Christian preacher on hooligan charge after saying he believes that homosexualit

[Shana A]

Christian preacher on hooligan charge after saying he believes that homosexuality is a sin

Last updated at 11:59 PM on 1st May 2010

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1270364/Christian-preacher-hooligan-charge-saying-believes-homosexuality-sin.html

A Christian street preacher has been arrested and charged with a public-order offence after saying that homosexuality was sinful.

Dale Mcalpine was handing out leaflets to shoppers when he told a passer-by and a gay police community support officer that, as a Christian, he believed homosexuality was one of a number of sins that go against the word of God.

Mr Mcalpine said that he did not repeat his remarks on homosexuality when he preached from the top of a stepladder after his leafleting.

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

Cops arrest preacher
over Christian beliefs

Sun, 2 May 2010

http://www.christian.org.uk/news/cops-arrest-preacher-over-christian-beliefs/

A Christian street preacher in Cumbria has been arrested and charged with a crime after he expressed his religious beliefs about homosexual conduct.

Dale Mcalpine, of Workington in Cumbria, appeared before local magistrates on Friday and pleaded not guilty to breaching section 5 of the Public Order Act.

Mr Mcalpine is being supported by The Christian Institute, a leading national defender of Christian religious liberty.

[Britney_413]

That's the UK for you. I've always been a staunch advocate for free speech even if I totally disagree with what they are saying. Someone has the right to tell me off for being trans as long as they aren't harrassing or threatening me. I also have just as much right to tell them off about something I don't like that they are doing. It's called freedom. A lot of countries have banned "hate speech" where someone may be arrested for declaring that "the Holocaust was a hoax." The problem with this is that when you decide what speech is legal and what is considered "hateful" it is a slippery slope that will likely get worse.

People should have the right to share their opinions as long as they aren't disturbing the peace, harrassing, threatening, or committing violence. That is a protected right in the U.S. Constitution. Sadly some countries feel that "the right not to be offended" trumps the right to free speech. I disagree.

[LordKAT]

Examples please?

What if I said it was hateful to be called Christian or an insult to be called ...human?  What if that defined it as 'hate speech'? Then anything said could be so defined and not allowed including what most would not consider to be in any way offensive. Either all can speak or all risk losing the right to speak freely. Governments/lawyers tend to take a law and run with any possible loophole they can find.

[Alyssa M.]

I meant examples of the supposed slippery slope scenario actually happening.

Oh, I don't know ... how about this precise event. This is waaaaaay far down the slope already. The notion that someone can get arrested for this is utterly shocking. If you need pay cops keep people from being offensive jerks, if you can't handle offensive jerks on your own either by ignoring them, telling them to buzz off, or even giving them a taste of their own medicine, then that's truly a sad reflection on your society.

[rejennyrated]

I do have to say that I think there is a bit of double standards going on in the UK at the moment.

This guy gets arrested for publically stating his opinion which I may not like, but he has every right to hold and express.

Meanwhile a leading islamic cleric gets away with saying on BBC radio 4 that Homosexuals spread disease, and the pope is able to pronounce that the transgender lifestyle is one of the most evil and disruptive challenges that the church currently faces.

Both of these statements are way more offensive to me than some know nothing little two bit street preacher shooting his mouth off about something he knows nothing about. Yet the little man gets arrested, whilst the religious "leaders" who are presumably intelligent and well eductated enough to know better get off without even a censure - and in the case of the pope even get afforded a state visit.

Sorry but that is called having double standards.

If you are going to harrass the little guy then arrest the Pope and the leader of the Islamic group too!

...only they won't because these guys have the protection of being much higher profile. That is real double standards and it's extremely hypocritical too.

[Alyssa M.]

See this as well:

http://www.libelreform.org/

It's manifestly evident that British law does not place a terribly high value on freedom of speech, but rather on freedom from offense. There's no slope -- Britain is already at the bottom of the barrel.

[spacial]

There are a few points here.

1. The Daily Mail is well known for twisting information to create a scandal. Sadly, this is almost certainly the case here.

2. This man would not have been arrested simply for doing what is claimed. No police officer would risk his career by doing this.

3. The particular highlighting of the PSCO is interesting. PSCOs do not arrest people. They report to regular officers. It is inconcievable that regular officers would risk their careers by arresting anyone simply for saying that homosexualty is sinful. If they did, the cells would be regularly filled. Negative references to homosexuals are often made.

The rather extensive background on the PSCO, including posting his photograph is clearly the real point here. Such publicity will probably end this PSCO's career, sadly.

4. The intersting point is the use of the step ladder. It is more likely this man was arrested for obstruction.

Britney's comment is perhaps more telling. The Daily Mail and others have long been tryng to put over the message that life as we know it is over under Labour. We all support free speech love.

Similar claims have also been made claiming that Muslims can say this but 'we' can't and so on. This is just not true. Context is everything.

5. The Christian Institute is a rather unplesent organisation promoting values that few support. http://www.christian.org.uk/

Sorry, but in reality, another non-Story the like of which we have been continuously fed with over the last 13 years and which, will undoubtedly stop if the Torys win the general election.

[justmeinoz]

I have to agree with Spacial on the likelihood of this being only part of the story. 

Having been a copper on the beat, my guess is that there was more than handing out a few leaflets, and speechmaking going on.

Obstruction with the ladder is likely, and then probably refusal to move it when directed, language offences, assault police, resist arrest and all the other things that people do in such a situation. "You can't arrest ME!", followed by, "Mind your head on the car door!"

[Miniar]

There's no way that that piece of news is the whole story.

And the slippery slope argument is not considered reliable in any debate.

[Alyssa M.]

It's not a slippery slope argument.* It's not that we fail to comprehend the bias of the Daily Mail.

It's that, as reported, Rhalkos seemed clearly support what happened. As reported. Now, if you think, "Well, that's a preposterous story, and I seriously doubt it happened in anything like the way they say it did. But if I were to learn it really did happen, I'd be steaming mad and I'd demand that someone had better be held accountable," -- well, okay, then. Then we'd be on the same page.

But ... I just don't get that impression. The general impression I get from most Europeans I've met, including Brits, is that they simply don't value freedom of speech to nearly the extent that we do in America (on average, but overwhelmingly, regardless of political persuasion). Our reason for support isn't a slippery slope question (though, yes, that's a valid concern in general when talking about free speech: censorship is one of the most effective ways for authority to consolidate power). The most important reason is that we deal with crackpots by making them look like morons -- which usually takes no effort whatsoever. All you need to do is let them yap away. On rare occasions, a response is appropriate (i.e., exercizing your own freedom of speech).

Here's the rub: If this guy hadn't been arrested, he would have been completely ignored.

--

* ETA: That is, Britney used that argument, and I think it's completely germane and valid, but it's not by any means the only one, and I think it's somewhat less important than other arguments in a case like this one.

[justmeinoz]

Here in Oz we just tend to take the piss out of them, and reduce them to a laughing stock. Probably related to the "Tall Poppy Syndrome"- stick up and you get cut down.

[Britney_413]

The slippery slope is simple. You start by censoring something that 99% of people disagree with. For instance, making it illegal hate speech to say that the Holocaust is a hoax. Once the populace has started to accept that certain extreme speech is banned, the government gradually makes less extreme speech illegal. Soon anything that goes against the status quo is "offensive speech" and illegal.

Maybe there is more to the story and maybe there is not. However, as it was reported someone was arrested for simply standing in the street preaching against homosexuality. That is already a long way down the slope if you ask me. If the person was screaming so loudly that it was causing a disturbance or if he was making threats of violence, or blocking traffic then that would be different. What I and most Americans are strongly against is any expectation that people have the right not to be offended. I'm sorry but if someone says or does something you don't like, you either use your own free speech to tell them you disagree or you just ignore them. Again, as long as they aren't threatening, harrassing, or being violent.

Sadly, many people want to live in a nanny state where everybody says, does, and thinks as they are told. That's not freedom but more like prison.

[spacial]

It's not a slippery slope argument.* It's not that we fail to comprehend the bias of the Daily Mail.

It's that, as reported, Rhalkos seemed clearly support what happened. As reported. Now, if you think, "Well, that's a preposterous story, and I seriously doubt it happened in anything like the way they say it did. But if I were to learn it really did happen, I'd be steaming mad and I'd demand that someone had better be held accountable," -- well, okay, then. Then we'd be on the same page.

But ... I just don't get that impression. The general impression I get from most Europeans I've met, including Brits, is that they simply don't value freedom of speech to nearly the extent that we do in America (on average, but overwhelmingly, regardless of political persuasion). Our reason for support isn't a slippery slope question (though, yes, that's a valid concern in general when talking about free speech: censorship is one of the most effective ways for authority to consolidate power). The most important reason is that we deal with crackpots by making them look like morons -- which usually takes no effort whatsoever. All you need to do is let them yap away. On rare occasions, a response is appropriate (i.e., exercizing your own freedom of speech).

Nope.

We speak because we know the way the British press works.

The Daily Mail has a long history of this sort of reporting.

As to your claim that British people don't value freedom, that is verging on a trans Atlantic argument.

I am tempted to point out that Americans toss words like freedom, democracy and liberty around like salt. But I have yet to meet an American who know what any of these means.

Liberating the freedom loving people of Kuwait.

We Burned My Lei to Save it for Democracy.

But I won't.

[Alyssa M.]

1) Ad hominem attacks are really weak. Quit trashing the source and find an article from a more credible source (i.e., practically any source at all) that disputes the account in the Daily Mail.

2) Wow, why did you even bother quoting that text, since you obviously didn't even read what I wrote?

3) You said:

But I won't.

In fact, you did. Knock it off.

[justmeinoz]

behave children or you will have to go to bed early!

Seriously, have there been any other reports of this incident, in reputable newspapers?

[Shana A]

a reminder from admin, no personal attacks!

Seriously, have there been any other reports of this incident, in reputable newspapers?

here's one:

Gay Cop Arrests Preacher for Antigay Comments
By Julie Bolcer
ADVOCATE.COM

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/05/04/Gay_Cop_Arrests_Preacher_for_Antigay_Comments/

A gay police officer arrested a Baptist preacher in the UK last month for telling a passerby that homosexuality is a sin.

According to the Daily Telegraph, "Dale McAlpine was charged with causing 'harassment, alarm or distress' after a homosexual police community support officer (PCSO) overheard him reciting a number of 'sins' referred to in the Bible, including blasphemy, drunkenness and same-sex relationships."

Police say the 42-year-old McAlpine, who preaches in Cumbria, used insulting language in violation of the Public Order Act, introduced in 1986 to control rioters at football games. He was held in jail for seven hours on April 20.

[Miniar]

The general impression I get from most Europeans I've met, including Brits, is that they simply don't value freedom of speech to nearly the extent that we do in America (on average, but overwhelmingly, regardless of political persuasion).

I don't think it's a question of value per say.

In all countries, including the US, where freedom of speech exists, there also exists a set of legislation that protects you from libel.
In many of the Europian countries, these laws don't just protect individuals but whole groups of people.

We 'value' freedom of speech, we just also value freedom from slander, libel, and verbal attacks.
In Iceland, it's legal to share your beliefs, but it's not legal to state your (generic you, not directed at any specific person) beliefs that all gay people are disease riddled sinners headed for hell as a fact.

[spacial]

A gay police officer arrested a Baptist preacher in the UK last month for telling a passerby that homosexuality is a sin.

This is not true.

The man is a PSCO. Not a police officer. He didn't arrest anyone as PSCOs do not have the authority of arrest that police officers have. All a PSCO can do is what any other civilian can do, that is report the matter to a police officer.

The report in the Telegraph is here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7668448/Christian-preacher-arrested-for-saying-homosexuality-is-a-sin.html

It seems the complaint was made by a woman.

Mr McAlpine was handing out leaflets explaining the Ten Commandments or offering a "ticket to heaven" with a church colleague on April 20, when a woman came up and engaged him in a debate about his faith.

During the exchange, he says he quietly listed homosexuality among a number of sins referred to in 1 Corinthians, including blasphemy, fornication, adultery and drunkenness.

After the woman walked away, she was approached by a PCSO who spoke with her briefly and then walked over to Mr McAlpine and told him a complaint had been made, and that he could be arrested for using racist or homophobic language.

The man was arrested by three Police officers.

Until and if the matter goes to court, we only have McAlpine's word for the details. I will also add that I think it highly unlikely that the PSCO identifed himself as gay or anything other than a PSCO





Alyssa.

Of course I did, it was a joke.

But I apologise if it fell flat.

Sadly the Daily Telegraph is basically similar to the Daily Mail, but aimed at people who want to appear a bit more prosperus.

Having a report appearing, symultainously in the Mail and the Telegraph is not evidence of its veracity, I'm afraid.

These two papers regularly back each other up in their continuing attempts to make the world seem as black as possible. It is a favourite tack of the Mail, especially, to claim that freedoms are only being erroded for white, middle class, chirstian men. While Muslims, and those identifing by their sexuality are being given a free reign.

Not so.

This rather amusing video gives a pretty good idea of what the Daily Mail is really all about:



Now let me add that like most Britons I am alarmed at how civil liberities are being eroded. However, nothing can be gained by hysterical and clearly innacurate claims that only serve to discredit those of us who are attempting to promote individualism.

[LordKAT]

Loved that video. Fits most tabloids.

[spacial]

Loved that video. Fits most tabloids.

Possibly, though those were actual pages from the Daily Mail.

We have quite a lot of news papers here in the UK. None are particularly highbrow, though a few try to pretend to be.