assemblies and to deter manifestations of racial hatred. The Crime and Disorder Act of 1998 was similarly designed to prevent racial harassment.

Cranmer has said this a million times: Islam is not a race. It is a religio-political construct expounding a doctrine of life in complete submission to the will and purposes of Allah, mediated by the teachings and actions of Mohammed who is believed to be a prophet, and who fought the indigenous tribes of Mecca for eight years, finally defeating them with his 10,000 strong army. He told his followers to make war on non-Muslims (9:5,29). Sura 9 was one of the last Suras given by Muhammad. Initially, when Mohammed's forces were weak, he ordered his followers to form treaties and engage in diplomacy. When they had attained positions of power and strength, he ordered them to spread Islam by force. Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman continued his wars of aggression. One of Mohammad’s actions includes the massacre of approximately 800 Jewish male captives (Sura 33:26).

Ergo, he was a 'warlord'.

In the United Kingdom, one is at perfect liberty to say this or to disagree with it.

Some Muslim women may wear the hijab or burkha out of choice, but very many indeed are obliged to do so through domestic oppression or community expectation. Some Muslim men hold literally to the exhortation of Sura 4:34, which speaks of the treatment of women: 'As those you fear may be rebellious, admonish, banish them to their couches, and beat them.'

And Muslim women may indeed suffer such abuse if their hair, necks or faces are seen by men other than their family members.

Ergo, it may be perceived by women in particular as a 'form of bondage'.

It is curious indeed that the Crown Prosecution Service has seen fit to bring this case, when they are so utterly and inadequately silent on the persecution, threats, abuse or insults increasingly being borne by Christians.

Cranmer awaits a knock on the door.


Blogger Gnostic said...

Mohammed was a warlord!

Anyone knocking on my door seeking to sue me will be told to sod off and get a damned life.

23 September 2009 at 09:05  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm perfectly sick of it, are you?

I came over from Ruthie's blog after reading about the St Thérèse relics tour. I found the itinerary for the tour on the Faith section of the Times on Line and was debating whether to go to Cardiff or Liverpool. I settled for Liverpool tomorrow, the relics are in the Cathedral on 24th and 25th. I was all excited and wondered if I would have an excuse to mention this at the old esteemed blog here, without going too far off topic. I began reading, and in the first paragraph excitement took hold of me as the words 'Bootle' and 'Liverpool' were greeting me in the first couple of I thought. But having continued to the end of the post, my mood descended into the doldrums of despair.

I know how the subject of relics is highly controversial, and I am not usually one to get exited about such things myself, but after reading about the subject at Ruthie's blog, and how that even Muslims venerate this nun's relics, I had decided to go along and tap into some of this much needed energy for myself. I feel the need to go is even more stronger after reading about the moronic attitude of Liverpool's CPS. In such an wholly shithole you would think they would be busy enough without indulging in this sort of outrageous anti Christian dhimmitude.

23 September 2009 at 09:17  
Blogger J. P. van de Giessen said...

This article will be listed in my weekly list of prosecution.

23 September 2009 at 09:19  
Anonymous Knackered of the Yard's Common Purpose PC Squad said...

'ello, 'ello, 'ello. Alright, Cranmer, you're nicked. Come quietly.

23 September 2009 at 09:24  
Anonymous Corsair said...

Is there an address one can send money to help with their legal costs? I could stretch to £100.

23 September 2009 at 09:48  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace,

‘It is curious indeed that the Crown Prosecution Service has seen fit to bring this case, when they are so utterly and inadequately silent on the persecution, threats, abuse or insults increasingly being borne by Christians.’

That may be for three reasons:

1. Practising Christians may wish to engage in apologetics and therefore ignore caustic remarks;
2. We are advised that if someone strikes us on the one cheek, to present the other, perhaps, for a second strike; and
3. Case law under the European Convention on Human Rights tends to permit other claims on righst where they collide with religion, to trump religion.

The cumulative effect, under the present socislits terror combined with the legal powers of the EU (through Dircetives) ensures that Christians will be be silenced in the public square; then excluded. The persecution of Christians by the State is now systematic.

The next phase of this persecution is being assisted by our priests (it is no use blaming them – we are all at fault). They know that the Sunday morning-service is public. It is suggested that ‘some’ may be imposing upon themselves the worst form of tyranny through fear of arrest: self-censorship.

Who would have thought, that in the land of the brthplace of Magna Carta, we would arrive at this point.

23 September 2009 at 09:56  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

May I make a suggestion? Those of us who possess a little bit of webspace or blog, post an article which basically says Muhammad was a warlord - a paedophile even. We then present ourselves at our local police station and turn ourselves in. If only a fraction of Your Grace's readership were to do like wise then it should have a sobering effect or at least bring the plight of the Vogelenzarg's into focus.

I'll gladly set the ball rolling!

[Incidentally, you can contribute to their legal costs by donating to the Legal Defence fund at the Christian Institute website]

23 September 2009 at 10:05  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

Why do people not simply patronise this couples hotel if they are struggling financially?There are many politicians both here and in europe who have said these same things and they remain untouched,sarko,"straw"wilders and many more,it is there to be read in thier fascist handbook ,there is no moral highground in letting aliens walk all over you ,it just displays personal cowardice and a lack of true belief in your own religion.

23 September 2009 at 11:05  
Blogger Preacher said...

Well there is nothing on Gods good Earth that will stop me from preaching the gospel of salvation to the lost, even if it means sharing a cell with Your Grace.
May the Lord grant us deliverance from weak & sinful men whose lips speak great words but whose actions show them to be weak & spineless cowards.

23 September 2009 at 11:35  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

From David Lonsdale

Your Grace,
Forgive me for being slow witted. I now realise that your EID Mubarak post was a mild sarcasm. I thought for a moment you had fallen into Rowan Williams camp.
We Christians should read our New Testaments more, not to mention our Old Testament prophets. There is no lack of persecution of those who follow God. Jesus disciples, with the exception of John, were all executed. But God confounded the persecutors. The gospel spread like wildfire, despite Satan's best efforts.
We should remember that we fight not against flesh and blood but against the principalities and powers in the high places. We should also be aware that there is a spiritual hunger in many Muslims and, whilst it may not be proclaimed from the rooftops, Muslims are turning to Christ.
The Anglican church in Baghdad, closed under Saddam Hussein, now has 2000 members, the majority from Muslim backgrounds. Last year 92 of them were murdered for their faith. Yet that has not stopped more being baptised this year.
My prayers are with the couple from Liverpool. May the Father be glorified and the authorities confounded.

23 September 2009 at 11:37  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whatever happened to freedom of speech - are we to watch what we say next time we order a black coffee from the Jamaican guy who works in the local coffee shop for fear of offending him? Granted if you read either of these 'holy' books you will see that there is war and fighting running throughout.

My understanding though is that Christ came to bring an end to the Christian oppression after a period of 400 years of silence from the 'prophets' - Apparently Christians are we are now living under a new covenant and have no need for violence - Is that not where "Turn the other cheek" came from? In my studies of Islam and from what I understand, the Quar’an and Hadith dictates that a surah (verse) that comes after another that seems to contradict is the one you should take. To that end, latter parts of the Quar’an and Hadith do still speak of violence (as quoted above), yet I see none of this in the New Testament, other than the slaying, destruction and throwing into a pit of fire, for "the spirit of babylon" (the devil) in revelation.

In response to the comment that Islamic dress for women is ‘a form of bondage’ - I agree - Where in the Quar’an and Hadith does it say that this is required? Is this not a law that was passed in an Islamic 'holy state' in response to the nature of Men? That of being weak and easily tempted to think impure thoughts about women other than their wives - does the Hijab/Burkha serve any other purpose than covering a woman so men do not get tempted?

In the report above - why did the woman in question emerge "from her room in a burkha" and not have it on during her entire stay if it was such an issue?

The Big issue here is that there is huge fear of retaliation, simply because of the violent teachings within the Quar’an and Hadith- and ultimately our government and public bodies do not know what to do so pander to these stupid request for prosecution of people, who in this case in private, have views on another religion or religio-political construct. Does anyone what to go after Nick Griffin and prosecute him for the private things he and his members have said about race?

23 September 2009 at 12:00  
Blogger Tarquin said...

I say this as a completely non-religious person - this is sickening

I struggled to believe the case for a while, as if someone is actually going to court, after being charged for having a religious debate..what is this? Must be some sensationalist tabloid tale

But it's true, criticising a religion in conversation can land you in court...that's wrong on so many levels

I hope that the magistrate simply throws this out, there's no case - but the fact the police and the CPS saw fit to prosecute is ridiculous enough

23 September 2009 at 12:02  
Anonymous Kwelos said...

This is 'Lawfare' or 'Litigation Jihad', a form of legal harassment where the objective is to financially ruin critics of Islam with legal costs. This tactic is very successful and is being used increasingly by Muslims in the West, see links under LITIGATION JIHAD at The Religion of Peace™ Subject Index

23 September 2009 at 12:05  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

Praise from me may seem like the kiss of death but thank you for this excellent piece.

Islam is incompatible with our way of life, with free speech, with fairness. It has no understanding of compromise. Ernest Renan wrote in 1883:

Those liberals who defend Islam do not know Islam. Islam is the seamless union of the spiritual and the temporal, it is the reign of dogma, it is the heaviest chain mankind has ever borne. In the early Middle Ages, Islam tolerated philosophy because it could not stop it. It could not stop it because it was as yet disorganized, and poorly armed for terror...But as soon as Islam had a mass of ardent believers at its disposal, it destroyed everything in its path. Religious terror and hypocrisy were the order of the day. Islam has been liberal when weak, and violent when strong. Let us not give it credit for what it was merely unable to suppress.

If anyone thinks that Muslims are getting a bit uppity nowadays, just wait until their numbers double and then double again... If we wish to remain a free country we shall have to institute a programme of aided resettlement for Muslims; the sooner we start the better.

The massacre of Jews to which His Grace refers is related in the Sirah (part of the ‘biography’ of Mohammed):

Then they [the tribe of Qurayza] surrendered, and the apostle confined them in Medina...Then the Apostle went out to the market of Medina and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches. Among them was the enemy of Allah, Huyayy bin Akhtab, and Kab bin Asad their chief. There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900.

There’s no doubt that we’re in a right mess but there’s always a funny side, as this brilliant little song shows.

23 September 2009 at 12:08  
Anonymous Kwelos said...

Mohammed was not only a warlord, he was a war criminal.

He was also a genocidal mass-murderer, looter, torturer, rapist, mutilator as well as being a plagiarist and incestuous paedophile.

OK, you might say, so nobody's perfect.

But that is the problem. To the bombheads Mohammed is 'The Perfect Man' - far more perfect than Jesus. They regard this scumbag as their role model.

23 September 2009 at 12:15  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is there a defence fund we can contribute to?

23 September 2009 at 12:24  
Blogger Theo said...

It would be interesting to know the faith of the member of the CPS who made the decision to prosecute.

It has been know for muslims who have converted to Christianity and persecuted in their own country to have their asylum application rejected by a muslim immigration officer. We may be seeing a similar event here.

23 September 2009 at 12:28  
Anonymous Kwelos said...

It might be possible to get the court case cancelled or postponed if the counter-jihadists can be brought out in force on the streets. It worked with Adam Walker.

23 September 2009 at 12:28  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

I have just come back from conducting a primary school assembly. The subject was Daniel - a man who would not compromise his faith even when spurious laws were enacted to silence him. He willingly indicted himself by praying publicly, under pain of death.

Having just encouraged children to always have the courage of their convictions regardless of the outcomes, I shall be turning myself into the police tomorrow for my religious aggravated crime of declaring Muhammed a warmongering, paedophile deceiver. I'll report back what the outcome is.

Can I encourage others not to merely vent on a blog but to do something proactive too.

23 September 2009 at 12:30  
Blogger Frugal Dougal said...

Mohammed started a religion of peace and tolerance in Mecca. It was when he succumbed to the temptation to go to Medina, where he was told he'd be venerated as a prophet, that his world fell apart: he married a child, massacred Jews and, as His Grace says, made war on the Meccans; and the Suras written at this time were more of a justification of his actions than anything. H started out as a man of peace, but became a warlord.

The burqa is more than female bondage: it classifies all men as rapists.

Will this woman be facing comeback from those Muslims who see Jesus as something of a major prophet?

23 September 2009 at 12:33  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

‘You can pray freely, but just so God alone can hear.’

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago, vol. 1, trans. Thomas P. Whitney (New York: Harper & Row, 1973, 1974), p. 37, quoting Tanya Khodkevich who received a ten year sentence for her verses.

23 September 2009 at 12:38  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eid Mubarak, Cranmer. Your coseying up to Islam doesn't go with reporting this story. When you sit on the fence you get a sore backside.

23 September 2009 at 12:39  
Anonymous Stuart said...

I am sick to the back teeth of this country. Could I go to the courts in Iran or Saudi, because I felt 'offended' in the same way?


All day long I read about persecution, beheading, burning and hanging of Christians in Islamic countries.

I have blogged about this and will continue to do so with these sort of issues until my last breath....for what it's worth.

Why is Islam so venerated and protected by our "elites" can anyone answer me that, because I am baffled.

Maybe they are frightened?

I despair, I really do!

23 September 2009 at 13:04  
Blogger Owl said...

Stuart, maybe the whole idea is to instigate civil strife, it seems inevitable under Nu-Lab and their idiot (planned?) laws. It gives the elite the excuse to call out martial law and shut down all opposition including the religeous variations thereof - for their own good and protection of course!
Long live NWO or totalitorianism or whatever you wish to call it (historically it was refered to as Marxist socialism).

23 September 2009 at 13:20  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace,

There is a risk on this board that people may believe religiously aggravated offences do not protect Christians.

Under the Crime and Disorder Act (as amended) it states:

28(1) An offence is…religiously aggravated for the purposes of sections 29 to 32 if-

(a) at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrates towards the victim of the offence hostility based on the victim's membership (or presumed membership) of a… religious group; or.
(b) the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards members of a… religious group based on their membership of that group.

28(2) In subsection (1)(a)-


in relation to a… religious group, includes association with members of that group;


means presumed by the offender.

28(3) It is immaterial for the purposes of paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1) whether or not the offender's hostility is also based, to any extent, on any other factor not mentioned in that paragraph.

28(5) In this section Religious Group means a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief.

23 September 2009 at 13:22  
Anonymous Andrew Lilico said...

Your Grace,

You say: "It only ever seems to be Christians who suffer unjust treatment because of their faith."

But you surely wouldn't want Muslims, any more, to suffer unjust treatment because of *their* faith? Treatment may be one-sided, but it isn't its one-sidedness that is, per se, the problem.

23 September 2009 at 13:46  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

23 September 2009 at 13:51  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

Your Grace

Part of me wants to see this bigoted burqa woman in the witness box and torn apart by a competent barrister.

But the other hand the stress and anguish experienced by Mr and Mrs Vogelenzang, can only be imagined. Even if they are acquitted, and surely they must be, others will think twice about challenging any opinion made by a muslim.

And thus the steady browbeating of the Christians in this country goes on.

Following Rebel Saint's urging us to do something I will write to the Attorney General to whom the DPP reports. (But hang on - isnt she in trouble as well?)

23 September 2009 at 13:52  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Stuart (13:04)—Why is Islam so venerated and protected by our "elites" can anyone answer me that, because I am baffled.

One theory has it that an oppressive religion like Islam would greatly help the élites in governing (or, rather, ruling) their next grande idée, the nation of Eurabia.

23 September 2009 at 14:03  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace,
I am seething with anger over this story and am cudgelling my brains to think of a way to help this couple. Here's one: please provide details of the client which has stopped referring business so that I, and hopefully others can write to them and say that unless they reverse this policy I will boycott their goods and services and encourage others to do so and do everythign in my power to publicise their pusillanimity

23 September 2009 at 14:09  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace,

Ultramontane Grumpy Old Catholic

Seems to be uncomfortably close to the mark:

‘And thus the steady browbeating of the Christians in this country goes on.’

Here we have a case of one religion colliding with another. Arrests have been made. A criminal court trial is pending; with the risk of a conviction and the loss of livelihood.

There appear to be two likely effects:

1. A chilling affect upon religion; and
2. the Mutually Assured Destruction of religion in the public square.

This would suit the Left-liberal elite not only in this country but also in the EU. For the great risk that Christianity poses to the oppressive State is this:

Christianity is anti-totalitarianism.

It is written:

Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and give to God what belongs to God.

For the Judaeo-Christian it will always be God first and Caesar second.

23 September 2009 at 14:09  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If I was to get my way, or if the Darkside was to be released from within me, then I would slice them all up with a light sabre and put them on display in the meat section of Bangor Tesco.

23 September 2009 at 14:29  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


23 September 2009 at 14:52  
Anonymous Stuart said...

Thanks for your answers Owl & Johnny...I feared as much.

Just to let folks know that if you do wish to contribute to the legal defense, you can do so on the following link which will take you to the Christian Institute, who are defending the hotel owners:

Legal Defence Fund

23 September 2009 at 14:56  
Anonymous Stuart said...

Sorry for some reason my link to the legal fund didn't work so here goes again:-

Legal Defense Fund

23 September 2009 at 14:58  
Anonymous Old Grumpy said...

@ Anon 14.09,

Sorry, old chap, but the guys providing the 80% of the hotelier's business is apparently the local NHS hospital Trust outpatients. (according to The Daily Mail)

Why am I not surprised at this, given the amount of harassment recently of Christians in the NHS?

So, no boycott there, unless you don't want to get sick.

Mind you, I can see the day coming soon when, should you declare yourself to be a Christian on their forms, you get given a nice bed outside in the rain for a couple of days to see, "if you would like to re-assess your situation" and tick the box marked "muslim"

23 September 2009 at 15:47  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

23 September 2009 at 15:56  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace,

It is no surprise that Christians have the law loaded against them, in my view. The issues and processes have already been tested in another jurisdiction.

The Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 1977:
Article 34 [Equality]

(1) Citizens of the USSR are equal before the law, without distinction of origin, social or property status, race or nationality, sex, education, language, attitude to religion, type and nature of occupation, domicile, or other status.
(2) The equal rights of citizens of the USSR are guaranteed in all fields of economic, political, social, and cultural life.

Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights

The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

23 September 2009 at 15:57  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

Your Grace

Slightly off topic here an which happened in Pakistan within the last week and has resonances.

Muslim girl in a village called Jaithikey in the Punjab, gets a romantic attachment to a local Christian boy. Girl's mother disapproves; tears a couple of pages from the Koran and throws them in front of boys parents' home; reports to the police (in Pakistan blasphemy carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment). Boy taken into custody.

Meanwhile a mob storms the church and completely guts it.

The parish priest says that at least the boy is safe ... but a couple of days later the boy is reported to have committed suicide. His body shows marks of torture.

Meanwhile the President of Pakistan offers money to rebuild the Church. (Thanks very much Mr President but this won't bring the boy back)

Reported by a number of correspondents including Aid to the Church in Need, Zenit (you dont get them reported in the liberal press do you?)

This is the fourth such attack in the last 3 months.

23 September 2009 at 16:03  
Blogger OldSouth said...

This smells like a set-up, does it not?

OldSouth has no doubt that this nonsense is well on its way to the shores of his beloved United States.

This is a time to speak up, and to open our wallets.

Thanks to Stuart for sharing the link to contribute to their legal defense: Here it is again--

We can be sure that if this prosecution is successful, there will be repeat performances here. The Left always watches to see how it's done. They take notes.

Free speech, even behind closed doors, is the constant threat.

On the other hand, if it is a spectacular and humiliating failure(complete with widespread known support from the US), we'll slow them down a bit here.

These people operate in the dark.

Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

23 September 2009 at 17:26  
Anonymous Knighthawk said...

Cranmer awaits a knock on the door.

I would have thought that such a dangerous subversive as His Grace would at least merit the battering ram at 4am accompanied by much splintering of woodwork and cries of "armed police".

Even my fertile imagination has some difficulty in picturing the scene where they attempt to handcuff his non-corporeal presence but maybe he'll just dumbfound them by disappearing through the nearest wall.

23 September 2009 at 17:32  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

St Blair has now got Irish passports for him and his family. Does he know something we don't?

23 September 2009 at 17:49  
Anonymous the recusant said...

In fact Your Grace was first informed about this by yours truly in a response to your blog "But the things which come out of the mouth come from the heart" a couple of days ago, still great news about the Pope’s visit, can’t wait.

23 September 2009 at 18:41  
Anonymous Martin Bright said...

I am a secular humanist. Call me an atheist if you wish.

We must support these decent traditional European/British people for defending
OUR religion for those that want it, against the invaders & colonizers of Europe.


23 September 2009 at 19:07  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

I’ve read that Muhammad was an illiterate warlord and a bit of a fantasist. Parts of the Qur’an are bits stolen from the Bible and the Torah and the rest is Muhammad’s fantasy written by others from what he told them.

23 September 2009 at 19:50  
Anonymous not a machine said...

Busily building a funeral pyre , we must be mad absolutely mad .

why shuld lawyers make money and judges waste time over this , the CPS should have thrown it out ,

I wonder if they were on the christian guest house list and someone went to cause a fight ??

23 September 2009 at 20:43  
Blogger dutchlionfrans1953 said...

I wrote this before: This is how a small minority, yes, even one individual can force their individual will upon millions of people - a whole country - because of the TRAITORS that man our governments, courts, and law-enforcement!

It seems that they are all out to provoke a whole population to become so angry that we will rise up. This is what the evil ones in power want, so they can get away with robbing all our freedoms, declare martial law, and do whatever they want to do, unopposed!

For your library: The facts about how individuals were (are) able to ruin our nations bypassing the democratic process, abusing the courts to enforce the tyranny of the will of individuals over hundreds of millions of people, and destroy the family, the church, society & murder millions of unborn children etc.
This way youtube has also removed the videos with the testimony of Ian McCormack from my channel for muslims, titled "Mohammed is in Hell. Jesus Christ is in Heaven - Ian McCormack saw Him" The exact same video under a different title in my glorychannel did not 'violate the user terms' (meaning nobody of over 18.000 people who watched them has complained, when the very same videos in the muslim channel has been watched by less than 5%, namely 850 people and of these 850 may be 1 person made a fuss about it, and youtube bowed to the voice of 1 over 19.000 voices! This is the evil that has corrupted our nations over the past 10 years or so. Because our judges / courts . have been abused to bypass the democratic process to enforce the will of single individuals even upon millions of people of the land!

Like Roe verses Wade> the decision by some justices on the complaint of one person brought abortion which murdered millions of unborn babies since!

How the State-ideology destroys the freedoms of religion, of speech, etc.

The decision to ban prayer that effected hundreds of millions of people was made by one woman who complained about it, and a handfull of antichrist justices! And the whole USA went down the tube from then on! Yes, the whole world even! WHO WILL STOP THIS TYRANNY and overthrow this evil system? This way youtube, libraries / businesses / bookstores etc. have bowed down to the will of individuals.... Even the government of England let themselves be scared/ manipulated into submission by the possible violant responses of muslims if the Dutch MP Geert Wilders was allowed into the UK and show his 15 minute films (for which members of the UK-Parliament had invited him) and sent Geert Wilders back by return flight! Not those who behave violantly, refusing to adapt to the culture of the land, demanding the whole nation bow down to their tyranny, are shown the FIST of the authorities, nay, it's those who warn, who behave, who are well -adapted members of society, speaking the language, respecting the laws, who are blamed for inciting hatred and such! How crazy can our judges and other authorities, from youtube to bookowners to prime-ministers get? These are all TRAITORS of the land, and should receive the penalty of treason!

23 September 2009 at 21:14  
Blogger dutchlionfrans1953 said...

It is very easy to deal with! I wrote Dutch Parliament that before any investigation into any complaint of any homosexual, or muslim, or other 'hate-speach or such be made, the police-authorities/ district attorneys and such are to be required to interview the complainer/ accuser into how the accused has effected the person personally, and if the accuser can not justify his complaint/ accusation, he should himself be prosecuted and punished for abusing the courts to bypass the democratic process to enforce his individuals will in a tyrannical way upon the public, and prosecute an innocent person. * But I doubt the Dutch or other Parlaiment will accept this wise law. For they want to keep the population in constant unrect and stress, for this brings enormous business and profits to the whole medical profession and Big Pharma, as well as all other professional PARASITES: lawyers and the courts! Oh, Lord Jesus, how can we overthrow this evil system and punish these evildoers? MARANTHA! Lord Jesus COME! You will not allow me to revenge! Then, Lord Jesus Christ, manifest, and poor out your vengeance and do not hold back!

* In the Netherlands now homosexuals deliberately provoke such legal actions to push their cause, by acting in provocative ways - recently 250 homosexuals decided to organise a sports-event in Nijmegen. They made an order from a conservative Christian manufacturer of textiles to order towels with a strong homosexual text. They knew from the home-page that this manufacturer would refuse their order, as he publically states he will not accept orders that violate the will of God. So they deliberatly placed the order at this firm with an agenda to destroy this firm, even though the firm was located hundreds of miles further and other firms who have no problems making their order were not considered. It may even be that the whole sporting-event was organised to take this action against this openly Christian manufacturer. Judges who bow down to such provocations, and do not strongly punish the provocations of these homosexuals (or muslims or anyone that abuses the courts this way), themselves are the very worst criminals of the land which should be procescuted and punished for this in the severest way possible! And if the system will not do it, the Revolution will!

23 September 2009 at 21:16  
Blogger Ayrdale said...

Please commenters, visit Johnny Rottenborough's website mentioned above ...

...and download and publicise the brilliant little song found there.

Mr R, many thanks. I've copied it to my blog.

24 September 2009 at 02:00  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Agree with most of whats be said here.

They and everyone should be allowed to call allah what they want and anyone should be allowed to say what they want against god and jesus and any other religion.

In my book it's like being pulled in front of the courts for slagging off Bilbo Baggins.


24 September 2009 at 08:43  
Blogger Gnostic said...

In my book it's like being pulled in front of the courts for slagging off Bilbo Baggins.

Classic! :D

24 September 2009 at 10:44  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

what about if you said Mo was a psychopathic mass murderer?

Jesus said that after Him would come false prophets leading many astray, then along comes Mo. Jesus also said 'by their fruits shall you know them'.

God has a sense of humour, and is just. He is allowing this to happen to us as a nation as a final warning and because we deserve it.

I regret posting anonymously but my wife has asked me not to say a word on this subject as she is afraid of physical repercussions. I think that says it all.

24 September 2009 at 14:06  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Ayrdale (02:00)—I’m so glad you like the song. I’ve listened to it lots of times and it still makes me smile.

24 September 2009 at 14:23  
Blogger Carl Gardner, Head of Legal said...

I do have some sympathy for them on the basis of what Your Grace has been told - but we've only heard one side of this, and that gives me particular concern since they're supported by the Christian Institute, the people behind the Lilian Ladele nonsense.

If they've behaved in a threatening and aggressive way, then fair enough, a court appearance is okay. I have no problem with people being suspected and charged with that.

As far as religious aggravation is concerned, the real problem here is having any legislation protecting religion from free speech at all. This case shows why religious hatred legislation is such a mistake.

By the way, interesting that one commenter suggested writing to the Attorney - her (it still is her as I write) power to intervene in such cases is one of the powers well-meaning but misguided reformers want to take away from her. I'm not sure whether it's happened yet.

25 September 2009 at 02:04  
Anonymous Phoebe said...

There has been a similar case in France involving the proprietor of a gite, Fanny Truchelot. Her life since has been ruined.

This is her personal testimony:

1n 1985, my ex-husband and I (we separated in December 2007 partly as a result of the following events) bought an old, unoccupied summer camp (note: where groups of children used to spend their summer vacations)

I had 2 objectives:

- to create a home for my family (I have 4 children) to accommodate my children,
their spouses and my future grandchildren.

- to finance this enterprise, I turned this house into a ‘gite’ to accommodate holiday makers. I wanted to create an environment in which conviviality would be paramount.

In December 2004, we opened the house to holiday makers. My son, Antonin set up an Internet site: - - which was very active. The orientation that I had taken – a place of hospitality and user-friendliness - was clearly indicated on the site.

From December 2004 to August 2006, that is to say for 1 ½ years, we successfully rented to holidaymakers. Our enterprise took shape. The holiday makers who came were in agreement with this principle and I did not encounter any problem, quite to the contrary.

The Demiati family arrived at my property on August 11, 2006. They had reserved the accommodation on the Internet. This family had thus seen our site, which gave a clear description of our services:

Communal Area of 70 m2 (living room - dining room) on the ground floor placed free at your disposal, where you can congregate or meet the other tenants of the house.

This room was not available for private rent.

In this family, there were two women, both veiled. For a few seconds I remained immobile on the staircase asking myself what I should say or do. My past experiences, both as a child and a woman, came back to me and I asked Horia Demiati (HD) and her mother to remove their veils in the communal parts of the house, in particular in the room quoted above.

25 September 2009 at 02:30  
Anonymous Phoebe said...


HD then requested me to return the down payment to her. I went away to look for the cheque which I had not yet cashed, I returned the cheque and the family left.

In requesting HD to remove her veil, I thought of it as an exchange from one woman to another woman. However subsequent events showed me that it was nothing of the sort. All the Demiati family members are militants: HD is treasurer of the CIFE an organization which militates openly for the wearing of veils in the work place.

I discovered my predicament ....... in the press in an extremely violent way

A journalist called me on Thursday August 17, 2006, using a well-known tactic of the press; to attack the person interviewed, to comment on the gravity of his act, mentioning on several occasions the consequences (obviously the maximum) to which the person would be likely to be condemned, in short to put the person interviewed in a situation of stress, to make them lose control of the situation. And the tactic worked.

On the following day the journalist published an article in the newspaper Est Républicain of August 18, 2006, an article with this heading on page one:


The court will not tolerate racial discrimination, but too late, the evil was done.
However, the presumption of innocence is a basic principle of our Law. This principle means that any individual must be presumed innocent of the charges against him until such time as a judgement is made and a sentence decreed (Article 9 of the Declaration of Human rights and the Citizen).

Confirmed by the Security Convention of the European Court of the Human rights.

AFP (Agence France Presse) reprinted the article, and a media outburst ensued.

Following these articles, I received threats, sufficiently serious for me to visit the police station on August 29, 2006. I was in an intense state of stress, I feared for our safety and I signed a statement which was retained by the court to condemn me. I was officially advised of the complaint relating to September 12, 2006 one month after the events. Civil action was taken by the MRAP, the LDH and the LICRA.

My lawsuit at Epinal on October 2, 2007.

The civil parties in the case took up the terms of the libellous press campaign, treating me as illiterate and racist. The lawyer of the MRAP labelled me a catholic fundamentalist, even though none of my children are baptised.

My defence was based, at my request on the issue of Womens’ Rights. , Maître Varaut made a plea which plunged the room into silence. The opposing parties spent all their time insulting me as well as the two women who testified, Anne Zelenski and Annie Sugier.

At the end of the hearing, when the Vice-president of the court asked me whether I had anything to add, I spoke only about Anne (Zelenski) and Annie (Sugier), reminding the lawyers Welzer, Tubiana and Bouvier, that if one day, they defend a beaten woman, that they remember them, because it was they who created the first refuge for beaten women in 1978. But it was not until 1992, 14 years later that a law was introduced to repress marital violence.

I was found guilty of religious discrimination and received a 4 months’ suspended sentence and a fine of €8.490. (fuller details about the judgement can be found on my site):

25 September 2009 at 02:34  
Anonymous Phoebe said...

he court decided to condemn me from a passage of my deposition of August 29, 2006.

Extracts of the judgement: Given that Mrs Yvette Idoux married Truchelut report in these terms what occurred: “last August 11, we received a family which had reserved accommodation, a family that we refused to lodge, my husband and I, due to two women members of this family wearing veils, who refused our request to withdraw this ostentatious sign of their religion in the common parts of the lodging” (statement of the 29/08/2006).

Given that it thus appears, unambiguous that Mrs Truchelut subordinated the hiring of her lodging to the removal by Mesdames HD and her mother of their veil, with the reason that this constituted, according to her own expression, “ostentatious sign of their religion”.

Thus, the common parts of the house were taken to represent the hiring of the accommodation. The court did not take into account either the fact that it was HD who decided to leave or that I at no time requested it.

My appeal in Nancy

I was attacked via Internet for having been defended by Maître Varaut. They said I should not be supported because of that. Thinking that it was important to win such a lawsuit and wishing as much as possible to gather people behind this cause, I changed lawyer and took somebody who did not have any “label”. Serious error on my part. Maître Varaut was only an excuse to allow a great number not to implicate themselves.

My guilt was confirmed, I was condemned to 2 months of suspended sentence and 6.000 € of damages.

My personal situation

At Christmas 2006 I received new phone calls from people with surnames of North African origin wishing to rent for Christmas, which made me fear new provocations. I again felt trapped and I decided to stop letting rooms with all the financial consequences that can be imagined. The property can be repossessed and sold without our permission, which will not be easy because it is located in a remote place in the mountain.

My father sent me to work in a factory at 14 years old and I have always worked since. I am 56 years old and I am separated from my husband. I have 2 more dependent children. I am entitled to a pension which I will not be able to touch until I am 60 years old. Currently I live on an allowance which enables me to live or rather to survive but I am unable to pay the € 6000 damages plus interest for which I was scandalously condemned. The decision was made executory, i.e. I must pay the associations known as human rights organizations (MRAP and LICRA) who did not hesitate for one moment to send a bailiff to threaten me to seize my pieces of furniture.

25 September 2009 at 02:34  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

25 September 2009 at 08:47  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

25 September 2009 at 08:51  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace,

It has been said:

‘If they've behaved in a threatening and aggressive way, then fair enough, a court appearance is okay.’

But that misunderstands the nature of a religiously aggravated offence.

In order to be charged with this offence the defendant needs to commit a basic offence such as causing, harassment, alarm or distress (under the Public Order Act 1985).

So if I said to Mr Gardner repeatedly, ‘**** off’ and I caused him harassment, alarm or distress then I could be charged with the basic offence.

But If I began the basic offence by repeatedly calling him a ‘Sikh bas****’ then I can be charged with a religiously aggravated offence for the basic offence is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress and by using the term ‘Sikh’ it is converted in to the more serious religiously aggravated offence.

If I did not use the term ‘Sikh’ in the basic offence – it would simply be charged as a basic offence.

So Mr Gardener’s acceptance still means that Christians face the risk of prosecution. For example, we know that it is highly offensive to Muslims to say that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

25 September 2009 at 08:56  
Anonymous martin sewell said...

Slightly off topic Your Grace, but for those who think you cannot address contraversial issues about Islam without offending its adherents, it was pleasing to read in my local newspaper that amongst the guests assembled to say goodbye to the retiring Bishop of Rochester Michael Nazir Ali, was the Pakistan High Commissioner.

25 September 2009 at 09:56  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think part of the problem is that we're British .... that means we believe in keeping the law of the land.

The law, however, is no longer of the land - it's of any foreigner who chooses to walk into the land and ignore us.

Personally, I'm all for ignoring all foreign law and resorting to British ways. All this carrying on and on and on and on and on and on

about a bunch of flaming foreigners who shouldn't be here anyway (they're probably illegal). And I don't care if they do put me in prison for being refusing to recognize their idol as God..

The whole thing is absolutely pathetic and spineless.

25 September 2009 at 10:40  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

so, this company which is now boycotting the couple's guest house...I'd like to boycott it.
Whats its name?

26 September 2009 at 09:39  
Blogger The Heff said...

I see that the argument was "involved discussion of whether Jesus was the Son of God or just a minor prophet of Islam."

Which is amusing, because he was neither.

29 September 2009 at 14:14  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My name is Michael and I am Ben Vogelenzang's nephew. Just wanted to say thanks for all the really supportive comments, Ben is the most un-offensive person you could ever meet.
Unfortunately, boycotting the company that pulled its contract is not possible as it was the NHS..hmm say no more..

however if your ever in Liverpool.. you know where to stay! lol

2 November 2009 at 13:43  
Blogger bob wierdsma said...

I once worked for a muslim employer and once or twice I was yelled at for a typographical error in some tyspeset copy. The only problem was that the typsetting was done by an outside company so he should have gone back to them. However, his son did come to my defence so at least I was somewhat exonerated.

25 January 2010 at 18:33  
Anonymous bowie said...

With the attitude that this muslim woman had no wonder they give themselves so much grief in the muslim world. Now they want to bring their bellyaching to this British couple through deilberate provocation.

25 January 2010 at 21:01  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older