The C word

[ciphergoth]

Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology 'cult'

So next week I guess we can expect to see the banners amended to read "Scientology: it's a total c**t"

Comments

[battlekitty.livejournal.com]

Section 5 of the Public Order Act.

FYI: Section 5:

[battlekitty.livejournal.com]

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he:
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

Of course, this doesn't assess if "cult" = insulting, but I would guess so if they are saying they aren't. (That's a different question, though)

Re: FYI: Section 5:

[palmer1984.livejournal.com]

Thanks. But...what...a ....stupid law. How can you protest against war without insulting the govt. Gah.

Re: FYI: Section 5:

[battlekitty.livejournal.com]

There is that implication...

I don't know if you followed the link, but it does go on to list 3 statutory defences - the most important (IMO) in this particular case being "The conduct was reasonable."

There's quite possibly provisions specifically regarding protests, too. And at the end of the day a government can, in theory, make whatever laws it likes given the right amount of support in parliament. Hell, the Third Reich managed it - IIRC, at least before war started it didn't do anything illegal under the current German law. (Mind you, it changed laws to do so...)

Re: FYI: Section 5:

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

It is indicative of the care that Hitler took to give his dictatorship an appearance of legality that the Enabling Act was renewed twice, in 1937 and in 1941. In 1942, the Reichstag passed a law giving Hitler power of life and death over every German citizen, which effectively extended the provisions of the Enabling Act for the duration of the war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933

Re: FYI: Section 5:

[battlekitty.livejournal.com]

...yep, that'd do it!

I was thinking more along the lines of changing a democracy into a dictatorship and (effectively) the suspension of human rights for Jewish and similar groups of people. Oh, and changing the roles of Chancellor and...err...the other title to give Hitler the top power. I can't remember the rest. It was in another language and one that I can't remember as well in... ;)

Re: FYI: Section 5:

[devilgate.livejournal.com]

Thanks. I think I knew about that. But I was more wondering what gives the police the power to define the use of a particular word as falling under those provisions. I suppose "... any writing..." covers it on the day; the rest would have to be decided at court.

I wonder if the kid will get Legal Aid.

Re: FYI: Section 5:

[battlekitty.livejournal.com]

Apparently there'd been advice from CPS, but it a) wasn't specific to this situation and b) I don't know what it was.

Well, the scientologists found it threatening, abusive or insulting, and I guess the police presence was due to them to some extent. But yes - it's something there is (assumedly) no specific ruling on. But there will be precedent now!

I hope he does, or at least gets assistance from Anonymous. (Somehow I doubt they'd leave him in the lurch...) I don't know the conditions for Legal Aid, though. (Maybe it's in "The Journey to Citizenship"...?)

Re: FYI: Section 5:

[devilgate.livejournal.com]

I fear he won't. I've also been following a thread about this on Charlie Stross's blog, and he reminds us (in the comments) that there is no longer any Legal Aid for civil cases, and that it's very hard to get even for criminal ones.

Re: FYI: Section 5:

[battlekitty.livejournal.com]

Bummer.

Well, let's hope that common sense prevails... oh shit, we're stuffed! ;)

Re: FYI: Section 5:

[reddragdiva]

The kid's gonna have pro bono lawyers coming out his ears. And a defence fund.

Re: FYI: Section 5:

[reddragdiva]

The CPS have already called the police bloody liars clarified that they have not given advice in this particular matter in this particular way.

This is the sort of case people dream of seeing in court. Everyone I've seen mention it, and all press coverage, has been fucking furious.

Re: FYI: Section 5:

[drdoug.livejournal.com]

Section 5 paragraph (4) gives a copper the right to arrest you if they warn you about it and you keep doing it or do anything else that the copper "reasonably suspects" is an offence under this section.

(I was with a good mate of mine a few years ago when he had a run-in with the rozzers on the same piece of law, and we did our homework after.)

I think the CPS will drop this like a hot brick if it ever gets as far as that, and if it ever got as far as court I'd be pretty confident that the beak or judge would be very much minded to conclude that the on-record views of another of their number are ipso facto reasonable.

But the awful thing is that poor sod will have a record of having been arrested - PNC, fingerprints, DNA, the whole caboodle - which will dog him for the rest of his life.

Re: FYI: Section 5:

[battlekitty.livejournal.com]

I hope the CPS do, and even that would (I think) give a small amount of precedence and help prevent it happening again.

I don't think he has been arrested, just had a summons (I understand that to be different, anyway). I hadn't thought about the fingerprints/DNA/Big Brother situation, to be honest - apart from that I thought the records were sealed on reaching majority due to his age (15)?

Re: FYI: Section 5:

[drdoug.livejournal.com]

Ah, you're quite right, it appears he was given a summons and wasn't arrested. It'll still go down in the Police National Computer, though - he might be lucky on fingerprints/DNA but I'm not sure about that these days. (The law has changed dramatically on summary stuff in the last few years and I haven't caught up.)

I've never heard of records being sealed in UK law so I'm not sure what's involved, and my suspicion is it doesn't happen here. You certainly don't get a blank slate on turning 16 or 18 or whatever - the stuff goes down forever (unless you can get it expunged, which is possible but very difficult). If you're less than 10 you can't commit a criminal offence by definition (you're deemed to be too young to form the requisite intention) but after that it's only the punishments that are changed if you're under 18.

The fact that you've been arrested (or summonsed, or whatever) should not be disclosed in court until after the verdict is decided, but will be used as a factor in determining sentence. But that's true whatever age you are or were. Actual convictions become 'spent' (i.e. don't have to be disclosed in certain circumstances) under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act much more more quickly if you were under 18 when you committed them.

But the whole growing 'database state' problem we have at the moment is the expansion of data retention and powers concerning stuff other than actual convictions. Like being summonsed for what pretty much any reasonable person would think was a trivial incident.

Ooh, I'm starting to rant, sorry.

Re: FYI: Section 5:

[battlekitty.livejournal.com]

Sealed is probably the wrong word, either way.

To be honest I don't know the law in the case of minors (either here or Australia) - My understanding is that it has a lot less of an impact for the future than if he was 18 or over.

The database state problem is a big worry, though. There's a damn good reason why (at this point in time) you will not find me actively supporting any political movement or protest... (She says, returning to study her "Journey to Citizenship" book in preparation for the test...)

As for ranting, I'm guilty of this! (I also posted on this this morning, hence why I'd looked at the Public Order Act...)

Re: FYI: Section 5:

[drdoug.livejournal.com]

Oh, good luck with the test. We could do with more citizens like you :-)

(Does the new edition still tell you what to do if you spill someone's pint in a pub? I love that.)

Re: FYI: Section 5:

[battlekitty.livejournal.com]

Bahaha! That's what YOU think! ;)

I just sat at my desk and looked... Nope. Doesn't mention rounds either. Well, not unless it's really well hidden...

Re: FYI: Section 5:

[barking-watcher.livejournal.com]

When did this come into law, because the last Pride March I went on (2005 or 2006), there was a bunch of Christian Right wingers saying that homosexuality was a sin / crime against God and they were being allowed by the police to stand within sight of the march and wave their placards about.

It was funny in a way because the Christian were all grouped together in a small enclosure made out of those portable crash barriers.

Re: FYI: Section 5:

[battlekitty.livejournal.com]

The Act is 1986, but I haven't searched for a record of amendments to see if it's always been there. (Nor am I going to!)

I suspect it comes down to perceived insult/etc plus the offended party's attitude to it and whether they choose to involve the police would be a factor.

Glad they kept the Christians in a corral. It might be catching... ;)

(Also, your icon reminds me of Fighter from 8-bit Theater!)