Christian hotel owners charged with criminal offence for saying that hijab is oppressive

'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.’



Lorne Gunter, a senior columnist at the Edmonton Journal, wrote in the National Post blog:

'... the Vogelenzangs lost four-fifths of their business overnight because public hospital administrators decided to punish them economically for their political incorrectness. Would these same administrators have withheld referrals to Muslims hoteliers who similarly defended their faith with guests? It's hard to know, but it seems unlikely.

'Muslims routinely demonstrate in Britain while displaying the most heinous placards urging death on anyone who defames their religion or prophet and are never charged with offending mainstream British society.'


Henry Porter, commenting in The Guardian, said:

'You may, or may not agree, with these sentiments but surely they don't merit a prosecution in a society where a good deal of latitude shown to the racism and homophobia preached by some imams. I can't comment on the exact details of what the couple may have said, or their manner, or the offence taken by the customer but I can say that free speech – even about religion – is the freedom to be offended, and that the decision to prosecute is about as daft as it gets.'



The case of Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang was mentioned on the BBC’s Question Time debate on Thursday, 24 September, when Fraser Nelson, the editor of The Spectator magazine, told Harriet Harman that Government officials, like Baroness Scotland, get away easily if they do something wrong whilst for simple people the law comes 'like a tonne of bricks' for saying minor things. Mr Nelson gave the example of the Vogelenzangs who were arrested for offending a Muslim during a simple discussion about religious traditions. He added:

'I don’t think the Government realises just how heavy-handed [the law] has become with the small people while the big guys get away with anything.''- from CFCON

So when was the right to free speech abolished?