Christian hotel owners Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang hauled before court after defending their beliefs in discussion with Muslim guest
CLICK HERE FOR LATEST POST & UPDATE
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’.
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.
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.’
PLEASE READ THIS RELATED ARTICLE FOR ANALYSIS
UPDATE – UPDATE – UPDATE
The Christian Institute
The Christian owners of a hotel are being prosecuted for a crime because they defended their faith and criticised Islam in a debate with a Muslim guest.
Police arrested Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang, who run the Bounty House Hotel in Liverpool, after a Muslim woman complained that she was offended by comments made on 20 March.
According to newspaper reports, the debate involved discussion of whether Jesus was the Son of God or just a minor prophet of Islam.
Newspapers also report that the debate included comments that Mohammed was a warlord and Muslim dress for women was a form of bondage.
However, the facts of the case are disputed.
The pair are now being prosecuted for a “religiously aggravated” public order offence. A criminal trial is set for 8 and 9 December at Liverpool Magistrates Court.
A major client of the couple’s hotel has ceased referring guests because of the allegations. This has led to a 80 per cent drop in the hotel’s income, leaving the couple in financial difficulty.
The Christian Institute is funding the Vogelenzang’s legal defence. Its spokesman, Mike Judge, said: “We believe there are significant free speech and religious liberty issues at stake.”
The couple’s lawyer, David Whiting, said: “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.”
The couple were arrested and charged in July under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 and Section 31 (1) (c) and (5) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
If convicted the couple face a maximum fine of £5,000 and a criminal record.
Lawyers have expressed growing concern at the way public order offences are being used to limit free speech. The laws were introduced to deal with yobbish disorder in the streets, not limit robust debate.
Neil Addison, a criminal barrister and author of a legal textbook on harassment 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 police spokesman said: “Merseyside Police can confirm that Benjamin Vogelenzang and Sharon Vogelenzang, both of Fazakerley, were charged with a religiously-aggravated public order offence on 29 July 2009. This follows an incident on 20 March 2009.”
The Christian Institute
The case of Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang – the Christian couple charged with a crime for criticising Islam – was mentioned on the BBC’s flagship debate show last night.
The case was compared with that of Attorney General, Baroness Scotland, who has been allowed to stay in post despite breaking the law by employing an illegal immigrant.
The Question Time panel, which included Government equalities minister Harriet Harman, was asked why Baroness Scotland has not resigned or been dismissed.
Harriet Harman replied by saying that Baroness Scotland had made an “administrative error” and should be allowed to keep her job.
But fellow panellist Fraser Nelson opposed that viewpoint. He said: “an administrative technical error. That’s what you call it when Government ministers break the law.”
He said this attitude is what drives the readers of his Sunday newspaper column “absolutely mad, because they know if they were to do something the law would come on them like a tonne of bricks.”
He then gave the example of Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang who were arrested for offending a Muslim during a discussion about religion.
He said they wouldn’t get off the hook by saying, “sorry it was a technical error, I shouldn’t have brought up the subject we were discussing”.
He added: “I don’t think the Government realises just how heavy-handed it has become with the small people while the big guys get away with anything.”
The Vogelenzangs are facing a criminal trial in December. They are alleged to have offended a Muslim by saying Mohammed was a warlord and traditional female Islamic dress is a form of bondage.
The facts of the case are disputed and the couple have pleaded not guilty to a “religiously aggravated” public order offence.
The couple’s defence is being financed by The Christian Institute’s legal defence fund.
Contribute to the legal fund here:-
Support The Christian Institute’s legal defence fund.
Tags: Christian Persecution
September 20th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
This is final proof that free speech is a thing of the past in Britain and we now live an age of terror, suspicion and fear of the state’s “thought police” as created by the evil Blair / Brown / Harman conspiritors.
How many more decent, hard working people will be criminalised for having an opinion?
There is another wider aspect to this story. The Christian religion places an obligation on followers to promote belief in Christ and spread the message. We seem to be in a mess in which the right to follow one’s religion contradicts the law (Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 and Section 31 (1) (c) and (5) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.) which disallows free speech. Of course moslems will be free to promote their religion.
Even though I expect this one to get thrown out of court, it is still evidence of the end of freedom of speech in Britain as the NuLabour stasi are determined to impose total control of opinion.
September 20th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
Knowing what a slimy lot the labour thugs in power are, I would imagine they would have removed the D.G. and Def. Fid. from the face of the coinage. If i by chance it is still on, complain to the Queen. They were doing her job for her.
September 20th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
This is ‘Lawfare’ or ‘Litigation Jihad’, a form of legal harassment where the objective is to financially ruin critics of Islam. This tactic is very successful and is being used increasingly by Muslims in the West, see links under LITIGATION JIHAD at The Religion of Peace™ Subject Index
September 21st, 2009 at 1:39 am
What next the mass arrests of church congregations?
September 22nd, 2009 at 11:10 am
I am appalled at this latest conviction by the police of a decent couple who were merely in a private discussion with a Muslim woman who, I see, has remained nameless for some obscure reason. Are we not allowed to voice such opinions?? I am married to an Indian and have many Indian friends of all nationalities – we quite often have lively debates about various religions – why is it always the Muslims who take offence?? What gives them the right to think that they are above opinions? Unfortunately the minority of Muslims spoil it for the vast majority who are tarred with the same brush, i.e. totally intolerant of any other religion except Islam. I despair for the future of this country.
September 27th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
What is going on….so what are we going to do about it????? anything???? are there any petitions , rallies etc . I have written to my MP…doubt it will do any good but here’s hoping.
September 28th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
I am not a religious person but I think this situation stinks, your Hotel is promoted as a Christian Hotel and those of other religions have no business to go there and complain because you are Christians. If they dislike or disappove of your views, don’t go there, go elsewhere, stay at a Mosque perhaps, but how dare these people come and complain that they are offended in a country that is headed by a christian church and how dare they seek to claim that they are morally or religiously superior, they most certainly have proved with this debacle that they are not. I hope that the Judge sees good sense and throws out this case. You have the support, not only of Christians, but all decent thinking and law abiding people of the world.
October 15th, 2009 at 11:28 am
This is a most disgraceful (though predictable) use of this ludicrous legislation.
Do you know, and if so could you tell me and your other correspondents, when and where this ‘trial’ is to take place, so I/we can come and support our fellow-citizen-Christians
JGD (Dr)
October 19th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Hello Ben and Sharon, I read your story and although my story is slightly different to yours, I feel so much empathy for you both because of my recent expereince of the use of powers under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. My experience has left me feeling very unhappy, depressed, sucidial.
October 17 2009 I was arrested at my home address very early in the morning, taken to the police station and cautioned under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 and the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 for racially aggravated harrrassment – words in a public place.
I am a black woman. A black gentleman discriminated against me ny making a number of comments to me because of my ethnic origin during the course of his duty. I responded back to him which I did not consider to be unresonable or racial under the circumstances. The gentleman became angry when he realised I was going to report him to the company he worked for. In order to safe guard himself he reported me to the police claiming I said things which were totally erroneous to the facts.
I signed the caution under what I consider extreme duress. I was told the only alternative available to me was to accept a caution and get the process over with more quickly or plead not guilty spend a considerable longer period of time in the police cell (possible overnight) while the CPA decided whether I would be bailed or not and then go to court where I would be found guilty and receive a conviction. I suffer from unbelievable fear of enclosed spaces therefore I tried to conform to everything I thought would allow me to get out of the cell as quickly as possible this included accepting a caution even though this was extremely painful and against my princple and beliefs.
I was not familiar with the specific wording in the act prior to being arrested therefore was not abe to make referene that to fact that section 3 (c) of the act says that:
‘It is a defence for the accused to prove his conduct was reasonable’. I believe that like in your case, I did not behave unreasonable.
In some cases the meaning is being mis-intrepetated and the powers under the Act are being mis-used by the police in some cases. It appears that once cautioned or charged there are few or no legal recouse for the accused.
.
November 4th, 2009 at 8:30 am
I agree with all the above, it is disgusting a christian cannot speak out for the truth of what they believe, christians are open to any debate and whatever the out come verbally it would never go to a threat to prosecute. How come the majority of muslims get angry at every critisism about islam, is it because they might realy believe there is truth in christianity and they are scared, Any way we are still to pray for them, and we will pray for Ben and Sharon, our God is a just God, i believe he is in this and they will get off.
November 17th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
For to long we (and I do believe myself to be a Christian) have been charitable and hospitable. I for one have always followed Jesus’ New Commandment. I am tolerant and open to discussion even though I will not change my opinions or beliefs. Now, if I am not mistaken (and it is possible, I am only human!) Christians are also called upon to pray regularly and at one point when I was exploring my vocation I prayed five times a day. I believe it is time to be more open about our Christian beliefs and to take advantage of the religious freedoms we are given. I spend much of my time in workplaces where a large part of the workforce is Muslim where I will now be taking my prayer book and making full use of the “multifaith” prayer areas to meet my own spiritual needs and those of my God. I would urge all Christians to do the same, even if this is something you have not done before, use the facilities that have been set aside, for your own Christian prayer do not be afraid to demonstrate your faith. Memorise your prayers so you can recite them aloud if you so desire be proud of what you believe and encourage everyone you know to do the same. There are many websites with daily prayers so you don’t need to do a huge amount of research even if, like me, it is a long time since you prayed regularly. Best wishes to everyone.
November 24th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
This Moslem woman who stayed at the hotel was on private property that was owned by this Christian couple. They had every right to defend their Christian faith. If this had happened in America they would not have been arrested and would not be standing trial. I am proud and thankful to say that I am a personal believer in Jesus Christ and will defend my faith to any Moslem that debunks it. We have more religious rights over here in American than people in the UK. This is just another ploy to me to try and persecute Christians. But don’t worry my sisters and brothers in Christ. Jesus is still in control and will soon return to take his believers out via the glorious rapture of the saints. Then every hater of Christians on this earth will soon see that we were right all along. But then it will be too late to turn to the holy Son of God because Satan will have his 7 years of hell on earth to persecute every man, woman, and child of age that rejected Christ because his hour (the devils) has now come and nothing but hell itself will be the destiny of the people on this earth. Read the book of Revelation. Turn to Christ before it is too late.
December 8th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Unfortunatly, this article is very one sided.
If events happened as were laid out in this article, then I would agree with the comments posted. However, it has since came to light that this was not a reasonable debate about religion, but rather that the Christian couple, upon seeing the woman wearing a hijab, starting shouting at her, calling her “a terrorist” and “a murderer”.
Regardless of your faith, that is unnacceptable, intolerant behaviour. It would be the same as calling any catholic you see a paedophile.
These two are not Christians, they are intolerant bigots who shame the good name of Christianity.
December 8th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
i am a muslim and believe in jesus, i believe he is one of the GREATEST prophets to every walk the earth. He will return before the day of judgement and the whole world will be in peace. Jesus is mentioned in the quran 25 TIMES, where as muhammad is mentioned only 5 TIMES. The whole story of jesus, his miraculous birth, the name of his mother, the story of the cross, the miracles he performed..EVERYTHING is mentioned. I am telling you this just to let you know how HIGHLY we think of jesus christ. His mother Mary is the GREATEST role model for women (as mentioned in the quran), this is the reason nuns dress the way Mary did.. and this also is the reason why muslim women wear the hijab and dress modestly. I hope Christians do not judge Islam on this case. Peace be with you all.
December 8th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Interestingly one of the witnesses for the prosecution is another guest who is also a committed christian – and she has described it as “a very upsetting and volatile exchange”. Another guest reports hearing the defendents shouting “Nazi” at the 60 year old disabled muslim woman.
This does not sound like defensible christian behaviour towards a guest.
December 9th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Hi,
Where is the Christian charity and hospitality when a Muslim woman undergoing medical treatment is told by the managers of the small hotel she was staying in, that her most beloved Prophet was a warlord and that she is a slave and in bondage for wearing a Hijab.
It isn’t a question of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does not equate to verbal abuse and displaying religious intolerance. The Quran invites Muslims to debate with other faiths but ALWAYS in the best of manners and respect as I’m sure does the Bible.
Shame on the hotel owners for bullying a lady undergoing treatment simply because of their hostility towards Islam, and shame for all the other fanatics for siding with them simply because it reflects their own hatred towards Islam.
Jesus Christ would certainly have sided with the Muslim woman, as he would always side with the oppressed and bullied not the arrogant and hateful.
December 9th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
I recomend reading A DEADLY MISUNDERSTANDING by MARK SILJANDER.
Jews, christians and muslims all believe in the same one god……………..its about time we stopped being so distrustful and abusive to each other……………jesus, mohammed, abraham should all be respected as moral people…………..just think how strong we would all be if we were united.
Benjamin and Sharon Vogelenzang should not have acted in the way they did……………..they call themselves christians but were agressive and abusive to an elderly disabled woman…………………..something that NONE of our prophets would condone.
Final point………………..if a woman walks down the street with her cleavage on display no one says a word……………….but when a woman chooses to cover herself respectfully shes vilified.
Theres something VERY wrong here.
December 9th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Case dismissed. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8404212.stm
It seems to me that a discussion got a bit heated and afterwards the muslim woman went to the police.
December 9th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
one question to you all
if jesus saw those couple behavie like that abuse others, put thier shamful behavior under jesus’s name will he be happy or pleased??
shame on that couple to do such thing.
December 9th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Putting religious differences aside for a moment i think this says a lot really…………………Benjamin and Sharon Vogelenzang were very rude and abusive to an elderly disabled lady guest who had paid them over two and half grand for a months stay.
And she was on her own.
Charming.
They should be utterly disgusted with themselves.
Next time they should keep their opinions to themselves. Theyre both a disgrace to the christian faith.
They should apologise to that lady and refund her.
December 9th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Thank goodness sense has prevailed. It was a nonsense that they were arrested in the first place
December 9th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
I live in the US and read this story on Yahoo. If the AP version of this story is true, that the Christian couple became volitile first and lashed out at the woman unprovoked, than what they did was WRONG and UNChristian like. Whatever happened to love hm? It is with LOVE that you win converts, not ridicule. I do not support this couple
December 12th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Now if I say that Muhammed was a paedophile (he had sex repeatedly with a nine year-old child who he said was his wife, one of many), that he had sex with his daughter-in-law, that he ambushed and killed men, raped their wives and children, would I be taken to court ?
Like most Europeans I am certain that Islam is incompatible with western civilisation.
BY the way we are aware of litigation jihad by Muslim immigrants in the West
December 12th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
Mario
i would say read the history i made a research by my self i many of history books all of it confirm that his wife was 18 not 9. the whole problem is you just listen and repeat what u hear, ask you self why mohammed spent his youth with an older women his first wife older than him in 15 year his second wife older than him in tens if he was ladys man he should enjoy his youth with younger women.
another thing who told you that mohammed attack nations again you just repeat what you hear without evidance, for you information mohammed first war was after 15 year o his message, and it was defensive war.
for god love she old disabled woman.
read more before you put comments coz you embarrassing yourself
December 12th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
Mario: Putting aside your “certain”-ty without evidence. Do you know whether YOU are compatible with western civilisation? All the social changes that have been constantly altering the landscape around us, do you know where it is all leading before you conveniently narrow your focus down to Islam? You mean to tell me that everything is hunky dory and then Islam came to wreck the place? WW1 + WW2 ? Islam had nothing to with it? Unless of course you have a new theory up your sleeves. And “litigation jihad” ? are you suggesting that we should forbid and deny Muslims in the West access to courts because it’s part of a so called plan? Get a life dude!
March 18th, 2010 at 11:03 pm
First of all, it is migrants not immigrants ( I have the urge to call Mario a FOOL). And also, are you all right in the head? Since when did Jesus say we can insult other religions in the name of free speech?!
Are you going to tell me that you’d let somebody bully your child because they have the right to an opinion and the right to express it? I think not, so why be so close minded due your religion and condemn other religions. You are not God, you will never know which is the true religion, all you have to do is believe christianity is. Most of you commenting are probably between the ages of 20 – 50, I still can’t believe I have more sense than you.
“Among the things Mr Vogelenzang, 53, is alleged to have said is that Mohammad was a warlord. His wife, 54, is said to have stated that Muslim dress is a form of bondage for women. ” – I bet these people, like Mario, were repeating what they were told. There are many Muslim women who chose to wear a veil, they are like NUNS! – Christianity requires Nuns to wear veils and cover up, so why the double standard?!
FYI – I’m a Christian (with common sense)
March 19th, 2010 at 9:50 am
The most interesting thing to me is the content of the many of the comments to this article. It shows how scarily easy it is to rouse a rabble on the flimsiest of heresay evidence. This intemperate behaviour is encouraged by partial media, who tailor their articles to massage the prejudices of their readers – and the process is cyclical, becoming moe entrenched each time it goes round.
Break the cycle guys! Remove the oxygen you provide to the extemists!