Christian hotel owners hauled before court after defending their beliefs in discussion with Muslim guest
By Jonathan Petre h/t gaia
Last updated at 12:28 PM on 20th September 2009
Read more: From The Daily Mail
A Christian couple have been charged with a criminal offence after taking part in what they regarded as a reasonable discussion about religion with guests at their hotel.
Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang were arrested after a Muslim woman complained to police that she had been offended by their comments.
They have been charged under public order laws with using ‘threatening, abusive or insulting words’ that were ‘religiously aggravated’.
Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang
Facing trial: Christian hoteliers Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang believed the religious discussion was reasonable and deny their comments were threatening
The couple, whose trial has been set for December, face a fine of up to £5,000 and a criminal record if they are convicted.
Although the facts are disputed, it is thought that during the conversation the couple were challenged over their Christian beliefs.
It is understood that they suggested that Mohammed, the founder of Islam, was a warlord and that traditional Muslim dress for women was a form of bondage.
They deny, however, that their comments were threatening and argue that they had every right to defend and explain their beliefs.
Mrs Vogelenzang, 54, who has run the Bounty House Hotel near Aintree racecourse in Liverpool with her husband Ben, 53, for six years, said: ‘Nothing like this has happened to us before. We are completely shocked.’
She added that the episode had damaged their business and they had been forced to lay off staff and run the nine-bedroom hotel by themselves, leaving them exhausted.
Sources said that a number of guests staying at the hotel, which charges £92 a night for a double room, were having breakfast in its restaurant on March 20 when comments were made about religion.
One of those involved was the Muslim woman, who was staying at the hotel while she received treatment at a hospital nearby.
The couple, who are members of the Bootle Christian Fellowship, and their solicitor, David Whiting, said they could not discuss the content of the conversation for legal reasons. But the independent lobby group, the Christian Institute, which has seen both the prosecution and defence legal papers, is supporting their defence.
Mr Whiting, who last year successfully defended street preacher Anthony Rollins in Birmingham, said: ‘There is a dispute as to the facts of the allegations, but Ben and Sharon do not accept they were threatening, abusive or insulting.
‘They are committed Christians and it is the defence’s contention that they have every right to defend their religious beliefs and explain those beliefs to others who do not hold similar views.’
After the incident, the couple voluntarily attended St Anne’s Street police station in Liverpool, where they were interviewed under caution.
In July they were arrested and charged under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 and Section 31 (1) (c) and (5) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
They appeared briefly at Liverpool Magistrates Court on Friday to hear the date of their trial before magistrates, and were granted bail on the condition that they did not approach any of the witnesses expected to appear.
The use by the police of the Public Order Act to arrest people over offensive comments has dismayed a number of lawyers, who say the legislation was passed to deal with law and order problems in the streets.
Neil Addison, a prominent criminal barrister and expert in religious law, said: ‘The purpose of the Public Order Act is to prevent disorder, but I’m very concerned that the police are using it merely because someone is offended.
‘It should be used where there is violence, yobbish behaviour or gratuitous personal abuse. It should never be used where there has been a personal conversation or debate with views firmly expressed.
‘If someone is in a discussion and they don’t like what they are hearing, they can walk away.’
He added that the police had a legal duty under the Human Rights Act to defend free speech ‘and I think they are forgetting that’.
A number of Church leaders in Liverpool have written to Keir Starmer, the Director of Public Prosecutions, voicing their concerns and pressing for the case to be dropped.
Christian Institute spokesman Mike Judge said ‘important’ issues of religious liberty were at stake.
‘In recent years, we have backed several cases where Christians have suffered unfair treatment because of their faith,’ he said. ‘We have detected a worrying tendency for public bodies to misapply the law in a way that seems to sideline Christianity more than other faiths.’
A spokesman for Merseyside Police said: ‘It would be inappropriate to comment as this is an ongoing case.’
More———–
From CCFON.org
A Christian couple are awaiting trial accused of breaching public order by insulting a guest at their hotel in Aintree, Liverpool, about her religion. If convicted they face a fine of up to £5,000 and a criminal record. They also face losing their livelihood as their business takings have badly suffered as a result of the case.
In March 2009, Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang had argued with a Muslim guest at the breakfast table in their hotel, the Bounty House Hotel in Aintree, about the history of Islam and Muslim traditions. The unnamed guest, who was staying at the hotel while being treated at a nearby hospital, came down to breakfast wearing a hijab, a traditional Muslim headdress covering the hair.
It is alleged that during the conversation the couple suggested that Mohammad, the founder of Islam, was a warlord when the guest challenged them about their Christian beliefs. The woman guest also claims that the couple, who vehemently deny the allegations and say they were simply defending their faith, described her traditional dress as a form of bondage.
After the conversation ended, the guest complained to police and the couple were charged under the Public Order Act 1986 – with a public order offence designed to target anti-social behaviour on the streets for using ‘threatening, abusive or insulting words’ which were ‘religiously aggravated’. The couple will have to stand trial at Liverpool Magistrates’ Court on 8 December 2009.
The unnamed guest had been staying at the Bounty House Hotel racecourse for four weeks while receiving treatment at a local hospital, but the couple had never seen her wear her religious clothing before. The hospital routinely referred outpatients to stay at the hotel. But when management found out about the court case they decided they could no longer recommend it, leading to the catastrophic drop in bookings, the Daily Mail reported.
Mr Vogelenzang denies calling Mohammad a ‘warlord’. It is understood that his wife accepts that she used the word ‘bondage’ about Islamic dress but denies deliberately causing offence.
Neil Addison, a leading criminal barrister and expert in religious law, explained that the law ‘should never be used where there has been a personal conversation or debate with views firmly expressed’.
Mike Judge, spokesman for the Christian Institute, said:
‘Important issues of religious liberty and free speech are at stake. We have detected a worrying tendency for public bodies to misapply the law in a way that seems to sideline Christianity more than other faiths.
‘Nobody was being threatened and while the Vogelenzangs were fully aware that a robust exchange had taken place and the woman had been perhaps a little offended, they were shocked when the police became involved.
‘We feel their treatment has been heavy-handed and it is not in the public interest to go ahead with this prosecution. People see the police standing by when Muslims demonstrate holding some pretty bloodthirsty placards, but at the same time come down hard on two Christians having a debate over breakfast at a hotel.
‘We are just hoping the magistrates use their common sense and find them not guilty.’
Media links
Comments
By Patricia Howell on September 21st, 2009 at 2:35 am
God Bless you both for not denying Christ and sharing your faith as mandated in the gospels. Stand strong and true I am sharing your story with other prayer warriors. And God will not forsake you but will cause you to reign victorious! I hope other Christians will see how important it is to be aware of the mandate of the Islam against Christianity and to be prayerful and watchful.
By ChrisU on September 23rd, 2009 at 4:31 am
They could have added that Mohammed was a paedophile. Now that really would have wound the woman up. But what would you call a man who married a girl of 6? Then again, whether a statement’s true or not is no longer relevant. If you offend someone’s religious convictions you’ll be hauled in front of the court. Though only if that someone happens to be a Muslim, I suspect.
I wonder whether this case would have been brought if the hoteliers had been Muslims and the guest a Christian. I think we know the answer.
This ludicrous waste of taxpayers’ money just proves that some British policemen and prosecutors are thick as a brick. But we knew that already. A few years ago I would have predicted that a court would throw this case out in 10 seconds flat, though nowadays it’s harder to be so confident.
If they don’t, Britain is well and truly f**ked.
By James Cohen on September 23rd, 2009 at 7:48 am
Had the owners of the Hotel been Muslim, and had the owners allowed a Christian Kufar to stay in the hotel at all, the Christians would have been kicked out for defending their faith possibly, or, when the police came, they would have arrested the Christians for offending the Muslims, and in their own hotel! can you imagine?
These laws are clearly selectively enforced for Muslims. It is why these laws are a bad idea from the inception.
By M.K.J. on September 24th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
UN-BELIEVABLE! It is about TIME christians STAND UP and defend their faith! We are blaming the Knights Templar and the Crusaders for defending christian territory against islamic invaders! BUT IT MIGHT BE OURSELVES TAKING UP THAT SAME BATTLE SOON!
By C.frances on November 6th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
If people are going to be offended by what others say or think about their beliefs, then they should not be in conversation with others about their beliefs to begin with, and they should not have a court of law to back them up in it either. It’s always the extremists that make it bad for everyone. We don’t want to lose freedom of religion because these two and people like them freak out and are immature about the way they handle themselves.
By L LANZA on December 7th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
I THOUGHT WE CHRISTIANS ARE SUPPOSED TO WIN THE LOST TO CHRIST NOT DISCUSS THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEVES, ENTERING INTO CRITICISM ABOUT mohamed WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MY MOVE. RATHER I WOULD HAVE PRAISED JESUS IN EVERY POSSIBLE WAY AND KEPT ON PROCLAIMING THE TRUTH OF !!WHO HE IS!! RATHER THAN PROCLAIMING THE TRUTH OF who mohamed was!
THERE IS NOTHING OFFENSIVE IN DEFENDING OUR LORD, BUT A mohamed BELIEVER WOULD FIND IT OFFENSIVE TO HEAR A “POSSIBLE TRUTH ABOUT THEIR prophet!”. WE DON’T KNOW IF THE WOMAN KNEW ABOUT WHAT BEN AND SHARON VOGELENZANG WERE SAYING, BUT I KNOW THAT FOR A MUSLIM IT IS HERESY TO DEBATE ANY WORD OF THE koran.
THERE HAVE NEVER BEEN SO MANY CONVERSIONS IN THE MUSLIM WORLD LIKE NOW!, MANY OF THEM HAVE SEEN JESUS HIMSELF!
IT IS BY BRINGING GLORY TO GOD THAT PEOPLE HEAR THE GOOD NEWS. FOR AS MUCH AS I EMPATHISE WITH THE VOGELENZANG I THINK IT WAS WRONG THE WAY THEY ADDRESSED THE WHOLE THING!
I DON’T REMEMBER WHERE IN PROVERBS SAYS: OUT OF THE OVERFLOW OF OUR MOUTH WE SIN. WE NEED TO BE SMART WITH evil, WE ARE NOT WRESTLING AGAINST FLESH AND BLOOD, WE MUST PROCLAIM CHRIST IN SUCH A WAY THAT PROTECTS US AS WELL,
!!!UNLESS!!! GOD TELLS US TO DO IT IN SUCH A RADICAL WAY THAT WILL BRING STIRRING SUCH AS THIS WITH BEN AND SHARON VOGELENZANG. I PRAY THAT THE AMAIZING GRACE OF OUR LORD WILL SAVE THEM TOMORROW. AMEN
By Brian on December 8th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
If they were professionals then they would never have entered into such conversations with guests.
You could never imagine a quality hotel ever having a personal confrontation with a guest. Ben and Sharon would have been sacked immediately if they were employees of a quality hotel.
No matter who they receive, professional hotels treat everyone as a commodity, smiling even if your mother passed away the previous day.
Guests are there to have a relaxed time in comfort and secure hospitality. Ben and Sharon did not fulfill this and instead allowed their personality to enter into what should always remain a professional engagement..
They should have had some training in hospitality skills before they opened a hotel.
I worked in a hotel as a youngster, for a few years, and the management always told us that you are here to serve the guests. Greeting them in a friendly manner, making sure they are comfortable. I assumed that was the basic rule of providing accommodation and hospitality.
Apparently they couldnt handle what their guest had chosen to wear while staying at their hotel.
At the very least they should consider a different career path. They are not suitable for the hospitality industry.
By islam on December 8th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
i am a muslim and believe in jesus, i believe he is one of the GREATEST prophets to every walk the earth. He will return before the day of judgement and the whole world will be in peace. Jesus is mentioned in the quran 25 TIMES, where as muhammad is mentioned only 5 TIMES. The whole story of jesus, his miraculous birth, the name of his mother, the story of the cross, the miracles he performed..EVERYTHING is mentioned. I am telling you this just to let you know how HIGHLY we think of jesus christ. His mother Mary is the GREATEST role model for women (as mentioned in the quran), this is the reason nuns dress the way Mary did.. and this also is the reason why muslim women wear the hijab and dress modestly. I hope Christians do not judge Islam on this case. Peace be with you all.
By James Cohen on December 8th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Brian you are correct to the letter. Even if you are incorect about the nature of the event, even if in fact, the guests had made a stink about any Christian decorations the owners of the hotel may have had on display you are still correct. However this is not a matter for the law. One can bet that had they as guests gone in to a Muslim owned hotel and complained about the various trappings of Islam or rules in force there in conformity to sharia law and they had created a fuss they would have been arrested for discrimination. So the issue is not how good they are as hotel owners but the role and more importantly, the limits of government on people’s opinions and choices.
In other words, while you may be 100% right, it is irrelevant. They have a right to open a hotel, and impose whatever rules they want on guests and decorate it howsoever they want. It is the right of guests not to chose that hotel and take some other more agreeable to them.
By James Cohen on December 8th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Here is an update on this case:
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/christian.couple.in.court.over.comments.about.islam/24840.htm
By Vlad Tepesblog on December 8th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Islam,
you believe in the Islamic version or recreation of Jesus. It is very unlikely that you believe in the Christian representation of Jesus either Catholic or protestant. Chances are, if you are Muslim, you do not believe he was crucified, you do not believe he was the living son of the old testament god and mostly you do not believe in the statement in the new testament: “I am the way the truth and the light. No one gets to the father but through me” because if you did, you would be a Christian.
What you are most likely, would be something like me if I invented a religion where I said the Muslims distorted the true message of Mohamed, that I had been given the truth by the angel Tim Horton, and Mohamed was a peace loving wonderful man who told all his followers to convert to Judaism as they had it right in the first place and to apologize to the peace loving tribes of Mecca as they really had a nice thing going before Mohamed’s followers got there and killed everyone. Would you allow me to say I believed in Mohamed if I represented him that way? I like how you say “The STORY of the cross”. You and I both know Koran claims this never happened.
By Virginia Yue on December 21st, 2009 at 4:48 am
This looks to me to be somebody abusing the aparatus of the legal system while religion is used as the vehicle.
Faith should be kept personal and be personal rather than being a game of competing to see “who has the correct religion” — that just serve to drive a wedge among people
Trackbacks