You may not appreciate hearing a Christian pastor preaching in the street. You may disagree with the very existence of God and consider all religious people to be equally deluded. But if you think that it is not a matter for concern when the police arrest street preachers and accuse them of illegal activities then you are sadly no friend of our Western liberties. They are in a bad enough way as it is, and those who think that Christians should be excluded from the exercise of these liberties simply because their message might not be palatable to all are not essentially different from those who wish all discourse to be subject to state control.
Josh Williamson has been arrested twice in the space of a week or so for preaching in the High Street in Perth. A short video, containing only a compilation of those complaining about his presence, has led some to think that he should not be considered worthy of support. I’ve engaged in street preaching myself, and nothing I’ve seen of Williamson leads me to consider that he is extreme or dangerous. In the unreliable video testimony, which Williamson rejects as having been compiled by others to suit their own agenda, he is seen preaching on what appears to be a wet, weekday morning in Scotland. There are few people around. It is a wide, pedestrianised street. The complaining stall holders seem orchestrated and threaten to call the police.
There are certainly those who think that Christians are experiencing a form of insanity. Stalin and his evil regime used such methods to silence those Christians who would not keep quiet about their faith. Their actions were never presented as persecution of Christianity, and those remanded to mental asylums, when not sent to the gulags, were always found guilty of some other crime, or discovered to be suffering from a religious mania. I don’t see either criminal actions or mental illness in the activities of Josh Williamson.
I’m sitting here writing this piece in a Costa’s Coffee Shop. There is a rather annoying small infant screaming in my ear. She is certainly breaching my peace, but should she be arrested simply for making a noise in a public place? The legal definition of a breach of the peace is based on R v Howell 1984 which defines a breach of the peace in England and Wales very clearly saying…
There could not be a breach of the peace unless an act was done or threatened to be done which either actually harmed a person or, in his presence, his property or was likely to cause such harm or which put someone in fear of such harm being done.
With such a clear definition no Christian street preacher should be arrested for a breach of the peace.
In this particular case it would seem that some complaints were received by the police. But this is no justification for the denial of free speech in a situation where there is no threat of harm to any person at all. If the street preacher were considered to be too loud then the police should ask him to moderate his voice, but if there is no obstruction of the street, and no threat of harm, then the liberty of speaking in the street must be defended in this case and in every case.
In my own High Street there are on a very regular basis, many buskers and bands with amplification, a living statue who plays loud music, processions of Hindu drummers (for some reason), people hawking all sorts of goods and inviting potential clients to purchase their lunch at Subways. Occasionally there is a Green activist who speaks through a megaphone about globalisation. All make noise of one degree or another. I find all to be rather irritating. Should they all be liable to arrest simply because I would rather they were not there, or because I disagree with their message?
It is very easy to wish the liberties of others to be restricted, but each restriction will eventually come to apply to us. If we prevent the peaceful, and this doesn’t mean silent, expression of one set of views then who will be the judge of which ones will be allowed? It will of course be the state, which is already prepared to make the taking of offence, even if not intended, a criminal offence.
We have experienced a decade or more of looking over our shoulder when saying things which are outside the politically correct boundaries that the state has defined. If we will not defend a harmless, slightly noisy street preacher when he is explaining his views in public, then what will we defend? The police, as the arm of the state, and no longer the officers of the law, will start with the most easily controlled – but they will perhaps discover that Christians are not all passive in the face of direct persecution. But they will come for us all, and if we will not support Josh Williamson then we have already abandoned the principle and having to defend.
The liberty of free speech gives none of us the right to decide what opinions should be allowed, unless they directly incite violence. If a homosexual activist was pitched up in Perth High Street and was explaining his views about the propriety of such acts then I would have to support his freedom to engage in such public discourse, much as I disagree with his opinions. If Ed Milliband, standing on his little box, were to appear in my High Street, I would object very much indeed to his presence and to all that he were saying, but I have to support his freedom to describe his views, repugnant as they are, or I deny the liberty of any of us to speak out in public.
You don’t like the message Josh Williamson is sharing? That’s irrelevant. You don’t like the way he is communicating? That’s irrelevant. Either we believe in free speech or we don’t. To deny it to any group simply on the basis of personal opinion is to deny the liberty to all and to make speech subject to conditions, restrictions and supervision.
If we want to see real breaches of the peace then we have only to consider the UAF and their violent and abusive public demonstrations. Each one is an immediate threat of real harm and therefore a real breach of the peace. We have only to consider the demonstrations by various groups of Muslims bearing placards which incite violence and chanting threats of murder. These are also real breaches of the peace. But not because they are noisy, and not because we don’t agree with the views being expressed. They are breaches of the peace because they threaten and incite real and immediate harm to others.
The public expression of views and opinions in the street is a necessary guarantee of a free society, even if those views cause offence, or are found to be irritating. The High Street is filled with noise and sources of annoyance. We filter out what we are not interested in. We have no right to silence others. If we think that we can be easy with one group or another being silenced because we do not agree with their views then we have already abandoned the principle and have no justification for being allowed to speak freely on any matter. And we have indeed agreed that being able to speak should require permission from some other state body.
If we will not even defend Josh Williamson then the future is grim, and a future in which only permitted discourse is allowed. We have seen shadows of such a future in our present. If we will not speak out while we can, on principle, then it must become much more grim indeed for us all. Lovers of liberty speak out now while you can.
Unless the good traders of Perth all have tonsillitis, I imagine they make a bit of a racket themselves with their shouts of “Come Buy, Come Buy!”
And if we had any journalist with the mildest professional self-respect, we’d actually know whether this was the case.
Any chance Josh can bring about a case against the police of harassment or malicious arrest?
I understand that Christian Concern are looking at supporting him. They are a legal organisation that tries to defend Christians in situations such as these. If Perth High Street is not silent then there can be no reason for persecuting one person. And in any case there is no requirement for silence from anyone.
Good.
Though we might as well all be wearing a veil these days – but on the plus side, it’d certainly keep the noise down.
What is interesting is that when Josh Williamson was preaching in Romford the police refused to arrest him because they acknowledged he had a right to speak…
I emphasised that righteousness that comes from God is what made the UK great, but since the nation is now allowing abortion, same-sex marriage, and Islam to dominate, that the nation was no longer great, but rather it was a ‘reproach’ and under the wrath of God. This angered one woman who was standing near by. She began to scream abuse at me, and started to call me every name under the sun. In reality, she was only illustrating my point. The people of the nation love sin more than they love Jesus, and as a result this nation is under God’s judgement.While I was preaching about how only through the work of Christ that the judgement of God can be satisfied two staff members walked out of the Barclays Bank branch, and in full uniform began to abuse me, and make Christophobic comments. They made many anti-Christian comments, and engaged in some rather strong hate speech. You know the nation has fallen when Bank staff will come out just to scream abuse and how hatred for Jesus. (We also later found out that Barclays Bank called the police to try and stop us preaching. The police defended our freedoms and refused to stop us.)
“Christophobic comments” from Barclay’s Bank, eh?
Well I can’t recommend a switch to NatWest as an antidote for that; some of their lot can also be un-Christian bastards, at times. The are all inclined to offer you an umbrella when the weather’s fine and snatch it off you when it starts to piss with rain. As for Lloyds …. weeeell – we all know what they’ve been up to, don’t we?
Ah well, Peter you’ve introduced us to yet another ‘phobia’. Write to Teresa Might, she can have it added to the ‘hate crime’ list. Perhaps she can add ‘bankophobia’ too, to be even handed.
Perhaps Old Willie, north of the border, should let the noise abatement people deal with Josh in future; they can monitor his noise levels with one of their little noiseometers. Very effective I’m told. Sounds to me like your local Starbucks could do with a visit from the Audiogestapo, too. GBH of the eardrums could always be invoked under the Offences Against the Person Act, I suppose, as opposed to the lesser Breach of the Peace rap.
To be honest, when my saucepans were in the ‘terrible twos’, or even younger, the trouble ‘n’ strife and I wouldn’t have dreamed of imposing them on the other customers in public eating houses or other places of relaxation. Not until they were thoroughly house-trained did that happen and if any of them raised a rumpus for any reason thereafter, we upped and left with suitable apologies to the other diners. But that was just good manners, in those days. These day the young Mums seem to take perverse pleasure in gratuitously imposing their riotous brats on other folk with defiant glares if anyone dares even to raise an eyebrow.
Just as, imho, it’s bad manners for some nutty preacher to yell imprecations in the street, castigating them for failing to swallow fables about someone who pushed his luck one step too far over two millennia ago and got topped for his troubles.
Now, was it behaviour likely to cause Breach Of The Peace? Seems so, according to the recording of at least some of the event. And his complaint about ‘editing’ rings a bit hollow. Was was included was pretty graphic, edited or otherwise. Anyway as he is reported to have copped a caution, we won’t have it tested in Court, will we? He must have agreed to accept a caution?
Btw. I don’t remember any reports of yer man Jesus, rantin’ and raving’. ‘Gentle Jesus meek and mild’ wasn’t he? I know he got a bit pissed off with the money lenders at the temple once, but are you sure he would have approved of your fat friend with the big mouth imposing his opinions on the benighted punters in Perth High Street, when they were already having to cope with nutty street musicians, beggars various and someone singing Opera out of tune.
Didn’t someone verbal the Nazerene with the aphorism “A soft answer turneth away wrath?”
Hardly surprising that the traders called the poliss, Im afraid. At least on this occasion the ossifers of the leur didn’t accuse Josh of calling them plebs, so things seem to be improving a bit.
I agree wholeheartedly with everything that you have written, as I am sure most if not all who post here do.
But what is the solution? We have seen time and time again that the ancient freedoms that once were for all are now for the few.
Normal white individuals have less rights than, Muslims, Homosexuals and all incomers.
If I was in Perth, or Scotland, I would recommend a mass street-preach by all the ministers and clergy of Perth. All conducted in a peaceful and legal manner. No threat of violence. But in such a way that all the clergy would have to be arrested by the police for not doing anything illegal at all.
This is also why I proposed a silent protest with leaflets to be conducted in every town, every Sunday afternoon, for 15 minutes. They cannot arrest us all.
Mind he was quite loud, as for meek, he certainly was not.
The issue is whether there is a right to free speech or not. The issue of whether people like what he says, or have complained is irrelevant.
The police on Saturday said that he could continue at a talking volume. That is not preaching. And in any secular or political context it would not be communicating. Ed Milliband was preaching in the street. Either he and we all are free to do so, or he should also be arrested, and every street vendor and performer, if they can be heard.
Free speech for all, or free speech for none. That is the issue. Number of complaints is irrelevant.
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Yes and Voltaire also declaimed, “Ecrasez l’infame”. Which was a denunciation of religious dogma. He was a polemicist and wit who wobbled in the wind, dependent upon the patronage of the moment. Piss-taker par excellence and like all the ‘philosophes’ of his day, an accomplished hypocrite. But he was not keen on men in fancy frocks scaring the shit of gullible citizen’s with frightful tales of heaven and hell dependent on doing it their way (which, naturally of course, was ‘God’s way’, as they had a direct line).
Sorry Frank you seem rather an enemy of free speech unless people are saying what you agree with.
You are not Voltaire. He disagreed with organized religion but was certainly a deist. He never, as far as I can see, suggested Christians should be treated as insane. Stalin did of course.
Btw – say what you like about the mad and murderous muzzie martyrs, at least they are prepared to die for their wacky prophet; they don’t whinge about injustice then cop a quick caution rather than fight for their beliefs. 🙂
Not at all an ‘enemy of free speech’, provided that includes rejecting the message of the ‘free speech’ when dissenting with it – and complaining about it being thrust in your mush at top decibels in the street. There are enough pulpits around to preach from – why use the public thoroughfare? Are you also against telling Seventh Day Adventists to piss-off when they persistently try to thrust their pamphlets at you through you own front door – invasive twats. Is that ‘Stalinist’ too? You exhaust quite a few print cartridges rejecting the sky pilots of the Islamic ‘faith’ and their toxic ranting (more power to your elbow for doing so); when the boots on the other foot, you suddenly get all free-speechy.
“You are not Voltaire”. Quite right! Neither are you – but you brought up his much over-used quote (without attribution or even quotation marks I note) not me; I was merely balancing it with a counter quote.
And Voltaire never defended anything ‘to the death’; old age got him, considering his personal excesses – after a very long life; moreover on his death-bed he threw out a priest who tried to perform the last rites on him. Mind you his attributed last words were, “I die loving God and forgiving my enemies.” Crafty old bugger taking out last minute insurance … just in case?
Or perhaps someone decided that was what he should have said and wrote it down accordingly.
And lastly, I’ve never demanded that anybody agree with me about anything. On the contrary, I quite enjoy crossing swords – with the clergy in particular, blogs that have no dissent are as boring as a draughty-church sermon on a wet Sunday.
Frank P,
Re: Voltaire’s last words : I prefer the apocryphal version:
Voltaire, on his own deathbed, when asked by a priest to renounce Satan and turn to God, is alleged to have replied, “Now is no time to be making new enemies.”
Antonio Gramsci – Did he or didn’t he?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deathbed_conversion
“Bugger Bognor,” anyway.
🙂
EC
September 25th, 2013 – 21:16
Interesting link. Wonder why the Catholics wanted to reclaim Antonio?
Dawkins thinks he has the answer to these final verbal fit-ups – have a tape recorder affixed in your flea-pit at The Last Chance Saloon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=CA&v=mzZ7VkDGuPc
A little naive of him though, as there’s still a chance that some resourceful sky-pilot will swap the tape (or memory stick in these days of digital technology) if you are famous enough to make the blagging worth while. And what if he’s in ICU in his last moments? It might interfere with his life support machine. Even the check-out of life has its complications.
Anything to keep the longest running scam on Earth going. Very profitable game – and in most third world countries much of it made from peasants selling their children’s shoes to pay the ‘dues’, so that the capos can don their fancy frocks and build their glittering Palaces of the Priesthood and indulge their perverted pleasures in the secrecy of their whited sepulchres. Hypocrisy on steroids.
“I play dominoes, you do too-ooo?”
‘Scuse me, someone at the door: looks like a couple of those JW’s again. This should be fun.