tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1133916536511836970.post1874958889607459068..comments2023-12-10T08:21:16.075+00:00Comments on Religion Law Blog: Burning the KoranNeil Addisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00489922704972084561noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1133916536511836970.post-4716842820324453872011-04-16T17:33:37.982+01:002011-04-16T17:33:37.982+01:00Dear Colin
I take your points re s4A. I had cons...Dear Colin<br /><br />I take your points re s4A. I had considered whether their might be an argument re being in a dwelling and the recipient in another dwelling but I didn't know enough facts to comment on that possibility and in any event I think the Courts would be reluctant to extend that defence to cover Internet contact.<br /><br />s4A(3)(a) is a Defence not an Offence ie someone is not guilty of s4A merely because they intended their message to be seen by someone outside it works the other way that they might not be guilty because they prove that they did not intend it to be seen.<br /><br />I also agree that his arrest could well have been a breach of Article 10 indeed in my view it wasNeil Addisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00489922704972084561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1133916536511836970.post-34268918586521887042011-04-14T07:14:45.447+01:002011-04-14T07:14:45.447+01:00Alex,
The Da Vinci Code, was a crime against all ...Alex,<br /><br />The Da Vinci Code, was a crime against all forms of gentle culture: literature, art and Christianity included - I came away from that book worrying that its stupidity and painfully awful prose may have physically damaged my mind, may have left me with an increased risk of developing a brain tumour. To then unleash it upon the illiterate in an equally awful movie was no less than a crime against humanity.<br /><br />But I don't really see what business it would have been of the government's to prevent its dissemination in ay of its horrific forms, so long as some people were tragic enough to pay good money for it (or foolish enough to steal a copy).<br /><br />And it's a bit silly to say the West is 'against' Christianity, just because some people condemn acts that Muslims find offensive. It's not like defending Muslims and defending Christians are mutually exclusive activities. In fact, rising to the defence of a minority group strikes me as a rather 'Christian' thing to do.<br /><br />Not only that but clearly a lot of people in the West condemned the Da Vinci Code and for theological reasons too, not just for its awfulness - many more people than those who condemned the burning of the Koran - and doing so didn't suddenly make them 'against' Islam.<br /><br />Despite what some rather excitable people (both 'Christians' and 'Muslims') feel there is no 'them against us' going on - just certain groups of people trying to stir up trouble for their own political ends while everyone else is just going about their business trying to get along.<br /><br />Anyway, my comment was about the limits of state censorship. Which shouldn't have been applied in either case, especially the Koran burning since no-one got physically harmed (apart from those poor souls who developed brain tumours after 'experiencing' the Da Vinci code).<br /><br />And about me trying to understand the limits of British law.Colin Elvesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1133916536511836970.post-92133190076771073162011-04-13T18:01:02.112+01:002011-04-13T18:01:02.112+01:00Mr. Colin Elves,
The cinema, Da Vincy Code,produce...Mr. Colin Elves,<br />The cinema, Da Vincy Code,produced by Don Brown against Lord Jesus Christ with all profane languages in 2006. Everybody said that it is a freedom of speach & thought and it cannot be punishable. But anyone said anything against Islam, immediately, it may be condemned by every quarters. So the Western world is against christianity.Alex Benziger Gnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1133916536511836970.post-2851271917979575112011-04-12T09:40:37.505+01:002011-04-12T09:40:37.505+01:00I note that Sec 4a states:
Intentional harassment...I note that Sec 4a states:<br /><br />Intentional harassment, alarm or distress.<br /><br />(1)A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—<br /><br />(a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or<br /><br />(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,<br />thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.<br /><br />(2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the person who is harassed, alarmed or distressed is also inside that or another dwelling.<br /><br />(3)It is a defence for the accused to prove—<br /><br />(a)that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or<br /><br />(b)that his conduct was reasonable.<br /><br />In which case, (I think, I'm not a lawyer and I'm aware that law doesn't always follow the rules of normal discourse) distributing it on the internet is would be a contravention of part 3a above, namely that he clearly intended for the 'offensive' act to be seen by people outside his dwelling, in fact, by stating "I hope you muslims are watching", he indicates he was intending for it to be seen by people that would find it offensive.<br /><br />In other words, I think there is some room for interpretation there, is there not?<br /><br />On the other hand - and, again, I'm not sure where things stand on this - since he produced a 'film' (ergo, ersatz artistic product), he might have recourse to argue that his arrest was in contravention of his rights under Article 10 of the European convention of Human Rights (Freedom of expression)<br />1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.<br />2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. <br /><br />I suppose the obvious corollary would be a film made by a feminist visual artist who burnt the Koran in protest at the treatment/status of women within the muslim community. This could have exactly the same form but, I assume, would not be liable to prosecution...<br /><br />It'd be interesting to know your thoughts on that.<br /><br />Colin.Colin Elvesnoreply@blogger.com