Woman arrested for facbook Rants of Hate.

The owner of beautician in Bicester was arrested on Sunday in connection with a Facebook post in which she imposed a blanket ban on Muslims booking appointments at her shop. The 43-year-old posted an update following Friday’s massacre in Paris in which she officially declared Blinks of Bicester a place of segregation.
The Facebook post, since deleted, read: "Blinks of Bicester are no longer taking bookings from anyone from the Islamic faith whether you are UK granted with passport or not.. Sorry but time to put my country first". Coppers came calling after the post sparked upset among social media followers.





A Police spokeswoman said: "We have arrested a 43-year-old woman in Bicester today after a number of complaints about a racially abusive post on social media. The woman was arrested under section 19 of the Public Order Act which relates to the display of written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting with the intention of stirring up racial hatred, and for producing malicious communications."

Businesses are banned from refusing service on the basis of religion, according to the 2010 Equalities Act.


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/11/15/blinks-of-bicester-arrested_n_8569760.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

I'm not sure what they can get her on really. She hasn't actually refused service to a particular person on the grounds of their religion, she just said she was going to. That last bit about hoping people are blown up might be enough I guess, but it's not really incitement to violence or hatred as such. I suspect that what she said was a knee-jerk reaction to the murders in Paris - I bet she's not the only one.

If she is prosecuted, I hope they go ahead and prosecute Bahar Mustafa after all.

I bet they wont Ragga....this arrest is "stifling of dissent"

shout too loud and we will hit you hard

the left are very good at it

Rags if her views led to others dirscriminating through segregation, then that is incitement. It is against the law to discriminate based on religious grounds. Which  can be seen to provoke others to also break the law. So thre is grounds, but there is also has to be more uniformity and arresting others that cause incitement

How many posts have there been encouraging Jews to be stabbed with no arrests?



I doubt they will charge her anyway, but to me she has now created a situation that could find her being sued for claims to her refusing Muslim customers. I mean how easy would it now be to do this based on this woman publically stating this. So on that aspect she has left herself open to law suits that may arise.

Laters

yup didge you are correct of course...

me ..I'd just do it the "subtle way" and be "booked up, too busy, need a break and all the other unproveable good reasons not to take bookings"

Didge wrote:Rags if her views led to others dirscriminating through segregation, then that is incitement. It is against the law to discriminate based on religious grounds. Which  can be seen to provoke others to also break the law. So thre is grounds, but there is also has to be more uniformity and arresting others that cause incitement

How many posts have there been encouraging Jews to be stabbed with no arrests?



I doubt they will charge her anyway, but to me she has now created a situation that could find her being sued for claims to her refusing Muslim customers. I mean how easy would it now be to do this based on this woman publically stating this. So on that aspect she has left herself open to law suits that may arise.

Laters

I think they'll explain the law to her, and tell her not to break it. She is free to refuse customers on other grounds of course. She's free to ask anyone if they condone what happened in Paris, and if they do, she can refuse them.

I doubt she will refuse on the grounds of their religion now anyway. If anyone sues her, I think it's just a small home business, so they needn't bother trying to get rich.

It's all a bit of a fuss IMO. I read she was arrested for being racially abusive, but Muslims aren't a race anyway.

Lord Foul wrote:yup didge you are correct of course...

me ..I'd just do it the "subtle way"   and be "booked up, too busy, need a break and all the other unproveable good reasons not to take bookings"

Which will now be impossible for her to do Victor.
If she refuses anyone, they will no doubt claim some discrminating reason.
She really has ended up creating more problems for herself

Didge wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:yup didge you are correct of course...

me ..I'd just do it the "subtle way"   and be "booked up, too busy, need a break and all the other unproveable good reasons not to take bookings"

Which will now be impossible for her to do Victor.
If she refuses anyone, they will no doubt claim some discrminating reason.
She really has ended up creating more problems for herself

They'd have to prove it, and it would fairly easy to spot a malicious complaint anyway.

I certainly think she's an ignorant for tarring all with the same brush (like people are wont to do on here incidentally) but she has a right to her opinion.

It's her private business and I do believe a person has the right to offer their services to whom they choose and not any Tom Dick or Harry.
But like the Christian hotel owners who were prosecuted for not allowing gays to share a room, and the signs (thankfully long gone) that refused to serve blacks and Irish....there has to be a line drawn that does not discriminate certain groups en masse.

Didge wrote:Rags if her views led to others dirscriminating through segregation, then that is incitement. It is against the law to discriminate based on religious grounds. Which  can be seen to provoke others to also break the law. So thre is grounds, but there is also has to be more uniformity and arresting others that cause incitement

How many posts have there been encouraging Jews to be stabbed with no arrests?



I doubt they will charge her anyway, but to me she has now created a situation that could find her being sued for claims to her refusing Muslim customers. I mean how easy would it now be to do this based on this woman publically stating this. So on that aspect she has left herself open to law suits that may arise.

Laters

Our local mosque has a 'sister' entrance, and women aren't allowed in the 'brother' side. Is that sexual discrimination? Is that breaking the law?

eddie wrote:I certainly think she's an ignorant for tarring all with the same brush (like people are wont to do on here incidentally) but she has a right to her opinion.

Well, I bet the local Muslim community wouldn't invite her to Friday prayers at the mosque. So it works both ways.

In some parts of Canada they still have laws prohibiting women from entering pubs.

Donno if gender is a protected class. It would be interesting if segregated bathrooms are a violation. In the US it varies from state-to-state, I believe.

It depends on what is at issue. In employment, or voting, etc., gender is definitely a protected classification.

A bunch of perfectly ordinary-looking women should start using her business, and then when she thanks them when she's done, they should smile back and shout a friendly "Allahu akbar!"

HoratioTarr wrote:

Didge wrote:Rags if her views led to others dirscriminating through segregation, then that is incitement. It is against the law to discriminate based on religious grounds. Which  can be seen to provoke others to also break the law. So thre is grounds, but there is also has to be more uniformity and arresting others that cause incitement

How many posts have there been encouraging Jews to be stabbed with no arrests?



I doubt they will charge her anyway, but to me she has now created a situation that could find her being sued for claims to her refusing Muslim customers. I mean how easy would it now be to do this based on this woman publically stating this. So on that aspect she has left herself open to law suits that may arise.

Laters

 Our local mosque has a 'sister' entrance, and women aren't allowed in the 'brother' side.  Is that sexual discrimination?  Is that breaking the law?

You seem to struggle with many basic things.
For one the Mosque is not a plce of buisness
I also do not agree that places like religious buildings should have such segregation.
To your other daft point on being invited to a Mosque, why would she want to go to a place of worship, when she cleary does not believe in Islam?
In other words you are making the poorest excuses to back segregation.

I'm ambivalent. On the one hand, the woman sounds a right loony. She might as well blame eye or hair color for the events in Paris.

On the other hand, I am an advocate of freedom of expression. It would be illegal in the US if she were directly refusing to accommodate on the basis of religion. But here, she is apparently being charged with "written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting with the intention of stirring up racial hatred, and for producing malicious communications." That is a free speech issue.

So, I guess I would defend her.

Original Quill wrote:I'm ambivalent.  On the one hand, the woman sounds a right loony.  She might as well blame eye or hair color for the events in Paris.

On the other hand, I am an advocate of freedom of expression.  It would be illegal in the US if she were directly refusing to accommodate on the basis of religion.  But here, she is apparently being charged with "written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting with the intention of stirring up racial hatred, and for producing malicious communications."  That is a free speech issue.

So, I guess I would defend her.

How about the hate preachers spouting their vile insurrection in the UK? Very publicly too. Nobody seems to put them in prison and throw away the key. We put them in big houses and pay them benefits for 25 years instead.

Didge wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

 Our local mosque has a 'sister' entrance, and women aren't allowed in the 'brother' side.  Is that sexual discrimination?  Is that breaking the law?

You seem to struggle with many basic things.
For one the Mosque is not a plce of buisness
I also do not agree that places like religious buildings should have such segregation.
To your other daft point on being invited to a Mosque, why would she want to go to a place of worship, when she cleary does not believe in Islam?
In other words you are making the poorest excuses to back segregation.

I'm not struggling with anything, I'm making a point. Whether you agree with that point is neither here nor there. You do seem to struggle with your basic spelling though.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Original Quill wrote:I'm ambivalent.  On the one hand, the woman sounds a right loony.  She might as well blame eye or hair color for the events in Paris.

On the other hand, I am an advocate of freedom of expression.  It would be illegal in the US if she were directly refusing to accommodate on the basis of religion.  But here, she is apparently being charged with "written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting with the intention of stirring up racial hatred, and for producing malicious communications."  That is a free speech issue.

So, I guess I would defend her.

How about the hate preachers spouting their vile insurrection in the UK?   Very publicly too.  Nobody seems to put them in prison and throw away the key.    We put them in big houses and pay them benefits for 25 years instead.

That's true....the law should apply equally no matter who is doing the hate spouting.

Syl wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

How about the hate preachers spouting their vile insurrection in the UK?   Very publicly too.  Nobody seems to put them in prison and throw away the key.    We put them in big houses and pay them benefits for 25 years instead.

That's true....the law should apply equally no matter who is doing the hate spouting.

It's not the equality issue. One of the biggest--if not the biggest--difference between the UK and the US, is the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Free speech is guaranteed in the US, whereas in the UK there are all sorts of laws (like this one) that abridge free speech.

Didge knows...we've had this debate for a long time.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

That's true....the law should apply equally no matter who is doing the hate spouting.

It's not the equality issue.  One of the biggest--if not the biggest--difference between the UK and the US, is the First Amendment to the US Constitution.  Free speech is guaranteed in the US, whereas in the UK there are all sorts of laws (like this one) that abridge free speech.

Didge knows...we've had this debate for a long time.

I mean the law should apply to everyone equally in the country they are in.

I know...you were responding to HT's example.

It was a fair point...I was just trying to get back on track.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL



She deserves it.

Bloodt ridiculous init. Even the Chippy got into trouble



'Now under new management... English owners' Chip shop ordered to take down 'racist' sign

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/425422/Now-under-new-management-English-owners-Chip-shop-ordered-to-take-down-racist-sign

If an Indian person owned a curry house, would they not be allowed to advertise that fact then?

I miss the English chippies, they are all Chinese owned now.

Irn Bru wrote:Bloodt ridiculous init. Even the Chippy got into trouble



'Now under new management... English owners' Chip shop ordered to take down 'racist' sign

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/425422/Now-under-new-management-English-owners-Chip-shop-ordered-to-take-down-racist-sign

that is silly and that is different,

he isn't saying 'only English welcome' or anything like that he is just saying he is English. that is not racist

Mind you if he was a bit smarter he would have just said "Traditional English Chippy" gets the same point across and doesn't make you sound like a dick

Well veya ..it IS a lefty council...what else could you expect....

they just HAVE to find a hard working individual to persecute

they do not understand the "if it aint broke dont fix it" idea.....