To think this shouldn't be allowed?

[SneakyGremlins]

Bloke in town with a microphone, yelling about how Jesus is the only way to heaven. Gays are sinners, other religions are sinners, we must repent blah blah blah.

Bad enough, but then he starts making eye contact with the only hijab wearing woman around and loudly proclaims that Only Christians Can Go To Heaven And All Other Religions Lead To Eternal Damnation - presumably as she's an easy target.

AIBU to think that's not right and that he shouldn't be allowed to wander around town yelling shit like that?

Btw:
That the bible being clear about something somehow negatives negates any possible offensiveness...?

In a free and fair society people should be allowed to say things that others find offensive. We would be living in an extremely insipid, and controlling, society if we couldn't. People aren't allowed to incite violence. The speaker in the OP was doing the former, not the latter.

@betterwithoutyou

In a free and fair society people should be allowed to say things that others find offensive.

That's great. But I simply disagreed with this statement:

It isn't offensive. It's a basic tenet of Christianity.

Something may be a basic tenet of Christianity and offensive.

The idea that religion somehow negates offensiveness is imo absolutely ridiculous.

Freedom of expression Art 10 doesn't allow for hate speech. It can and will be restricted when people are spreading religious hatred, and should be reported.

Re: criminal damage.

"Taking into account all the circumstances, we feel that it wasn't about the bag but it was about the victim," he said.

I would argué that there is also a presupposition of some kind of permanent damage, or inability to fonction (not a temporary disconnection). In fact it's exactly this kind of time-wasting nit-pickery that the plastic bag case cites.

Yeah, I understand your point MeyMary. I just wanted to take the opportunityy to make the point that religions should be allowed to offend people. Just as anyone should. Because some people on this thread seem to believe that that they shouldn't. And I find that appalling. No one should have a legal right not to be offended.

Freedom of expression Art 10 doesn't allow for hate speech. It can and will be restricted when people are spreading religious hatred, and should be reported But BlancheM, this thread is about Religious people saying non-adherents to their religion are going to hell. Are you seriously saying that is hate speech? Because if you are, I think Muslims and Christians could counter that is is pretty hateful to tell them to they can't preach parts of their religion.
This whole, 'you are being hateful to me and I am going to report you' thing has got seriously out of hand in our society. People are being bloody no platformed and reported for having opinions. It's outrageous.

If someone says something you find offensive, debate with them. Don't ban them.

Muslims believe only Muslims are going to heaven - and preach that too in mosques using microphones.

No real harm done by either - though shouting in the street is a noise nuisance.

@apriljune12

Read my comment back slowly. Maybe outloud.

I said that no one cares how much flesh your daghter wears or what she drinks.

The two of you being arses was the antagonising and blocking them/

Your reply did give me a smile though. Stupidly trite.

better, maybe you skimmed the 'gays are sinners' part. That is hate speech and targeting people specifically because they are a different religion is religious hatred.
It isn't arguable, it's the law. It must be exhausting to be on the receiving end of abuse as a minority, it isn't ok.
Personally I tune out to ranting and raving on street corners and get on with my day without a second thought. That's because it doesn't affect me.

Personally, I feel that Leviticus should have a position on the wearing of shellsuits.

Visiting French friends have been known to stand in silent fascination — and suppressed laughter — in my closest city centre, where it is quite usual to walk past, all in a row, a ranting Pentecostalist preacher with a microphone and a bible, a rather vocal young imam with loud recorded sermons and leaflets, a pair of earnest teenagers with a Muslims Against Violence stand (of whom Shouty Imam clearly disapproves), a pair of resigned-looking JWs with a stack of Watchtowers, and a bunch of Hare Krishnas singing and dancing and clashing their mini-cymbals.

Personally, I feel that Leviticus should have a position on the wearing of shellsuits.

Wel whatever fibre they're made of is certainly an abomination. So there's that.

Literally no-one would be outraged about an atheist on a soapbox

BlancheM. I think we would need a test case to see if it were the law. And if it turned out to be it would be a ridiculous law which should be overturned. Because this current climate of ' You need to take responsibility for how I feel and not say anything that upsets me' is absurd and dangerous and divisive. And having real world consequences for our ability to discuss social changes and social harms, particularly those that affect women and girls.
Yes religions should be able to say that homosexuality, adultery, unbelief is a sin. And anyone should be able to argue against that.
By saying that religions making an exclusive truth is hate speech you are basically saying hate laws mean a secular court should be able to rewrite the world's religions. Do you understand that christian is about salvation? That Jesus came to save people? You are arguing that in Britain Christianity cannot no longer exist. Read the Koran, you are effectively saying secular courts should be able to rewrite it, or, at a minimum Muslims, must ignore those many, many, many bits. Which is itself, deeply offensive to muslims and kinda hateful, if you think about it. I should say here that I am not a Christian. I think a belief system based on non-believers going to hell is horrible. But yes, people should be able to make those claims. And yes, religions should be able to claim homosexuality is a sin, and believers and theologians within that system should be able to argue against them.

Blanche, your views are offensive to me and dangerous to society.
But I still think you should be able to express them and I should be able to argue against them.

betterwithoutyou -
Well said!
I despair of Universities S.U's banning or attacking speakers with whom they disagree.
Would add, I am a (rather bad) Christian, and I don't pretend to have inside knowledge about hell, whether it exist or who goes there.

We have similar preachers in our main shopping street regularly, although I have never heard them talk about any specific groups of people.
I am a Christian and go to church regularly. My daughter goes to a church school and we go to messy church.
Even so I can see why people would put off by someone preaching at them when walking down the street. Outreach is great, but should be for people to choose to engage in, not forced on them. If anything the preaching in the street like that pushes people away. Definitely should not be any hate speach.
Round here messy church is promoted and people can choose whether to join in.
Church group does a refreshment tent at a community event - people can choose whether to use it or get other refreshments. To me, that is how it should be.
Yanbu.

Literally no-one would be outraged about an atheist on a soapbox
A very few might be, but the great majority of believers are quite used to atheists talking about sky fairies and the like.
Even on here, it's commonplace to hear comments seemingly designed to offend.

And those who are happy to sneer about sky-fairies and flying spaghetti monsters get offended at some nutter waving a Bible or a Koran tells them they will go to hell....

Oops - now someone will tell me 'nutter' is hate speech no doubt.

In a free and fair society people should be allowed to say things that others find offensive.

That's great. But I simply disagreed with this statement:

Well you have a pretty low bar for freedom of speech, basically people can say things you agree with
Do you realize how many feminist writings could be banned under causing offense? Do we want a situation where we are only allowed to say things from a government approved list? Society progresses from people pushing the boundaries, not from imposing boundaries. How long before criticism of religion is banned? An aim of the likes of the Muslim council of Britain? Offense is not a criteria, it is whether or not you are inciting violence or discrimination, otherwise offend away!

@Brahumbug

I responded to the satement that something isn't offensive because it's a basic tenet of Christianity (or any other religion). And made the point that religion doesn't automatically negate offensiveness. But I didn't say anything about outlawing offensiveness...

Well you have a pretty low bar for freedom of speech, basically people can say things you agree withhmm

@vdbfamily
Literally no-one would be outraged about an atheist on a soapbox

Yeah, you take that soapbox to some muslim countries and come back and tell us how it went. Except you wouldn't be able to because you would be killed by a mob or in prison.
And even here, lots of people are offended by Dawkins and Hitchens. I find the way many atheists over here choose to express themselves to be offensive. And I am not even a member of a religion. Personally I find the Humanist stance very offensive, because of its centring of humans over other animal species. So some people would be offended by an atheist soapbox as they find atheism itself offensive and others because of the particular philosophy or stance of a particular atheist group. It is simply not true to say no-one would be offended by an atheist on a soap box.

And that's the rub isn't it? That is why trying to silence one person for causing offence to another person is so absurd. Because, very bloody obviously, one person's truth and reason is another person's offence. One person's taking a brave moral stand is another person's 'you are spreading hate'. Not everyone taking offence is being reasonable to take offence. And even if they are, that doesn't mean the person they are upset with should be silenced.
We have to be more mature than that.

better, what in fuckery are you on about? What views of mine are offensive to you and wider society? I'm lost. I was saying that spewing homophobic and racial hatred in public constitutes a hate crime, which is does. You can report such crimes at designated centres in most communities or directly to the police. You can't argue with the law :/

I remember walking around central London once in my 20’s minding my own business but wearing a French Connection hoodie that says FCUK (meaning ‘French Connection United Kingdom’) and this nutter on a mega phone berated me thinking it meant something else. Looking back an older man screaming at a young girl about her attire in public is bonkers. He needed to take a long look at himself.

user1483644229.

Do you really think French Connection didn't know what they were doing with their FCUK?
A sniggery 'Ooo, look at us being edgy'. The nutter was in the wrong shouting at you, but I would have (silently) judged you for for being pathetic.

Visit the corner of High Street and New Street in Birmingham.

There is one stall with Muslims and a sound system loudly reciting the Koran in Arabic and English and any number of Christian 'speakers' with microphones and loudspeakers.

The cacophony outside Waterstone's is deeply unpleasant.

Cheistian shouters (with and without loudspeakers or megaphones) line New Street and add the Hare Krishnas outside HSBC and you have a full house.

Salvation Army bands sometimes put in an appearance some Sundays too.

Blanche,
What views of mine are offensive to you and wider society?

Your view that pretty common religious beliefs and opinions are hate crimes. There is a current view that opinions one has designated as 'hate' need to be silenced and are being silenced. Or people are silencing themselves. You appear to be part of that. It is meaning, for example, that women who want to discuss the balance of rights and protections for women/ girls and transpeople are being silenced as 'hateful'. It means that people were afraid to speak out about the Rotherham sex abuse scandal for fear of being labelled as 'hateful'.
Fear as been seen as 'hateful' is having real world consequences. Being against this amorphous, ill defined 'hate' seems all very well, until you are the one no-one is speaking out in defence of as they fear being labelled as 'hateful', or until your views, concerns, or even questions, are labelled as 'hateful'. We need to be very careful about what we ban and silence. I think it is really important that people are allowed their voice unless they are inciting violence. As I have stated above, we should be countering views we oppose with debate, not banning them.

Can you point me to the test cases in law which have said that saying that non-adherents of a religion are going to hell (or bad karma rebirth or whatever happens in a particular religion) are hate crimes and illegal? Can you point me to test cases which have that saying homosexuality is a sin is a hate crime and illegal? Because I have never heard of such cases. Which makes me think you are imposing your own views of what is hateful and should be banned onto the law. Which means you think people who say things you find offensive should be silenced. Which is a view I find offensive and dangerous.