Judge rules against atheist attacked in costume

DoctorE · #1 by **DoctorE** » Feb 22, 2012 2:44 pm

monkeyboy · #2 by **monkeyboy** » Feb 22, 2012 3:01 pm

Nice precedent the judge seems to have set there. Guess it's ok for people to have at the Westboro Baptist bunch now since they are definitely protagonists.

z8000783 · #3 by **z8000783** » Feb 22, 2012 3:03 pm

Sounds like one theist sympathising with another.

However he will be building problems for the future with this ruling.

John

ED209 · #4 by **ED209** » Feb 22, 2012 3:10 pm

That cop was a credit to his uniform, having those two jokers (zombie mo and fulminating muslim) approach him to arbitrate is a funny spot to suddenly find himself in (and of course he called it correctly, the judge is a fucking twaaaaaat).

I think the atheists' behaviour would be illegal in the UK - 'likely to cause distress' or harassment or whatever - and anyone physically attacking (within 'reason') them would not face charges, which is sad and fucking crazy really.

chairman bill · #5 by **chairman bill** » Feb 22, 2012 3:10 pm

monkeyboy wrote:Nice precedent the judge seems to have set there. Guess it's ok for people to have at the Westboro Baptist bunch now since they are definitely protagonists.

That certainly seems like a reasonable conclusion

orpheus · #6 by **orpheus** » Feb 22, 2012 3:30 pm

chairman bill wrote:
monkeyboy wrote:Nice precedent the judge seems to have set there. Guess it's ok for people to have at the Westboro Baptist bunch now since they are definitely protagonists.

That certainly seems like a reasonable conclusion

Doesn't work that way though. You can't attack the religious. I mean, that would just be wrong. Critics of religion, though, are fair game. The godless bastards, serves 'em right!!

:nono:

What a doofus judge. And the lawyer saying he'd do the same. Also a doofus. It's amazing how deep the rot has gone - how these people really think religion should be protected from criticism, and that it's ok to defend it with violence.

Macros1980 · #7 by **Macros1980** » Feb 22, 2012 3:44 pm

Anyone got a link to a news article?

DoctorE · #8 by **DoctorE** » Feb 22, 2012 3:46 pm

Macros1980 wrote:Anyone got a link to a news article?

http://www.abc27.com/story/16986440/mid ... in-costume

mrjonno · #9 by **mrjonno** » Feb 22, 2012 4:02 pm

ED209 wrote:That cop was a credit to his uniform, having those two jokers (zombie mo and fulminating muslim) approach him to arbitrate is a funny spot to suddenly find himself in (and of course he called it correctly, the judge is a fucking twaaaaaat).

I think the atheists' behaviour would be illegal in the UK - 'likely to cause distress' or harassment or whatever - and anyone physically attacking (within 'reason') them would not face charges, which is sad and fucking crazy really.

Don't think a crime would have taken place in the UK are law about inciting religious hatred (taking the piss is quite specifically not a crime, the laws uses words very similar to this).

You have disturbance of the peace but its already a parade so by definition you are disturing road traffic which I assume would already have been given permission for.

I think if you did in the pavement in an area with lots of Muslism and the police could show some evidence that you specifically wanted to cause a major scene (as in emails between organisers lets start a riot) that possibly you could get done.

Regardless of any of this the muslim would have been charged with assault

BrandySpears · **#10** by **BrandySpears** » Feb 22, 2012 4:09 pm

The judge dismissed a case for lack of intent to harass, annoy or alarm. What's the big deal?

ED209 · **#11** by **ED209** » Feb 22, 2012 4:14 pm

Wasn't it a parade of two people only i.e. two people having a bit of a laugh in public? I'm not sure that qualifies as satire in the UK (it's not what rowan atkinson was campaigning about) and the fact that a passer-by shoved them around would be presented as evidence that they were causing distress/espousing religious hate/whatever. I'm not saying that zombie mo could have been lynched with impunity but I seriously doubt that anybody would have been prosecuted for a minor (common) assault against him - recall the other year when we were all burning korans and no action was taken against irate muslims making death threats against people - pursuing these incidents is not deemed to be in the public interest.

They got it wrong anyway, mo didn't come back as a zombie, he flew away on a horse :coffee:

mrjonno · **#12** by **mrjonno** » Feb 22, 2012 4:19 pm

But wasnt Mo dead when he flew away, therefore he was a flying Zombie

BrandySpears · **#13** by **BrandySpears** » Feb 22, 2012 4:20 pm

audio of court proceedings - notice what the title implies

ED209 · **#14** by **ED209** » Feb 22, 2012 4:29 pm

mrjonno wrote:But wasnt Mo dead when he flew away, therefore he was a flying Zombie

I still say the lack of flying horse was due to laziness and lack of artistic integrity :coffee:

z8000783 · **#15** by **z8000783** » Feb 22, 2012 4:51 pm

mrjonno wrote:But wasnt Mo dead when he flew away, therefore he was a flying Zombie

What are you referring to?

John

Peter Brown · **#16** by **Peter Brown** » Feb 22, 2012 6:10 pm

ED209 wrote:That cop was a credit to his uniform, having those two jokers (zombie mo and fulminating muslim) approach him to arbitrate is a funny spot to suddenly find himself in (and of course he called it correctly, the judge is a fucking twaaaaaat).

I think the atheists' behaviour would be illegal in the UK - 'likely to cause distress' or harassment or whatever - and anyone physically attacking (within 'reason') them would not face charges, which is sad and fucking crazy really.

I too believe it would be illegal in the UK, and the atheists would have ended on the wrong side of the law. As would the muslim as violence tends to have no excuse in law, just mitigation factors?

But it happened in America where laws are different, and so based on what I understand the cop got it right and the judge got it wrong on two counts for now. For now, because it seems to me the Christians fundamentalists want to make America a theocracy and make blasphemy illegal.

z8000783 · **#17** by **z8000783** » Feb 22, 2012 6:13 pm

Which would actually be more of a problem for atheists than Muslims.

John

Mike_L · **#18** by **Mike_L** » Feb 22, 2012 6:39 pm

From David Mills' Atheist Universe, read by Richard Dawkins...

HomerJay · **#19** by **HomerJay** » Feb 23, 2012 10:40 am

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/ ... isses-case

HomerJay · **#20** by **HomerJay** » Feb 23, 2012 10:51 am

Peter Brown wrote:
ED209 wrote:I think the atheists' behaviour would be illegal in the UK - 'likely to cause distress' or harassment or whatever - and anyone physically attacking (within 'reason') them would not face charges, which is sad and fucking crazy really.

I too believe it would be illegal in the UK, and the atheists would have ended on the wrong side of the law. As would the muslim as violence tends to have no excuse in law, just mitigation factors?

I'm not clear why people would believe it is illegal in the UK, there's a possiblity that charges could be faced in the UK, if the circumstances and a particular copper/judge decided it should be charged but there isn't a blanket law that could cover cases like these, it's a case by case situation, time and place dependent.