The Bounty House Hotel, Liverpool is a small boutique hotel with a swimming pool (pictured above) and a sauna. No, this is not an advertisement because I've never stayed there, never even heard of the place until today, but I do know it's owned by a couple called Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang who are practising Christians.
The Vogelenzangs have been charged with breaching Section 5 of the Public Order Act - causing harassment, alarm or distress. If convicted they face fines of £2,500 each and a criminal record.
Merseyside Police can confirm that Benjamin Vogelenzang and Sharon Vogelenzang were charged with a religiously-aggravated public order offence on 29 July 2009.
It appears the hotel owners had a conversation with a Muslim woman who was a guest in their hotel. It is understood that among the topics debated was whether Jesus was a minor prophet, as Islam teaches, or whether he was the Son of God, as Christianity teaches.
Among the things Mr Vogelenzang, 53, is alleged to have said is that Mohammad was a warlord. His wife, 54, is said to have stated that Muslim dress is a form of bondage for women.
The conversation, on March 20, was reported by the woman to Merseyside Police and the couple were interviewed over the incident. Three months later they were interrogated again before being charged and they appeared in court on 14 August and are now awaiting trial.
Was the woman physically injured? Was her life put at risk?
What a country we have become when police and the judiciary system spend time and taxpayers' money on this politically correct nonsense.
Be warned - don't dare discuss Islam. In fact play it really safe and don't discuss religion.
Source: Telegraph
Posts
31 comments:
Complete Nuts
If it is true as written in the Telegraph, how can anyone who is not religious actually have a discussion, exchange of views, argument without the Plod turning up and saying that any non muslim's position is offensive and thus a religiously-aggravated public order offence?
Complete Nuts.
assume that this law applies only to England and Wales but how does the Scottish "Breach of the peace" stack up here "legal Beagles" please.
"Merseyside Police can confirm that Benjamin Vogelenzang and Sharon Vogelenzang, both of Fazakerley, were charged with a religiously-aggravated public order offence on 29 July 2009. This follows an incident on 20 March 2009."
Do you think they'd bother if there wasn't something in this story? I think it would be prudent to hear both sides of the story. Why don't you attend the trial and report back?
What an inane post from Chris Brind.
The two "hoteliers" were charged with a religiously-aggravated public order offence on 29 July 2009 so there must be something in it? It does not follow that because there is smoke there is fire, especially where the Police and the CPS are concerned. They are all PC box tickers these days.
As for for going down to Liverpool to the trial to report back rather than waiting for the report from the Press? I will be reported anyway.
As I said, inane.
Having had a number of visits from evangelical Christians (looking to save my soul) over the last 12 months.
I would point out they can be very persistent and difficult to get rid of.
Although i am never rude or aggressive to them(perhaps thats why they come back) and always tell them i am not very religious and wish them well but....
they have sometimes turned up(at different times) with disabled teenagers two were blind and one was hearing and speech impaired.
who were the actual ones who knocked on my door and to whom i very politely explained to them and the individuals they were with i was not religious...very nicely and very polite.
inside i was seething like a volcano that these people would use vulnerable children to promote their religious(christian) views.
you can get both Muslim and christian with rigid attitudes put both in the same room you will probably get an argument.
bit like a nationalist and a Unionist
Hold on a minute are we not getting a bit carried away here without knowing the facts?
I know there is a popular notion that this is a politically correct lala land but no Polis I know let alone Fiscals would charge someone for nothing. I can't imagine the English situation is that different.
What happened here? This woman was a guest - presumably paying - who ended up being told that her dress was a form of bondage, amongst other things. Now as presumably she isn't a punk rocker that is a tad insulting.
If I went into a muslim business like any of the various shops, restaurants, etc round here and they told me that I was a whore for my style of dress I would be bloody raging. Of course that has never happened to me.
We should not assume that this charge has been brought because they are Christians and she is a Muslim.
It is quite possible that they shoved their religion down this lady's throat insulting her in the process. If it was upsetting enough then they probably do deserve a charge - especially as she was a guest.
If you are right Obs the answer is leave and never come back, not to go to the Police and cry religiously aggravated offence.
We shall see if and when it ever comes to court but 2 to 1, if their stories are diametrically opposite would make it impossible to prove.
AS someone who would most likely be reported by the hoteliers because of my religious intolerance I find the whole episode bizarre.
I have never heard of anyone from a Glee Club or the Sally Army or the RC Church complaining of being offended by differing views.
Quite bizarre but, equally as bizarre is the Mother who was charged with spanking her 14 year old drugged up daughter who had just headbutted and stabbed her with scissors. the Sherriff found the assault charged proved, discharged her and expressed disbelief that that the charge had been brought.
On a lighter note I wouldn't ,mind to see you dressed up or down as a whore. Fat chance eh?
Faux Cu, I'm sure if the reporting in the Telegraph was inaccurate, the Muslim woman involved would have had them to court by now.
Chris, I there are many more important issues in this country than this and I have no intention of trotting down to Liverpool to hear this case. Why don't you attend as you appear to have an interest?
Well said Niko. I congratulate you for your balanced comment. There's always two sides to every story.
The Muslim woman must have had witnesses I'm sure.
So let's leave it to the courts to decide while Liverpudlians smash ten bells out of each other because knives, bottles, drink and drug crimes are less important.
Ahem Observer, I have to disagree. I'm not going to state why here but I'd be happy to explain my point by email.
I don't know anything about the conversation but there was one. It's so easy to bring up your opinions in company but in business it's not a good idea.
Ho Ho Ho.
Maybe for Christmas, that's the Winter Saturnalia to folks like us.
I don't think there should be a religiously aggravated anything to be honest. I read the Telegraph and it appears that the issues were only raised when the lady concerned appeared in Muslim dress.
So I think there is a suspicion that the hoteliers started it, but maybe the woman reacted, who knows.
I just think it's a bizarre idea that Christians are under attack when the Queen defends their faith and their clergy get a seat in the House of Lords.
It just sounds like a barny to me, although I don't think it's a good idea for hoteliers to get into a barny with their guests and that's possibly why the Police acted.
But no doubt we will see as the Christian Institute are backing the hoteliers case so no doubt there will be further coverage.
We might all be wrong.
Faux Cu, what can I say to that?
Sorry subrosa my post crossed with yours.
I agree with you in many of your points Observer.
As some of us will realise that committed Christian friends can overdo their 'enthusiasm' to the point that the less religious find it amusing or irritating.
My point with this post is the money spent on a jury court trial - a possible £1m - then of course there are all the expenses.
This is going on in an area which has serious unemployment and has had social problems throughout my lifetime.
Police appear to have lost their sense of values. Is it because this is a good 'box tick' case?
I'm certainly not inferring that, it was just a thought.
Nurse threatened with dismissal for wearing a crucifix:
http://tinyurl.com/kqy376
I'm an evangelistic atheist and would probably have been burnt at the stake in the seventeenth century...exept I probably wouldn't have been an atheist then.
I'm an atheist because I can be, in this present age and time.
Free speech is saying "I think your religion is ridiculous" without being burnt for it.
With you completely Conan - although I like to self refer with the description 'anti-theist'. Whatever the truth is in this case Subrosa, it is an argument over belief in fictional supernatural characters, when there are so many real issues to debate, why bother? Drop the case and leave the fantasists to fight amongst themselves over what amounts to nothing other than over active imagination...
Many thanks for the link scunnert. Where does it end.
I'm with you Conan, although I suspect I would have been a dour presbyterian as per my immediate ancestors. All hell and damnation of course.
Yoohoo Polaris, that's my point.
What on earth are police getting so involved in this and the expensive legal system I don't know.
Perhaps there's something we don't know but I have a feeling it will be one of these results which is classed as a waste of police time and taxpayers money.
It is bad manners to discuss religion with people you do not know, and insulting to lecture guests if you run a hostelry or "boutique" hotel, whatever that is.
This is not about religion anyway, it is about some very malicious woman who has is so hate-filled about Christians and life in general that she has used the law to break a butterfly on the wrack and win an argument.
It is state-encouraged playground rage.
It is now very clear that we speak to close friends in an entirely different way than in public. We must all now be very careful what we say. We may be politically incorrect in private life, but in public at least we risk arrest for thinking aloud.
Much of what I say to my nearest and dearest would get me either sacked or arrested or both.
This dislocation of public and private thinking is very dangerous. It is bad news for people who are borderline Aspergers, who cannot decipher the subtleties of speech and intention. It is bad news for young people who will, no doubt, be confused by the hypocritical nature of society.
It is confusing that Philip Pullman can blaspheme with impugnity, but you cannot wear a crucifix to work (if Jesus had been born in the 20th Century, would Christians be wearing little Electric Chairs?) It is confusing that Muslims can incite death or jeer our soldiers, but peaceful demonstrations against them are somehow labelled as "right wing extremism"
Be in no doubt, we are being sold a very big lie that will form the building block of more opression, less freedom and the dilution of creative endeavor.
Rosa
Other peoples religious beliefs can be a source of much grief
Just last week I had a guy on my door step who was akin to something like a cross between a mormon and a hells angel --- he actually knocked on my door and told me to FCUK OFF ! LOL
Wrinkled Weasel wrote "
Be in no doubt, we are being sold a very big lie ... "
Indeed, and the name of that lie is organised religion.
My understanding of this would be that it is inappropriate to bring religion, views on peoples lifestyles etc into the contract between guest and proprietor when agreeing to stay in a hotel. I get the impression that these people would probably have liked to tell this lady to go elsewhere. And what would happen if a gay couple wanted to book a room in their hotel. Would it be ok for them to tell them that their entire lifestyle was an affront to God? The law is there to stop these sorts of people telling gays, coloured people, Muslims etc to go elsewhere because they are different. And because they are obliged to have them on their premises that does not give them any rights to issue a party political broadcast on behalf of their way of life. I can imagine how difficult that would be to fend off if you are staying under these peoples roof and have nowhere else to go at short notice or if money has changed hands up front.
It is indeed WW, but we don't know the circumstances here. The woman could well be a 'regular' and therefore on more friendly terms with these people which left them feeling any conversations were more personal than just everyday chitchat.
But you're right, it's not about religion at all.
Haven't we been going down this road for a few years now and hoping the road would end in a cul-de-sac? Well it doesn't so we have to waken up to the fact that our society has changed beyond all recognition in the last 25 years.
Free speech? Not these days.
I hope you told him you were tickled pink with his contribution to your life BD! That would have tickled me.
Edgar, how else are the masses controlled? It's been proven religion is a very effective tool.
What worries governments are those of us who refuse to conform and there are more and more of us thankfully.
Monty, I cannot think of a situation in which hotel owners or managers would discuss religion or even politics. These are taboos in business as most of us know.
All I can surmise from this is that the couple use the hotel to further their religious beliefs and in that case, they should forewarn any guests the hotel is based on Christian principles. That's not against the law, in fact there was one in Dunkeld for years which did exactly that (it had the sign of the fish outside).
It has now been sold and is a standard business but I can't remember the fact it openly displayed it was a Christian business causing problems. People knew what it was and made the choice to visit or not.
There is no obligation by a hotel to permit anyone even entry to their establishment. That choice is the decision of the management.
Saying that, these days usually contracts are made prior to guests' visits and the contracts are binding. ie if I booked a room for two nights and had the confirmation via email or text, then the hotel has to honour my booking. These days most also want a credit card number which ensures the business you're a bona fida customer.
This couple show a real ignorance of the hospitality business when they allowed discussion of religion in their conversation with this woman.
As for the woman, I'm with Wrinkled Weasel on this one.
SR,a few points:
As was said, did the Muslim woman suffer physical injury, financial loss? So her 'feelings' were hurt - so what. Does that mean that everytime someone's feelings are hurt we can sue? For heavens sake, can we all 'get a life'?
Also, beyond dispute is the fact she was a guest - so bloody well find another hotel then! She had the choice of stay or move - so don't stay and then cry 'wolf'!
Don't anyone dare to say that all the facts have not been revealed here - or you'll simply be accused of being inane. (That comment in itself is inane, I wonder if you know what it means?)
Isn't there some level of proof required before a conviction can take place? Does that not mean there will be witnesses? And surely the hoteliers will ask for a trial by jury, in which case they are likely to be favoured anyway since the chances are the majority of the jury are likely to be Christian.
I dare say that if the 'Christians' had got the upper hand in this situation you'd all be praising what happened or this blog post would never have been written.
Seems to me that majority of commenters here suffer from a bit of religious hatred themselves.
At I'll admit it, I hate religion, period.
Post a Comment