Wednesday, 18 June 2008

It's "too ambiguous" to call Scientology a cu*t

Dear reader, our blog has moved to a new address.

Do come on over (and change your bookmarks accordingly):

There's been another development in what's becoming a long-running dispute between anti-Scientology protesters and British police, as a 57-year-old man was charged with breach of the peace for displaying a sign that read "Stupid Cu*t" and "Greedy Cu*t" during a protest in Edinburgh at the weekend.

This follows a series of incidents where protesters in UK cities have been warned by police that branding Scientology a "dangerous cult" during demonstrations could be viewed as inciting religious hatred.

The Edinburgh protester was clearly looking to make a point about this with his "Cu*t" sign, as he explained in a blog post:

"Following the recent arrests of protesters who displayed the word 'cult', I decided to make the point that the word 'cult' was being treated as an offensive profanity when applied to Scientology. The arrest when it came was swift and non-negotiable. I was told, 'That's going too far, I'm arresting you'. I never received a warning."

Apparently the man was told his sign was "too ambiguous", which raises some interesting legal issues about acceptable levels of ambiguity. Would the police prefer more or less stars? Is "C**t" more acceptable than "Cu*t"? Or shall we just insert an "n" in the appropriate place and have done with it?

Answers in comments to this post....


Todd Hendrix said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Todd Hendrix said...

I wanted to make up comment but I don't want to be found dead by 'suicide' tomorrow.

Soundofsilver said...

The guy is spot on - the law was an ass in this case. Released without charge. Someone buy this guy a pint!