British court punishes atheist for anti-religion posters

A British court punished an atheist for distributing literature which mocks religion. Part of his punishment includes a court order forbidding him from carrying “religiously offensive material” in a public place.

The Telegraph reports that Harry Taylor, 59, left homemade posters in the public prayer room at Liverpool’s John Lennon Airport on three occasions:

Among the posters, one image showed a smiling crucified Christ next to an advert for a brand of ”no nails” glue.

In another, a cartoon depicted two Muslims holding a placard demanding equality with the caption: ”Not for women or gays, obviously.”

Islamic suicide bombers at the gates of paradise were told in another: ”Stop, stop, we’ve run out of virgins.”

The Telegraph goes on to offer commentary not relevant to the case making clear to readers that Taylor is ‘some sort of crackpot’:

Unemployed Taylor, on medication for depression, said it was ”preposterous” to suggest people could be incited to violence by cartoons – another of his depicted the Pope with a condom on his finger.

Actually, it’s on his head, not his finger, as shown above. Finger/head? Ass/elbow?

Taylor denied the charge of “religiously-aggravated harassment”, but was convicted by a jury in less than one hour.

An atheist and self-described philosopher, Taylor claimed that he left the posters in tribute to John Lennon, whose popular song “Imagine” includes the lyric, “Imagine no religion.” He noted that Lennon, an atheist, would doubtless not have approved of a prayer room in a facility named after him.

The sentence for Taylor’s actions? An “Anti-Social Behavior Order”, forbidding him from “carrying religiously offensive material in a public place”. He must also perform 100 hours’ community service and pay a find of 250 pounds. He also received a six months’ prison sentence, which is suspended, and a lecture from the judge, who apparently doesn’t understand that a militant atheist finds the very existence of a publicly-funded “prayer room” to be offensive:

Not only have you shown no remorse for what you did but even now you continue to maintain that you have done nothing wrong and say that whenever you feel like it you intend to do the same thing again in the future.

Would John Lennon’s “Imagine” be considered “religiously offensive material”?

The National Secular Society has raised the alarm on this issue, anticipating a dangerous precedent against free speech and in favor of “blasphemy regulations” like that in place in Ireland and various Islamic theocracies. NSS President Terry Sanderson issued the following statement:

Regardless of the fact that this six month sentence has been suspended, it is still totally out of proportion for what Mr Taylor did. Nobody can deny that he was being deliberately provocative in leaving these rather mild cartoons, cut from Private Eye, in the prayer room, but in the end he didn’t harm anybody and was simply making a point about the existence of such a facility. The chaplain could quite easily have simply thrown the papers in the bin.

Instead, she claims to have been hurt and offended by this material, which makes her ultra sensitivity a dangerous thing indeed. The professional ‘offence takers’ in religious communities will now feel that they have a strong new weapon to use against anyone who is critical or disapproving of them. It is, in effect, a blasphemy law that covers all religions and is much more powerful than the one that was abolished only two years ago.”

Religiously aggravated offences represent a new kind of blasphemy law, and the professional offence takers in religious communities won’t be slow to exploit this new avenue of restricting criticism and comment about their beliefs. It is time for parliament to reconsider these provisions and remove them from the statute books.

Who will be next to press this issue? Will it be Christians going after Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris, for their “religiously offensive” atheist tomes, making it illegal to carry them in public? How about Muslims suing Christians for criticism of Islamic honor killings and child marriage? Will Jews sue Muslims for calling them “infidels”?

Imagine no religion? It’s becoming more difficult every day, John.

Related articles:

1. British mayor swaps council prayers for poems
2. California Teacher Has No Right To Push Religion in the Classroom, Americans United Tells Federal Appeals Court
3. High Court judge makes clear that the law is secular, it is not anti-Christian
4. Oklahoma Anti-Sharia Amendment Violates U.S. Constitution, Groups Tell Appeals Court
5. Calif. Community College Should Not Impose Religion at Public Events, Americans United Tells Appeals Court