That 'Religious Hatred' case

As is the case with many other Christians, I have been reading and watching the story of Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang, who run the Bounty House Hotel in Liverpool, and their arrest and subsequent prosecution under for breaching section five of the Public Order Act (1986) and for various breaches of the Crime and Disorder Act (1998). Bottom line is that these two Christians were accused of effectively using words that incited religious hatred against a Muslim woman guest in their establishment.

The press were full of accounts of the complainant, Ericka Tazi, being abused and called names like 'terrorist' and 'murderer' because, after a month in western dress she appeared on the final night of her stay wearing a hijab. Not only that but Ms Tazi claimed to have had the prophet abused and accused of being a 'warlord'. What made it more interesting was the reports that other guests had heard these words used against Ms Tazi and her beliefs.

So why were an organisation like Christian Institute (CI) involved I wondered to myself? Had they taken the side of the wrong parties here  or was there much more to this than was reported (and if so why wasn't there a more accurate report in the press and some clarification from CI?).

It appears that over the previous weeks there had been many discussions relating to faith and that on the last night Ms Tazi had perhaps worn the hijab to be a little provocative. Interestingly it transpires that Ms Tazi, a former Roman Catholic and now convert to Islam, had written Jesus off as nothing more than a 'minor prophet' an act that if reversed would see fatwahs and acts of aggression appear like daisies on a summer lawn! Not only that but the Ms Tazi apparently claimed that the Bible was untrue, which of course stuff Ms Tazi’s new belief as there is much drawn from the Christian faith in Islam and so both religions fall on that one point alone – bet the RC’s are really missing her apologetically ‘solid’ skills.

Having had such a smear aimed at Jesus and seeing the Bible effective pulled down it might be understandable to lash out, but of course it is still unacceptable (but I do it too - I'm still a fallen creature). But this case raises, for me at least, some questions that need answering.

If, as it seems by virtue of the fact that the case was dismissed, Ms Tazi did engage in telling untruths then surely this is a prima face case of perjury whilst within the court and wasting police time and the (costly) time of the DPP (and both need to examine the reasons they brought this case). Surely, if Ms Tazi did appear dressed in Hijab and 'ranting and abusing the owners and their faith' then she is now herself open to a caution at least and perhaps prosecution for inciting religious hatred and breaches of the self same legal instruments the Vogelenzangs were?

So, for the best part of a year (that's what nine months are) this couple have suffered mentally, financially (as it affected business) and I have no doubt in many other ways and yet what will be learned from this sad and sorry episode? I have to sad that I think the answer is 'probably nothing'.

In dialogue and discussion our views will be challenged and at time they, and us, will be insulted too! This is part of life and to legislate such that to have one's views challenged or even pooh-poohed is to live in the real world. It cannot be legislated against for to do so is to remove the freedom of thought and speech that is the right of every person. Engaging in such dialogue means that regardless of what transpires (unless it's a threat with menaces or a Des O'Connor album) you engage and at some stage walk away -angry perhaps, possibly wounded, probably offended, but this is the price we pay for freedom of speech - we won't always like what we hear (or say when we reflect later) but it is the stuff that being 'grown-up' is made of. 

I pray that all of those involved in this can now return to a place of peace and thank God for what appears to be a right and proper outcome.