Manchester Police Chief Thinks You’re Not Free To Offend Religion | Godless Spellchecker’s Blog

It’s such a shame that those eager to limit freedom of speech never do us the courtesy of starting with their own stupidity. I’m always amazed when people who enjoy a free, western democracy pay lip service to theocracy. It’s especially concerning when such a person happens to be a Chief Inspector for Greater Manchester Police in the UK.

Chief Inspector Umer Khan thought it was a good idea to share this pearl of wisdom today on hisTwitter account:



Of course, any thinking person knows that’s exactly what freedom of speech means. Speech can never truly be ‘free’ unless it includes the right to say things some people may not enjoy hearing. Indeed, the right to ‘blaspheme’, mock sacred cows and challenge taboos is what has led to progress in any civil society. The price for this has always been ‘offense’. And the great thing about ‘offense’ is that it’s cheap.

By Umer Khan’s understanding, we are not free to offend people who endorse FGM, denigrate gay people as ‘sinners’ or think the appropriate punishment for adultery is death by stoning. It’s their ‘culture’, ‘tradition’ and ‘religion’ after all. Am I not free to tell a believer that some verses of the old testament are morally repugnant, lest they take offense?

It’s been said a million times before, and it’s important enough to be said a million times again: No-one has the right not to be offended. Offense is taken, not given. Just because you’re offended does not mean you’re right.

Umer Khan would say he’s entitled to his opinion of course, which is true. However, he’s clearly tweeting his opinion in his capacity as Chief Inspector. An opinion on what freedom of speech is or is not. In other words, his opinion on what the law means, or should mean.

It’s worth reminding Chief Inspector Khan that section 5 of the public order offence was reformed in 2013 to remove the criminalisation of “Insulting words or behaviour”. It is also worth reminding the Chief Inspector that the EU Guidelines  clearly state that religious freedom ‘does not include the right to have a religion or a belief that is free from criticism or ridicule’.

With this in mind, perhaps Chief Inspector Khan could explain to the public and to his superiors why he is promoting sentiment that directly contradicts the law? I would submit that upholding the letter of the law is the bare minimum that should be expected from him.

Source: Manchester Police Chief Thinks You’re Not Free To Offend Religion | Godless Spellchecker’s Blog

This entry was posted in Government related, Islam, police, Politics and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Manchester Police Chief Thinks You’re Not Free To Offend Religion | Godless Spellchecker’s Blog

  1. topcat1957 says:

    This is one of the best pieces I have read recently on free speech and the leftist censorship based on avoiding “offense”.

    Civil societies which value freedom and the free exchange of ideas must protect the right to say things of which others may take offense. As pointed out, offense is taken, not given. And there is no right, and can never be a right, not to be offended. It is up to the person hearing or reading the message whether they take offense or not.


  2. ronvrooman38 says:

    Ron Vrooman Private Attorney General; criminal investigator, federal witness by statutes
    When one has irrefutable proof and is stopped by prosecutorial discretion; one can still file a suit in federal court and win by statute.
    How aware are you of what is really going on? Publius is good However she is BAR and tows their line.


    • topcat1957 says:

      I am not sure what point you are making about this article. I realize it is about an incident which occurred in the United Kingdom and I don’t know their laws well at all. Still I believe they support and protect freedom of speech there.

      The idea that people can be arrested simply because others find their opinions offensive is absurd and incompatible with free western societies. How do you suppose the people should respond to the infringement of their natural rights?


      • ronvrooman38 says:

        obozo has eliminated free speech in the 100 miles in from al borders by potus order. subjects and sovereigns have little in common. we still suffer from 1860 sine die. although FDR’s actions in 1933 are unconstitutional all admin courts are bogus.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. topcat1957 says:

    I am not an attorney, but I gather that Congress adjourned sine die in 1861 as the southern states walked out. According to one website I read:

    “On March 28, 1861 Congress adjourned sine die and never has reconvened de jure. ”

    Whether this is correct or not, I am absolutely convinced that 99% of what the federal government does is unconstitutional. The 3 branches each ignore the limitations clearly imposed upon them. Judicial government and Congressional and Executive usurpations run wild. Unconstitutional agencies filled with appointed officials make law, and clearly they are not authorized to do so. This represents a breach of representative government, and all rules and regulations which become law promulgated by these agencies are unlawful usurpations. Most of what Congress does is outside of their enumerated powers, and the same can be said for the Executive branch.

    We have a rouge government. Nevertheless, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution remain. They are the supreme law. Our officials in all three branches are so corrupt however that they are ignored by our government. The federal government is therefore the largest and most powerful organized crime structure in the country and perhaps the world.

    It is up to the States to stand up, as many are beginning to do and refusing to abide by some of the outrageous and unconstitutional, dictatorial demands of the federal government. This is our only solution. It may lead to violent conflict once again.


  4. ronvrooman38 says:

    I offer a remedy. As a PAG file suit in federal court and collect the penalties provided by statute.

    In this, a court of Record, Comes Plaintiff(s), Ronald Charles Vrooman and Henry Lyle Mayhew and for Oregonians and Americas, and as declared under Federally predicated Private Attorney Generals Henry Lyle Mayhew and Ronald Charles Vrooman authorized in Acts by Congress, et al, benefiting the People enforcing RICO, Civil Rights, Monopoly, Qui Tam, others, whereby as applicable as 14th Amendment Bounty Hunter of Section 4 in this Constitution, and for above enumerated Plaintiff’s actions of demands in Civil Rights vindication, RICO and or Due Process and Constitutional violations, or other such rights of the people, or Plaintiff’s not yet filed of future demands or enjoined by claims, in Civil Rights, RICO and or Due Process and Constitutional violations, et al, whereby as applicable of these 50 states,
    We asked counsel if this was needed and was advised that is the proper next step.
    Ronald Charles Vrooman in propria persona, Sui juris, adult, male, sovereign Oregonian, a member of we the people in our constitutional republic, bound by oath my oath in 1956 to the Constitution of the United States of America circa 1819 thru 1860-61, and Henry Lyle Mayhew, man, Coloradoan. Here by special appearance , ex parte Milligan is invoked, as we function only in a Constitutionally authorized court of record in the common law. And by unrebutted affidavit.
    And Henry Lyle Mayhew and Ronald Charles Vrooman Private Attorney Generals by the United States Congress 42 U.S.C.1988 and also 18 U.S.C.1510 and 18 U.S.C. 1512 and to be known as “One of the People” also “Qualified Criminal Investigator” and “Federal Witness” and by unrebutted affidavit.
    It has come to our knowledge that there are several acts, repugnant to the Constitution of/for the United/united States of America and the Oregon Constitution circa 1860 and Colorado Constitution circa 1876; being perpetrated upon “we the People” and as “one of the People’ action is taken herein. It is to be done without equivocation, secret evasion or mental reservation. We are doing lawful here. We define $ as what is available at a bank, as such. No checks, although you can arrange direct deposit. I will provide the numbers. The payees must provide proof of payment for the Marshall, two weeks after the order was enforce by delivery from the Marshall of the court’s orders. Ignoring this court’s order on the default payment, will result in a contempt of court order in each case and executed by the Marshall, 1 day of 24 hours within each week the next 10 weeks until paid or time is served. So mote it be.
    We reiterate:


  5. sober0 says:

    Reblogged this on Sober Technique.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s