BHA: Sign calling religions ‘fairy stories’ is deemed potentially offensive
Thursday, 21 June 2012
An elderly man who has put up a sign in his window stating that ‘Religions are fairy stories for adults’ has received a warning from Lincolnshire Police. John Richards was told that his sign might contravene the Public Order Act 1986, which dictates that it is an offence to display signs that are threatening, abusive or insulting, and could cause distress. If the police received any complaints, Richards would be asked to take it down. The British Humanist Association (BHA) believes that the action of the police in this case was totally unnecessary, and demonstrates the ineffectiveness of the current law.
The Public Order Act has come under fire recently, with calls for reform to a law that doesn’t make ‘insulting words or behaviour’ an offence. A number of cases have been highlighted where the law has been invoked in ridiculous circumstances, including against a 16-year-old protester holding a placard that called Scientology ‘a dangerous cult’ and members of the LGBT group Outrage! who were shouting slogans and displaying placards that condemned the persecution of LGBT people by Islamic governments.
A statement issued by Lincolnshire Police regarding the implementation of the Public Order Act said that it was ‘balanced with a right to free speech and the key point is that the offence is committed if it is deemed that a reasonable person would find the content insulting.’
Commenting on the story, BHA Head of Public Affairs, Pavan Dhaliwal, said:
‘It seems extremely unlikely that any “reasonable person” would find Richards’ sign offensive, whether they agreed with it or not. The police’s intervention in the matter shows how subjective the law is, and how it has the real potential to stifle free speech. Everybody is familiar with large signs in front of places of worship, professing a religion’s belief in the existence of a god or gods; Richards’ sign does not seem to be substantially different from these.
‘The BHA strongly believes that people should have the ability to criticise religion without facing legal consequences.’
The story from the Boston Standard
The Public Order Act 1986
Disclaimer: Press releases published on this page are from key opinion formers
who promote their organisation's activities by subscribing to a campaign site within
politics.co.uk. politics.co.uk does not endorse, edit, or attempt to balance the
opinions expressed on this page. The content of press releases are wholly the responsibility
of the originating company or organisation.
The British response to the anti-Islamic film 'Innocence of Muslims' will ratchet up a gear this weekend, when thousands of demonstrators are expected to protest outside parliament.
Why is it reasonable for taxpayers, through gift aid, to subsidise attempts to convert them to beliefs which they might regard as immoral or obnoxious?
Campaigners are demanding the government scrap a clause banning "insulting words and behaviour" from the Public Order Act.
Questions were being asked about the effectiveness of Labour's laws against extreme porn today, after the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) lost a case against a former barrister.
First the Twitter joke trial, then the obscenity trial and now the porn trial. It is clear there is something seriously wrong at the Crown Prosecution Service.
In light of the protests across the Muslim world against videos and cartoons mocking the prophet Mohammed and calls for tighter rules against offensive material, is free speech under threat?
Protesters were warned to stay away from Margaret Thatcher's funeral procession on Wednesday or face being arrested under a controversial law outlawing "alarm, harassment or distress".
Full guidance on how authorities should treat offensive comments on Twitter is on the way, after the director of public prosecutors gave up on the current system.
There were concerns over heavy-handed police tactics today, after they swept in to arrest a 17-year-old boy suspected of tweeting abuse at British diver Tom Daley.
Despite the protests of a 'gay reparative therapy' group, TfL's decision not to put up their posters is not an infringement of their freedom of speech.