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?

I agree that freedom of speech is important and am very aware that there are many places in this world that preaching Christianity would get you at least imprisioned if not killed. That is one of the things we should be so thankful for, the right and freedom to believe what we choose. It is worth noting that Christians believe we are ALL sinners ' for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God' and so no-one is being single out here.

Are you in Taunton? There's a regular hate preacher there, the police usually get involved

Another Me? I'm not.

Shouty high street christians need to open their bibles at Matthew chapter 6, verses 5-6:

"Whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so that they may be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. But whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you."

^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.^

Says the person referencing a 1990s PepsiCo character in their username. I am vocally judging you for being hypocritical, ridiculous and irrelevant.

Talking about me, actualpuffins?

I had a dog called Dido - + fido geddit??. And any Pepsi ad/character of any era would have passed me by. Never touched the stuff.

And you are not judging me vocally, you are doing so in writing. Neither is my comment irrelevant. I'll grant you ridiculous - but not as ridiculous as wearing FCUK.

@ThatlibraryMiss. That Matthew passage is talking about praying, which is one individual's communication with God. That preacher was (ineffectively) preaching/ evangelising, which inevitably means trying to communicate with other people. The New Testament is quite clear about the fact that followers of Christ should evangelise. (Matt 28.19, Mark 16.15, 1 Tim 4.13 and others)

Fair enough, I didn't actually say the comment out loud, fidodido. But neither did you "silently" judge the FCUK wearer, you did so in writing on Mumsnet.

I'm sorry better but I can't give a meaningful reply other than to say I'm disgusted you've said that. Really, really disgusted and offended that you would stoop so low. You don't know who you're talking to on the internet. Please be mindful of that.

Back to the topic of inciting religious hatred in a public place, directed at members of the public, all I can say is I'm not wrong, it is widely known and accepted that you can't abuse minorities based on the things which make them so. I'm flabbergasted you're asking for test cases/evidence.
Yes, law making was shaped somewhat by Christian values but as we are now a much more secular and multicultural country and changes in the law reflect that. No longer can discrimination be justified as someone's personal religious choice.

Blanche, I disagree that it is stooping low to state what conclusions I draw from your expressed opinions, or where I think your views are leading us, based on real life examples. You asked the question, I answered it.

You also can't defend your opinions of what the law interprets as religious hatred. It is not flabbergasting to ask for people to present evidence for big claims (and I have already explained in pp why your claims are unlikely). People make the public statements you are claiming are illegal on a daily basis. I heard on radio 4 a discussion between a gay muslim and another muslim. The other muslim openly stated that the gay muslim was either a sinner or not a muslim. I've already told you that I went to a public talk where the muslim speaker, in response to my question (which was that it seemed to me that the Koran said non-muslims are going to hell) , said. 'Yes that is correct. If you are not a muslim you are going to hell.' I mean think about it Blanche, if the hate laws were as you say they are, then printing and distributing the Koran would be illegal. It would be massive news if a case was brought which effectively meant the main religions of this country were no longer able to publicly state foundational beliefs, such as beliefs about what happens to non-adherents in the afterlife. You haven't heard of these cases as they haven't happened.

No, better. Don't dare to tell me that I don't support feminist causes or speak out about local child sex abuse scandals. That is disgusting and completely irrelevant to the point we are talking about. Anyone who knows me would know how perverse it is to suggest those things. You don't know what I stand for or why.
I was simply telling you the fact that hate crime exists and you are making a fool of yourself by denying that it isn't recognised in law. It's baffling but if you walk around with your eyes closed, that's your prerogative.

As for you stating that publishing and distributing religious texts would be illegal- no, I think you're misunderstanding. Of course not! Observing any religion you choose is a human right and rightly so. I'm talking about abusing people in the street. I've been clear about this from the beginning.

OP are you going to complain about every idiot with a megaphone? Or just Christians? The shouty man sounds like a nutter. You get Christians who are nutters, atheists who are nutter, socialists who are nutters etc etc. We are all drawing from the same gene pool.
I see plenty of nastiness from atheists on NM's. generally I just let them be - they do a great job of turning people away from atheism. I am sure it applies the other way too

I was simply telling you the fact that hate crime exists and you are making a fool of yourself by denying that it isn't recognised in law.
I'm not denying hate crime exists. I am disagreeing with your views on how that law would be interpreted by a court. You have provided no evidence to support your opinion.

Don't dare to tell me that I don't support feminist causes or speak out about local child sex abuse scandals.
I didn't say this either. I was making the real world point, that the cultural atmosphere which makes being accused of being 'hateful' the worst thing ever, is being used to silence legitimate debate and discouraging people from speaking out about abuse. The Times journalist who broke the Rotherham story initially got a lot of shit.
And yes, I do think that your belief that it is abusive for religious people to state what their God believes is a sin, and what God does to non believers when they are dead, contributes to this atmosphere.

Observing any religion you choose is a human right and rightly so. I'm talking about abusing people in the street. It is contradictory to say people can observe their religion but then say that when they publicly speak about their religion's core beliefs they are being abusive. Religions do have 'discriminatory' beliefs about what happens to people when they die based on whether they are saved or not, part of the Umma or not, how much good karma they have accumulated or not. Religions do have 'discriminatory' beliefs about who is living in accordance with God's law or not. Whether you think stating this is abusive is a matter or opinion. Whether it is illegal would need to be tested in a court of law. Written statute is interpreted through actual cases.

Blanche, I support debate, but you are simply restating assertions with no evidence. You are also getting extremely emotional and attacking simply because I am disagreeing with you.

betterwithoutyou -

I admire your patience and clear argument.

Sorry better I didn't read much past your first paragraph, I did not mention once how a law would be applied in a court of law, I don't know why you keep asking me.
I don't engage with people who like to twist others' words it's childish and I'm too busy today. I can't correlate any of us having the right to a private life and the right to follow any religion they like, to victimising strangers going about their day. No decent person can.
You should've just let me have my say, which I was correct about- fact, not opinion- and left it at that. Nothing further to be said here, have a great day!

Thank you Dido. Can't help noticing that Blanche who claims to be against speaking abusively to people has called me childish, a fool, disgusting and stooping low. I've tried my best to ignore this and keep to reasonable debate. Thanks for noticing Dido! : )

Insults are not arguments.

Twisted it again. I'm against hate crime, unlike you, most people thankfully don't see it as their democratic right to holler homophobic slurs at members of the public going about their day. Being polite to the likes who do, isn't my top priority.

How do you feel about this OP?

@derxa

The chanting seems a bit disruptive and I'd be rather worried about people missing potentially important announcements...

But I'm not what they're chanting. And who is chanting... Allah who or Allahu?

What's the name of the preacher?

I haven't twisted anything you have said Blanche and no reasonable person could think I have.

What I have done is take your points and explain, why I disagree with them. You seem to find that offensive and get very emotional about it, resorting to personal attacks.

You should've just let me have my say, which I was correct about- fact, not opinion- and left it at that.
I haven't stopped you having your say. It's not within my power to do so, and it is obvious from all of my posts that I wouldn't have even if I could have. You are however, communicating here that you feel you are entitled to your say, but I am not entitled to mine. You chose to enter a discussion thread. That means people with discuss. Nobody is obliged to leave anyone's post 'at that'.

I think Allahu but may just mean Allah. It's a very hypnotic chant. I think the preacher is a sufi muslim. Clearly the man needs protection from the police. I'm not being goady when I say don't know what to think. It's loud and impacts on the general public but it's not aggressive.
This is the thing about living in the UK. We have more freedom of expression than many other countries.

That sounds like the guy outside Tottenham tube station OP! Are you in London? Police won't do anything. Plymouth Brethren, who are anti anything you can think of basically (except groups of 20+ people singing hymns at 6am in the backgarden) used to do same on High St when I lived in Bucks. No-one takes any notice anyway, you just think nutter & move on.

Fair enough better, no need for the passive aggressive digs.
I think you must've misunderstood my point wilfully or otherwise because what you're taking about isn't the same as what I am/was. Totally different pages. I commented what could constitute a hate crime- fact- and you said there was no such thing then ranted about how dangerous minded it is to protect minorities from soul-destroying, sometimes daily attacks all because it offends your belief that you can say what you like in the name of religion. Linking your argument to the sickening culture of child sex grooming along the way.
I was not and will not provide you with legislation or court rulings, as I'm not at work, this isn't academic. It's AIBU on a chat forum. But feel free to google scholar, search bailii or take a look at where your nearest hate crime reporting centre is, then take up your argument with them rather than trying to school someone for stating a fact.