This article appears in today's Leicester Mercury (but not on its website):
Three deny charge over hut protest
Three men have appeared in court over offences alleged to have taken place during protests against Muslim group As Salaam using a former scout hut in Thurnby Lodge.for prayers.
Since the summer, people have been holding regular demonstrations outside Thurnby Lodge Community Centre in Thurncourt Road, Leicester, opposing plans to let Muslim group As Salaam take over the nearby hut.
The demonstrations were heavily policed, and protesters were kept 100 metres away from the community centre, where As Salaam members held prayers.
On December 14, three men who all live on the Thurnby Lodge Estate - James Ellliott, Jeffrey Copeland and Lee Murren - were allged to have breached the order.
They appeared in Leicester Magistrates' Court yesterday, where all three pleaded not guilty to knowingly failing to comply with a condition imposed by a senior police officer under section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986.
The case was adjourned until April, when a two-day trial is due to take place.
Elliott (20) of Rona Gardens, Copeland (37), of Thurncourt Road, and Murren (47), of Lyminton Road, were released, were released on conditional bail.
Harry Perry has written the First Person column in today's Leicester Mercury (which is not on the website):
Koran case shows flaw in the legislation
Secularist Harry Perry calls for the removal of the word "insulting" from part of the Public Order Act
Tearing
up a holy book is not an effective way to take issue with religion but the
right to free expression valued by jury members is so fundamental to our way of
life that it must be protected even when its exercise involves bad taste or
insult.
A
criminal prosecution was recently brought by Leicester’s Crown Prosecution
Service (CPS) against a man who publicly demonstrated his opposition to
religion by ripping up a Koran in public and throwing it to the ground.The
case ended with a hung jury and a decision by the CPS not to pursue it
further. The failure of the jury to reach a verdict reveals a
problem with the law.
Many
religions take it on themselves to seek to persuade people of other religions
or of no religion to convert. Dire consequences of failing to
believe in this or that god are often cited in these attempts. Likewise,
atheists sometimes seek to expose the fallacies in religion, hoping to persuade
people to give it up. They can all do this because what they are
seeking to change is a matter of personal conviction. With race,
gender, sexual orientation or disability the position is completely
different. You cannot persuade someone to change these
characteristics.
The
legislation that rightly protects people in these categories from being
harassed and abused or put in fear of their life on account of their
characteristics has been developed over recent decades. But the
addition of protection on grounds of religion more recently has brought with it
a threat to the right of free speech because the police and the CPS have not
got clear in their minds the qualitative difference involved. It is
because of this that a broad coalition, including religious opinion, is
currently trying to get Parliament to remove the word “insulting” from Section
5 of the Public Order Act as it has been used by the police in several
instances to silence critics of one or other persuasion.
There
is no special protection from insult or abuse on matters like politics,
vegetarianism, astrology, homeopathy, and so on, beyond that which ordinary
citizens expect purely in virtue of being a citizen.
The same should
apply to religious belief and non-belief.
Leicester
Secular Society is a “Freethought” organisation dedicated to the idea that the
best way to change people’s convictions is through the rational debate of
available evidence. People in Leicester who wish to show their
disagreement with others’ beliefs should normally do so in a calm and reasoned
way, showing respect for persons even when condemning or lampooning their ideas
or station. This is common courtesy and politeness, after all, and
exemplifies the kind of city and country that most of us would like our
children and grandchildren to inherit from us.
But
by the same token, those whose beliefs are challenged, even when done
discourteously, would be best advised to ‘turn the other cheek’ rather than
calling for prosecutions.
Harry Perry, Leicester Secular Society
Marches: the sufferers were the city's residents
Sir Peter Soulsby is wrong to hail Saturday and the handling of the EDL/UAF marches as a success ("A job well done", Mercury, February 6).
Of course, I am pleased that there were no arrests.
However the crux of the matter is what the Leicester Mercury correctly identified in the same article: "…traders said their takings would be hit hard as many shoppers stayed away".
The reality is, despite talk of business as usual, most people chose to stay away from the city centre.
Leicester's residents should have the right and freedom to earn a living go shopping and go about their usual business on a Saturday.
The city's people should not suffer a loss of income and/or feel too frightened to go to the city centre because of misguided claims about the EDL's freedom of expression.
If the EDL threaten to come to Leicester again, I urge the Mayor to stand up for the people that voted for him and ban a march from taking place and instruct the police to impose a restriction on the whole of the city of Leicester that prevents any static assembly by the EDL.
This is possible under the Public Order Act.
Sabby Dhalu, (Unite Against Fascism joint secretary and former resident of Leicester), London
