Just a few comments from the United Kingdom. My comments cannot do justice to a complex situation, but it is accurate to say that religious freedom and free speech rights are the weakest in the United Kingdom for many years.
1. The use of arrest (and chilling effect) is unfortunately very common in the United Kingdom. This is politically directed at anti homosexual and anti Islam speech. (Americans can rest assured that we remain free to criticize you in the most fulsome terms!). 2. The arrest and subsequence dropping of the case is an established process. However, attempts to Judicial Review this procedure in the High Court has been prevented by forum conveniens in that the Police must be sued in the local courts (which is very futile). We have deference the Police; and this is far wider that qualified immunity and clear constitution breach. The Pastor in this case, I suspect will be offered about £2,000 and officers will be approved. The chilling effect remains. 3. The low point of this process was the case of DPP v Hammond in which a 69 years Christian preacher was assaulted on the streets and successfully prosecuted for, in effect, inciting his own attack. A total reversal of free speech principle in which hate speech is automatically fighting words. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2004/69.html 4. I have two issues with the CLS case: · The first is the inappropriateness of the classification of Judeo Christian sexual ethics as discriminatory. This is the ultimate use of secular language to which religious practice must justify itself against this good. · If Judeo Christian sexual morality is not worth of university funding, such values are deemed to be contrary to the public good (and bar the constitution should be discouraged). This line of reasoning has gone to the full in the United Kingdom with an employer entitled to dismiss practicing Christians for discriminatory conduct in not performing same sex civil ceremonies: Ladele v Islington London Borough Council: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/1357.html Paul Diamond, barrister Chambers of Paul Diamond PO Box 1041 Barton Cambridge CB23 7WY T: 01223 264544 www.pauldiamond.com From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Scott Idleman Sent: 16 May 2010 02:32 To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics' Subject: RE: British Preacher Arrested For Preaching Homosexulairt a Sin It appears that just since yesterday afternoon, the charges against the preacher have been dropped: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1278664/Charges-dropped-Christian-pr eached-homosexuality-sin.html http://www.christian.org.uk/news/charges-dropped-against-christian-street-pr eacher/ Scott Idleman Marquette University From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Duncan Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 19:44 To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: British Preacher Arrested For Preaching Homosexulairt a Sin Here is the video <http://www.christian.org.uk/news/exclusive-video-preacher-arrested-by-briti sh-police/> of the arrest. Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 "And against the constitution I have never raised a storm,It's the scoundrels who've corrupted it that I want to reform" --Dick Gaughan (from the song, Thomas Muir of Huntershill) --- On Thu, 5/13/10, hamilto...@aol.com <hamilto...@aol.com> wrote: From: hamilto...@aol.com <hamilto...@aol.com> Subject: Re: A real-life on-campus example To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Date: Thursday, May 13, 2010, 11:04 AM Rick-- This strikes me as your desired interpretation of the law, not the law as it stands. and it does not reflect the case. Yours and CLS's reasoning leads to an absolutely absurd result. When we have a court telling a university or law school that it cannot require all school-supported groups to include all students (if any student desires), as part of a mission to create open dialogue, then we might as well hand in our tenure and the academic freedom attached to it. As I said at the start, CLS's position is deeply anti-intellectual and requires one to buy into a Balkanized view of the universe. Years ago, I taught a seminar in Budapest with students from the Balkans. They described the disintegration of a shared culture this way. "It used to be that when you got on the subway or the train, everyone was a fellow citizen, not a Jew or a Christian or a Muslim. Everyone shared some common ground and people were polite to each other regardless. Then, the disintegration started and people became very conscious of the religious identity of the person across the aisle and seated next to them. Once that crept into the mindset, you became very uncomfortable seated next to someone of a different religion, you distrusted other believers automatically, as part of the culture." I will never forget their sense of loss or their sincerity. I think CLS's position (as well as Wide Awake's position in Rosenberger) as being a step in that direction. In this era, we need far more effort to find common ground and ways for different believers to speak to each other. Exclusion in the academic context, where there is supposed to be wide-ranging, challenging discourse, seems precisely the wrong move. Marci -----Original Message----- From: Rick Duncan <nebraskalawp...@yahoo.com> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> Sent: Thu, May 13, 2010 12:51 pm Subject: RE: A real-life on-campus example Chip, the problem with the all comers policy, even if applied across the board, is that it entirely destroys the ability of student expressive groups to organize around a set of beliefs and viewpoints. It is not viewpoint discriminatory (if applied to all), but it destroys all attempts to organize on the basis of viewpoint and belief. It is like a rule that says no one can engage in speech on public sidewalks. Such a rule completely eliminates free speech in a public forum, even though it doesn't discriminate on the basis of viewpoint. If CLS and all other student expressive groups have a right of expressive association concerning their membership policies, Hastings violates that First Amendment right by demanding that it be waived as a condition of access to a limited public forum. Such an unconstitutional condition is also an unreasonable restriction in light of the purpose of the forum (which is to create a marketplace of ideas for student group expression). Rick Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 "And against the constitution I have never raised a storm,It's the scoundrels who've corrupted it that I want to reform" --Dick Gaughan (from the song, Thomas Muir of Huntershill) _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. -----Inline Attachment Follows----- _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
