Shootings in Paris

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7353643/Philosophy-tutor-in-court-for-leaving-anti-religious-cartoons-in-John-Lennon-airport.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religio ... rport.html</a>

Philosophy tutor in court for leaving anti-religious cartoons in John Lennon airport

The materials dumped by Harry Taylor at Liverpool's John Lennon airport included "sexually abusive and sexually unpleasant cartoons", a jury heard yesterday.

One image showed a smiling Christ on the cross next to an advert for a brand of "no nails" glue. In another, Islamic suicide bombers at the gates of paradise are told: " Stop, stop, we've run out of virgins."

A further cartoon showed two Muslims holding a placard demanding equality with the caption: "Not for women or gays, obviously."

Mr Taylor, 59, a self-styled philosophy tutor, denied bearing a grudge against people of faith and said he was only trying to "convert" believers to atheism.

Liverpool Crown Court heard that he left the materials in John Lennon airport as a tribute to the former Beatle, whose most acclaimed solo work Imagine referenced "a world with no religion".

He said: "The airport is named after John Lennon and his views on religion were pretty much the same as mine. I thought that it was an insult to his memory to have a prayer room in the airport."

The leaflets were discovered by Nicky Lees, the airport chaplain, who told the court she felt "deeply offended and insulted" by their contents.

Outlining the case against Mr Taylor, prosecutor Neville Biddle said that he had gone beyond freedom of expression by leaving the "insulting, threatening and abusive" images in a room used for worship.

He said: "Of course people have a right to speak freely and have a right to insult people. It is one of the most important rights we have and it must be jealously guarded.

"But it is a right not without some prescription. Mr Taylor exceeded that right."

Addressing the jury he continued: "Your decision will not be easy. You are the conscience of society and you must decide what you are prepared to put up with and what goes beyond reasonable bounds. You are twelve tolerant reasonable British people who know what freedom of speech is all about."

The defendant from Salford, Greater Manchester is charged with three counts of religiously aggravated harassment, alarm or distress under the Crime and Disorder Act. The alleged offences took place on separate dates in November and December 2008.

Mr Taylor denied the charges and said it was "preposterous" to suggest that people could be incited to violence by the cartoons. He said: "I am not hostile to religious people but I am hostile to religion."

He told the court that he adapted cartoons cut out of newspaper and magazines like Private Eye and added captions of his own.

The images shown to the jury included a drawing of the Pope with a condom on his finger, and a picture of a woman kneeling in front of a Catholic priest captioned with a crude pun. In another image sausages were were labelled as "The Koran".

The trial continues.

----------------------

He only produced cartoons mocking religion but funny he was found guilty by a judge and jury right here in the UK.....

On 4 March 2010, a jury returned a verdict of guilty against Harry Taylor, who was charged under Part 4A of the Public Order Act 1986.

Taylor was charged because he left anti-religious cartoons in the prayer-room of Liverpool's John Lennon Airport on three occasions in 2008.

The airport chaplain, who was insulted, offended, and alarmed by the cartoons, called the police.

On 23 April 2010, Judge Charles James of Liverpool Crown Court sentenced Taylor to a six-month term of imprisonment suspended for two years, made him subject to a five-year Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO) (which bans him from carrying religiously offensive material in a public place), ordered him to perform 100 hours of unpaid work, and ordered him to pay £250 costs.

Taylor was also convicted of similar offences in 2006.
 
Not going to quote all that but Ardswick I fail to see your point. Firstly this was in England, secondly the man was not blown to bits, thirdly this man is atheist and this is pretty much his beliefs he's expressing and finally do you not agree that this man receiving a sentence for what I think are hilarious posters (I'm catholic and laughed my bollocks off at Jesus beside no more nails advert) is nonsense, considering all the scum and paedos free out on the streets is it not silly to punish (or kill) this man for that.
 
mancityvstoke said:
THINK..........!!!!!!
What do you spend a great deal of your life watching, supporting, commenting on, spending time with, worshipping, adoring, analysing, giving money to, encouraging others to do........it could well be classed as a religion to many.

The Religon Utd fans call it

But is City a religion? Many of us worship on a regular basis and treat it as the main force in our lives, but a major part of Christianity, Islam and Judaism is believing in god and the works of various prophets. The existence of god has never been proven other than to the gullible and much of the story telling was the sort of stuff lapped up eagerly by ignorant, illiterate, superstitious, biblical-era peasants. Consequently there has to be a huge dollop of faith in their belief. And as was pointed out in The Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy: proof denies faith.
On the other hand City exist, and while watching for three decades might have demanded faith, it was faith in a wobbly collection of muppets (players, coaching staff and directors) rather than faith in an all-powerful being that seemed to lose much of his power to perform miracles once history could be recorded reliably.
However, it makes more sense to believe in something that exists rather than a collection of fairy tales designed to keep the stupid in check.
 
Wio Gumflapdinand said:
Not going to quote all that but Ardswick I fail to see your point. Firstly this was in England, secondly the man was not blown to bits, thirdly this man is atheist and this is pretty much his beliefs he's expressing and finally do you not agree that this man receiving a sentence for what I think are hilarious posters (I'm catholic and laughed my bollocks off at Jesus beside no more nails advert) is nonsense, considering all the scum and paedos free out on the streets is it not silly to punish (or kill) this man for that.

If you fail to see the connection then there is no point in me even bothering.

Just because you are Catholic doesn't mean you are the offence barometer for all Catholics, he set out to be offensive and provoke hate.

If he is attacking Catholicism for hypocrisy over their views on homosexuality, abuse claims etc. he shouldn't attack the religion itself, he should attack the perpetrators of the abuse (who in part have obviously positioned themselves within the religion to get access to children to abuse), he should also consider attacking the Men who administer the religion and the mechanism that fights tooth and nail to protect these individuals from being brought to justice. Not just Catholicism in general, that would be lazy, wrong and insulting to all of the good Catholics who are about as guilty of the crimes as me and you are.

He is expressing his belief but he is forcing that belief on others in a provocative way to incite hatred (that's why he was charged and found guilty by a UK judge and jury, just as he was in 2006!.) He has a history of doing it, do you think he was just a WUM?.

I would also add any fundamentalist being provocative and inciting offence, should and no doubt will be dealt with by the legal system in the UK. It matters not what they use to rationalise their behaviour. Anybody who commits paedophelia, murder or racial and religious hatred should all be dealt with regardless of their warped reasoning for doing so.

I posted the article in response to people who were stating you can say what you like about religion without any consequence in the UK. I'm sure you would agree the article proves otherwise. Instances like this will only fuel more change to existing laws as the government seeks to tighten up the law to protect others in a unprecedented scenario. This will happen until we all just get along and be nice to each other. I'd rather we just got on with it rather than more crimes, more hate and more anger.
 
ArdwickBlue said:
Wio Gumflapdinand said:
Not going to quote all that but Ardswick I fail to see your point. Firstly this was in England, secondly the man was not blown to bits, thirdly this man is atheist and this is pretty much his beliefs he's expressing and finally do you not agree that this man receiving a sentence for what I think are hilarious posters (I'm catholic and laughed my bollocks off at Jesus beside no more nails advert) is nonsense, considering all the scum and paedos free out on the streets is it not silly to punish (or kill) this man for that.

If you fail to see the connection then there is no point in me even bothering.

Just because you are Catholic doesn't mean you are the offence barometer for all Catholics, he set out to be offensive and provoke hate.

If he is attacking Catholicism for hypocrisy over their views on homosexuality, abuse claims etc. he shouldn't attack the religion itself, he should attack the perpetrators of the abuse (who in part have obviously positioned themselves within the religion to get access to children to abuse), he should also consider attacking the Men who administer the religion and the mechanism that fights tooth and nail to protect these individuals from being brought to justice. Not just Catholicism in general, that would be lazy, wrong and insulting to all of the good Catholics who are about as guilty of the crimes as me and you are.

He is expressing his belief but he is forcing that belief on others in a provocative way to incite hatred (that's why he was charged and found guilty by a UK judge and jury, just as he was in 2006!.) He has a history of doing it, do you think he was just a WUM?.

I would also add any fundamentalist being provocative and inciting offence, should and no doubt will be dealt with by the legal system in the UK. It matters not what they use to rationalise their behaviour. Anybody who commits paedophelia, murder or racial and religious hatred should all be dealt with regardless of their warped reasoning for doing so.

I posted the article in response to people who were stating you can say what you like about religion without any consequence in the UK. I'm sure you would agree the article proves otherwise. Instances like this will only fuel more change to existing laws as the government seeks to tighten up the law to protect others in a unprecedented scenario. This will happen until we all just get along and be nice to each other. I'd rather we just got on with it rather than more crimes, more hate and more anger.
Ok, last time I was over in London I walked down a street where multiple Muslim men were handing out leaflets that where quite offences to anyone who is in or has a loved one within the British armed forces...should we lock them up (shoot them) or where do we draw the line
 
Wio Gumflapdinand said:
ArdwickBlue said:
Wio Gumflapdinand said:
Not going to quote all that but Ardswick I fail to see your point. Firstly this was in England, secondly the man was not blown to bits, thirdly this man is atheist and this is pretty much his beliefs he's expressing and finally do you not agree that this man receiving a sentence for what I think are hilarious posters (I'm catholic and laughed my bollocks off at Jesus beside no more nails advert) is nonsense, considering all the scum and paedos free out on the streets is it not silly to punish (or kill) this man for that.

If you fail to see the connection then there is no point in me even bothering.

Just because you are Catholic doesn't mean you are the offence barometer for all Catholics, he set out to be offensive and provoke hate.

If he is attacking Catholicism for hypocrisy over their views on homosexuality, abuse claims etc. he shouldn't attack the religion itself, he should attack the perpetrators of the abuse (who in part have obviously positioned themselves within the religion to get access to children to abuse), he should also consider attacking the Men who administer the religion and the mechanism that fights tooth and nail to protect these individuals from being brought to justice. Not just Catholicism in general, that would be lazy, wrong and insulting to all of the good Catholics who are about as guilty of the crimes as me and you are.

He is expressing his belief but he is forcing that belief on others in a provocative way to incite hatred (that's why he was charged and found guilty by a UK judge and jury, just as he was in 2006!.) He has a history of doing it, do you think he was just a WUM?.

I would also add any fundamentalist being provocative and inciting offence, should and no doubt will be dealt with by the legal system in the UK. It matters not what they use to rationalise their behaviour. Anybody who commits paedophelia, murder or racial and religious hatred should all be dealt with regardless of their warped reasoning for doing so.

I posted the article in response to people who were stating you can say what you like about religion without any consequence in the UK. I'm sure you would agree the article proves otherwise. Instances like this will only fuel more change to existing laws as the government seeks to tighten up the law to protect others in a unprecedented scenario. This will happen until we all just get along and be nice to each other. I'd rather we just got on with it rather than more crimes, more hate and more anger.
Ok, last time I was over in London I walked down a street where multiple Muslim men were handing out leaflets that where quite offences to anyone who is in or has a loved one within the British armed forces...should we lock them up (shoot them) or where do we draw the line

ArdwickBlue said:
I would also add any fundamentalist being provocative and inciting offence, should and no doubt will be dealt with by the legal system in the UK. It matters not what they use to rationalise their behaviour. Anybody who commits paedophelia, murder or racial and religious hatred should all be dealt with regardless of their warped reasoning for doing so.

ArdwickBlue said:
This will happen until we all just get along and be nice to each other. I'd rather we just got on with it rather than more crimes, more hate and more anger.
 
mancityvstoke said:
ArdwickBlue said:
mancityvstoke said:
Oh but we already do mate................

I don't understand your point mate!
THINK..........!!!!!!

What do you spend a great deal of your life watching, supporting, commenting on, spending time with, worshipping, adoring, analysing, giving money to, encouraging others to do........it could well be classed as a religion to many.


The Religon Utd fans call it

Rag.
 
so you reckon the muslim copper wasn't shot in the head?

maybe then he was actually part of the murder crew that murdered every other innocent civilian?

but he really got shot by one of the good guys instead?

conspiracy
 
Wio Gumflapdinand said:
ArdwickBlue said:
Wio Gumflapdinand said:
Not going to quote all that but Ardswick I fail to see your point. Firstly this was in England, secondly the man was not blown to bits, thirdly this man is atheist and this is pretty much his beliefs he's expressing and finally do you not agree that this man receiving a sentence for what I think are hilarious posters (I'm catholic and laughed my bollocks off at Jesus beside no more nails advert) is nonsense, considering all the scum and paedos free out on the streets is it not silly to punish (or kill) this man for that.

If you fail to see the connection then there is no point in me even bothering.

Just because you are Catholic doesn't mean you are the offence barometer for all Catholics, he set out to be offensive and provoke hate.

If he is attacking Catholicism for hypocrisy over their views on homosexuality, abuse claims etc. he shouldn't attack the religion itself, he should attack the perpetrators of the abuse (who in part have obviously positioned themselves within the religion to get access to children to abuse), he should also consider attacking the Men who administer the religion and the mechanism that fights tooth and nail to protect these individuals from being brought to justice. Not just Catholicism in general, that would be lazy, wrong and insulting to all of the good Catholics who are about as guilty of the crimes as me and you are.

He is expressing his belief but he is forcing that belief on others in a provocative way to incite hatred (that's why he was charged and found guilty by a UK judge and jury, just as he was in 2006!.) He has a history of doing it, do you think he was just a WUM?.

I would also add any fundamentalist being provocative and inciting offence, should and no doubt will be dealt with by the legal system in the UK. It matters not what they use to rationalise their behaviour. Anybody who commits paedophelia, murder or racial and religious hatred should all be dealt with regardless of their warped reasoning for doing so.

I posted the article in response to people who were stating you can say what you like about religion without any consequence in the UK. I'm sure you would agree the article proves otherwise. Instances like this will only fuel more change to existing laws as the government seeks to tighten up the law to protect others in a unprecedented scenario. This will happen until we all just get along and be nice to each other. I'd rather we just got on with it rather than more crimes, more hate and more anger.
Ok, last time I was over in London I walked down a street where multiple Muslim men were handing out leaflets that where quite offences to anyone who is in or has a loved one within the British armed forces...should we lock them up (shoot them) or where do we draw the line

Lock them up then shoot them. Or stone them to death.
 
W12 said:
Wio Gumflapdinand said:
ArdwickBlue said:
If you fail to see the connection then there is no point in me even bothering.

Just because you are Catholic doesn't mean you are the offence barometer for all Catholics, he set out to be offensive and provoke hate.

If he is attacking Catholicism for hypocrisy over their views on homosexuality, abuse claims etc. he shouldn't attack the religion itself, he should attack the perpetrators of the abuse (who in part have obviously positioned themselves within the religion to get access to children to abuse), he should also consider attacking the Men who administer the religion and the mechanism that fights tooth and nail to protect these individuals from being brought to justice. Not just Catholicism in general, that would be lazy, wrong and insulting to all of the good Catholics who are about as guilty of the crimes as me and you are.

He is expressing his belief but he is forcing that belief on others in a provocative way to incite hatred (that's why he was charged and found guilty by a UK judge and jury, just as he was in 2006!.) He has a history of doing it, do you think he was just a WUM?.

I would also add any fundamentalist being provocative and inciting offence, should and no doubt will be dealt with by the legal system in the UK. It matters not what they use to rationalise their behaviour. Anybody who commits paedophelia, murder or racial and religious hatred should all be dealt with regardless of their warped reasoning for doing so.

I posted the article in response to people who were stating you can say what you like about religion without any consequence in the UK. I'm sure you would agree the article proves otherwise. Instances like this will only fuel more change to existing laws as the government seeks to tighten up the law to protect others in a unprecedented scenario. This will happen until we all just get along and be nice to each other. I'd rather we just got on with it rather than more crimes, more hate and more anger.
Ok, last time I was over in London I walked down a street where multiple Muslim men were handing out leaflets that where quite offences to anyone who is in or has a loved one within the British armed forces...should we lock them up (shoot them) or where do we draw the line

Lock them up then shoot them. Or stone them to death.

tumblr_mklcee1tCM1qkrrjoo1_500.gif
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.