UK: Christian Hoteliers Charged over Muslim Guest Conversation
Hoteliers Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang: possible criminal records over discussion with Mulsim guest
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’.
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.
Scene of ‘offence’: The Bounty House Hotel in Liverpool, where a Muslim guest was upset
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.’
This is an extremely disturbing use of the Public Order and Crime And Disorder Acts by Merseyside Police. It now seems as if any complaint made by a minority can lead to a criminal record, possible ruin and even jail for any individual who is unfortunate enough to get on the ‘wrong’ side of a discussion.
All this has been made possible by the most Dhimmi administration in the world, the British Labour Government – who have trampled over the rights and customs of the British with draconian legislation (particularly aimed at the indigenous population to the benefit of the Muslim community); that would make a Banana Republic blush.
Shame on the Police – and even more the Crown Prosecution Service – for even considering bringing this sinister action to Court. The British are traditionally tolerant people who are slow to anger – the political élite should be on notice that they are beginning to awake to such treachery and interference with their traditional right to free expression.
[Main Story & Picture: Mail on Sunday]
Please consider supporting Un:dhimmi by making a small donation to the site, in order to show your support and help us with our work.
Get Your Copy of The Documentary the Iranian Régime Doesn’t Want You to See
Posted in 
Tags: 
If they were professionals then they would never have entered into such conversations with guests.
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.
Brian
Thanks very much for your comment. Whilst I think you have a point, it is, if you’ll forgive the pun, somewhat beside the point in this case. In a democratic and free society, people should be free to say what they like – and by extension, be as professional or unprofessional as they like.
I agree with you in as much as if they’d followed your advice their nightmare might never have begun – but our democratic rights and freedoms, gained over many centuries and through many struggles, are being eroded by one of the most malevolent and authoritarian governments in history – and that really matters.
I totally agree with Brian.
I’m an IT consultant who work’s in an office environment. It is a rule that we do not talk politics as what we say may offend others. This is not about freedom of speech but how we behave in our work.
I suspect that the incident was, it seems, sparked off by the Muslim women’s dress than anything else. As a guset she had a right to dress as she prefers providing it was within the law of decency. This was a case of freedom of dress rather than freedom of speech.
Some Europeans want Islam to be invisible, this is the main issue.
Once again I thank you for your post, Aziz.
However I repeat what I said to Brian – you are missing the point by a country mile if you believe this case is about workplace etiquette. I see you have a Muslim name and this may colour your take to a certain degree, but it isn’t about Islam either.
It is about creeping state authoritarianism, the speciously-justified criminalisation of alleged words in the context of a democratic society – and the differing legal weight attached to those words depending on who you are.
It IS about workplace etiquette Un:dhimmi. I think you are missing the point. Being a Muslim has nothing to do with this. As a Muslim I am just as able as you are to express an honest opinion about the situation just as you are able to as a non Muslim and it IS about Islam and potentially any other religion which is visibly different. Having lived in the UK for over half a century, I have seen a growing resentment towards Muslims. If we remain invisible then it’s fine but as soon as we become visible some non Muslims don’t like it.
The Muslim women was concerned about how she was treated and made a genuine complaint. The law will carry out it’s course. We shall see. Whatever the result is, what’s important is that as a society we should be respectful to each other while maintaining our different beliefs\views. In the workplace, how we behave and what views we give to customers has to be restrained. After all if the hoteliers in question feel happy to criticize the religious views of thier guests then they can’t complain if people do not wish to continue staying with them. They can’t have it both ways. People are FREE to reside in a particular guest house just as the hoteliers may feel they have a right to express their religious views, which in my opinion were incorrect in the first place and showed a lack of knowledge. The hoteliers can take the financial consequences of their actions, even if the case had not gone to court.
As far as creeping authoritarianism you mention, it may exactly be that kind of attitude by the hoteliers that may have caused the situation to erupt as it did.
Even a so called democratic society like the UK has limits in what can be said or not, although this case is not an appropriate example.
” we should be respectful to each other while maintaining our different beliefs\views.”
It is this phrase which marks out the fact that you really are missing the point, Aziz. Free speech is not about respecting each other – it is about saying exactly what you like (without, as in the reasonable, sensible legal limits existing before New Labour came into power – inciting violence).
In real life of course, normal civilised people do respect each others’ boundaries. But it is not for a government (particularly the current mendacious and imperious rabble), to legislate the limits of civilised personal behaviour on behalf of supposedly free people.
As for your remark: “The Muslim women was concerned about how she was treated and made a genuine complaint” – with respect, that is in this case for the Judge to decide – although it ought not to be, in our view!
I beg to differ. I’m not missing the point at all. But hey we have a different opinion in the matter. If someone has a view that u don’t like, simply walk away. That’s what Islam teaches me. If someone blasphemes God, then we are told to walk away. Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) as other prophets often had to listen to stuff they didn’t like but they still maintained some distance with them so that they would find the way. Hence as I said I will try to be polite and courteous to a non Muslim even if they have a view contrary to mine (providing they do not blaspheme, in which I would walk away) in order to give my view to them and hope that they will accept Islam. It’s the very fact of the lack of knowledge of Islam that non Muslims have that is the impoetus by which they obtain an understanding and respect of Islam. This can only be done thru discussion. If non Muslims are genuine in wanting to understand Islam, then I’m happy to talk to them even if they say something which not blasphemous but just happens to be plain wrong.
If as u seem to suggest that government should not interfere at all. Would this not open the way to potential violence? Is this what you want?
As far as your last comment is concerned I was referring to the right of the Muslim revert to make the complaint. What the judge will decide we will find out in due course.
Irrespective what the judge decides, the TRUTH will always remain TRUE and FALSEHOOD will always remain FALSE.
Why are you bringing Islam into it? The subject at hand is free speech. The post was about the criminalisaton of same. A Muslim was one of the cast of characters – and yes, this is a blog that is concerned about Islam in Britain. But the central issue here is not Islam.
The villains of this piece are the Labour government and their illiberal instincts.
I’m not sure what part of that is not clear.
And yes, I AM “suggesting that the government should be doing nothing in this case”. I have made that abundantly clear, too.
Or so I thought.
I was trying to move the debate forward and show a bicture and more important picture.
I would not want a situation where I as a Muslim could not discuss Islam with non Muslims. If discussion leads to misbehaviour as allegedly appears to be the case with the Christians in this case, I would want the government to intervene otherwise you would have a situation where there could be no discussion and that would potentially prevent me from doing dawah.
Hence in this case the villians as you put it appear to be the Christians not the government.
Were you happy with the Muslims in Wooton Bassett who condemned the dead soldiers or did you agree that they should have been arrested by the government?
So what you’re advocating is that you’d like to have debates with non-Muslims, but if things start to get heated or the debate turns against you, you’d reserve the right to complain to the police? Therefore you’re neither in favour of free speech, nor of open debate – but I don’t expect you to be – they are not particularly Islamic values, after all.
You ask me my opinion in the Wooton Bassett Muslims? I am in favour of any Muslims who may be subject to English Law being able to say exactly what they like, even these reprehensible Choudary-supporting bigots – just like anyone else.
By the same token, however, I should be able to say exactly what I like about Islam, too – this Labour government is trying to ensure that I can’t. Which is probably just the way you like it.
A typical response of one who has been cornered so you resort to misreprentation of what I have said to win an argument. Shame on you.
Nowhere did I suggest the rules would be different for Muslims and non Muslims. Read my post.
The debate could never go against me as I believe in the TRUTH. So I have no worries there. No doubt you may have.
The police have a right to maintain law and order. So yes if violence or unacceptable harassment took place as has allegedly happened in this case by these bigoted reprehensible ignorant swine (to use in part your phrase in addressing the Muslims) Christians then the police have a right to intervene. After all these bigoted reprehensible ignorant swine Christians have not been found guilty yet. The judge may find in their favour. We shall wait and see. Hence I don’t see why you should be so angry?
I’m in favour of free speech so that I can do dawah, but not to the extent of bad behaviour which ultimately the courts decide. If you don’t like what the government is doing, then stand as an MP or something like that or leave the country. LOL.
As far as Islamic values are concerned, I’m free to discuss ISLAM providing I don’t blaspheme. If I’m a true MUSLIM there is no need for me to blaspheme anyway. So I would say you don’t know what you are talking about.
You said that ‘I am in favour of any Muslims who may be subject to English Law . . .’
So you agree that the Muslims should not have been arrested?
Putting words in someone’s mouth is a SIN.
::::::Da’wa Qur’an passages edited out – try Islam4UK for that sort of thing::::::
“If discussion leads to misbehaviour as allegedly appears to be the case with the Christians in this case, I would want the government to intervene”
…which part of your statement did I misrepresent?
Anyway, I think your true intentions are starting to reveal themselves now, so enough of your da’wa – you don’t get to do it on our site.
Greetings. As a Christian I was a little dismayed at the spin that the Christian Institute had put on the whole story. This spin was communicated to many church leaders who then spread the story amongst their congregations. I contacted the Institute to make them aware of what some Christian leaders were saying. They wanted to portray this matter as Christians being persecuted for sharing their faith when in reality it was a couple of Christians upsetting an elderly muslim lady who in turn seemed to give as good as she got. The only winners were the lawyers, and the tabloids. A hollow victory for Free speech as this has already been tested in the courts in previous years. For Christians the Bible does say “Earnestly contend for the faith” but this needs to be done with love, truth and respect rather than intimidation as one of the witnesses (also a Christian) testified.
Any decent Policeman would have got the 2 parties together and simply asked them to make an apology, after all dont both faiths have some form of forgiveness.
Thanks very much for your comments. We welcome all shades of opinion here, even those with which we feel we need to take issue:
“in reality it was a couple of Christians upsetting an elderly muslim lady who in turn seemed to give as good as she got.”
Really? Were you in Court? Do you really know for certain that this is what actually took place? More importantly, when you present what occured as simply a domestic storm in a teacup, you both underplay and oversimplify events – thus diminishing what is really at issue.
The reason that this story is so significant – and its implications so sinister, is that the ‘hate speech’ legislation championed personally by Tony Blair has been turned into a political weapon by Muslims, eager to use our own, ostensibly liberal (but in reality highly illiberal) rules against us and, rather perversely, to shield the lack of fairness and tolerance within their own culture.
All should be equal under the law. By creating certain ‘protected’ classes (and seemingly one in particular), ‘hate speech’ legislation undermines free speech – a cornerstone of western democracy – and provides easy pickings for those that would abuse it.
People should not be able simply to run to the police station every time they feel slighted.