Labour-run council U-turns on Christian street preacher ban
Rushmoor borough council, in Hampshire, sought an injunction in February that would have prohibited Christians preaching, praying and handing out leaflets in the town centres of Farnborough and Aldershot.
The local authority claimed preachers were being 'offensive' and caused 'alarm and distress' to passers-by.
But it has now withdrawn its application for an injunction after being accused of attempting to 'criminalise' Christians because the maximum sentence for breaching an injunction is two years' imprisonment.
Jamie Broadey, a preacher and evangelist, said it was 'highly concerning' that the council had attempted to acquire the injunction in the first place.
'We welcome the news that the council has withdrawn its application, but it is highly concerning that they made this attempt to criminalise the Christian faith in the first instance,' he said.
'When I first read the injunction I thought: 'They must have made a mistake.' I felt complete disbelief that it was saying that you can't have religious discussions, you can't pray or sing, and people have to come to you, you can't go to them and share the gospel which Christians have done freely in this country for centuries.'
Under the terms of the drafted injunction, Christians would have been banned from praying for anyone 'without their prior permission', offering leaflets or Bibles by hand and laying hands on anyone in prayer even if they consented.
Other proposed prohibitions included approaching people to discuss Christianity and the preaching of any sermons that were 'hostile towards anyone with the protected characteristic of age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation'.
Sally McGuinness, a cleaner and street preacher, said the council had attempted to 'criminalise' her.
'If this had not been challenged and stopped in its tracks now, we have no doubts that the Christian faith would be criminalised in Aldershot and Farnborough,' she said.
'This would have been terrible for Christian freedoms and freedom in general in this country. We are still awaiting an apology from the council and assurances that nothing like this will ever happen again.'
The council's about-turn came after local Conservative councillors Gareth Lyon and Ade Adeola took up the preachers' case.
The council organised meetings with local ministers and preachers where the Christians' objections were heard.
In a statement, the council said it had discussed introducing a 'voluntary code of conduct' for street preachers to limit 'distress' caused to passers-by.
The preachers maintain that being seen as 'hostile' is unavoidable when attempting to convince non-believers of the truth of Christianity.
Cllr Lyon, leader of the Tory group on the council, said: 'I am delighted by the decision to withdraw the application for an injunction. It is absolutely the right decision.'
Cllr Gareth Williams, the leader of the council, added that he was 'pleased' to address a 'very sensitive issue'.
'I'm pleased that, following our discussions with the local Christian community and faith leaders, we have been able to address this very sensitive issue and agree a way forward that balances the rights to freedom of worship and expression with the interests of all town centre users,' he said.
Bishop Malcolm Cummins, a Pentecostal minister and chairman of the Rushmoor Faith Leaders Forum, said: 'We're relieved that our discussions with the council have proved constructive. We now look forward to working closely together to build even stronger relationships.'
Andrea Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre, which supported the street preachers, added: 'We urge Christians to remain vigilant and prayerful, and to continue supporting efforts to ensure that the public square remains open to the gospel and to the free exchange of ideas.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
a day ago
- Telegraph
The Online Safety Act is an assault on freedom
They told us it was about protecting children. That's how they always do it. Wrap tyranny in the warm fuzz of 'safety', and hope nobody reads the fine print. But let me be clear: the Online Safety Act is not about protecting children. It is a Trojan horse for the biggest assault on free speech in modern British history. And unless we act, it will drag our country into a digital surveillance state worthy of Communist China. This is not hyperbole. This is a blunt reality. Section 179 of the act makes it a criminal offence to say something false that causes 'non-trivial psychological harm'. That's not protecting kids from predators. That's criminalising humour, satire, political dissent and angry tweets. Under this definition, a cutting meme, a sarcastic TikTok or a joke about a government minister could land you in court. This is not a safety law. It's a censorship law. Even George Orwell couldn't scarcely have imagined something so sweeping, so vague and so open to abuse. But it gets worse. Section 44 gives a single government minister the power to rewrite the censorship rules without Parliament. Let that sink in. A single person can direct Ofcom to impose new censorship obligations on the internet, and platforms will be legally forced to comply. No vote. No debate. Just diktat. This is the death knell of democracy. It's already happening. Content critical of government immigration policy – including videos of public protests outside migrant hotels – is quietly being censored from social media. Who can blame them? The act threatens them with fines of up to 10 per cent of global turnover and even criminal liability for their staff if they don't suppress content the Government deems 'harmful'. Faced with that, who wouldn't over-block? That's precisely the perverse incentive the act aims to create. This is not just an attack on public discourse, it's an attack on private conversations too. The act includes your private messages. WhatsApp and Signal have warned that the UK Government is demanding access to encrypted chats. That's right: the Government wants to read your DMs. And if tech companies don't build a back door, they face the full weight of the law. The Government claims it will hold off on this part, 'for now'. Don't be fooled. The Tories put this power on the books for a reason – they intend to use it. Today, they say it's for child safety. Tomorrow, it'll be about 'disinformation' or 'extremism' – code for anyone who challenges the failed policies of the political elite. Even more chilling is the mandatory ID scanning this law introduces. Not just for porn, but for regular social media too. If you're under 18, you'll be blocked from seeing 'harmful' content – which, in practice, means anything critical of the Government. This is especially sinister when you realise that 16- and 17-year-olds are being given the vote. They are being sent to the polls, but not allowed to see a political message the Government dislikes. And here's the final irony: this act won't even protect children. Anyone remotely tech-savvy – and let's be honest, most teenagers are – will use VPNs to get around the filters. Some will end up in the depths of the dark web, where the greatest dangers lie. So we get a censored internet, less privacy and no improvement in safety. This dystopian mess didn't come from Labour – though don't expect Starmer to repeal it. No, it was cooked up by the Tories. The same Tories who pretend to champion free speech and civil liberties when it suits them. Robert Jenrick and Suella Braverman – both now trying to reinvent themselves as defenders of British values – voted for this authoritarian legislation without question. No objections. No concern. In many ways this is the most insidious form of politician. One that says what we want to hear, and then sells us all out when it counts. The truth is this: the Online Safety Act is a disgrace to our democracy. It turns Britain into a state where truth is whatever the Government says it is. Where protest is suppressed, dissent is squashed, and your private thoughts are no longer private. Reform UK is the only political force willing to speak out against this. We believe in free speech, even when it's uncomfortable. We believe the role of government is to protect citizens – not to police their opinions. And we believe in repealing this dangerous act in full. Britain must remain a country where people can speak their minds without fear. Where satire thrives. Where criticism of the powerful is not just allowed, but encouraged. Clamping down on the free speech of British people will not succeed. Reform and Nigel Farage will see to that.
Telegraph
a day ago
- Telegraph
Our police and Establishment have turned against us. The country is on the brink
All week, I have had the Rudyard Kipling 's poem The Beginnings running round in my head. It was not preached to the crowd, It was not taught by the State. No man spoke it aloud, When the English began to hate ... Look at the images from outside asylum hotels in what were, until an eyeblink ago, tranquil corners of Essex, Norfolk or Hampshire. Observe the one-sided policing and the way local people react to it. It is hard not to see a country trembling on the brink of unrest. How can it be happening here, in a nation once famous for its orderliness and civility? 'The gentleness of English civilization is perhaps its most marked characteristic,' wrote George Orwell. 'You notice it the instant you set foot on English soil. It is a land where the bus conductors are good-tempered and the policemen carry no revolvers.' Even that last statement is becoming less true. The British bobby used to be a friendly and visible presence, partly because of his distinctive helmet (standard until 2002) and partly because of the height requirement (now ditched in the name of equality). He could patrol unarmed because behind him was an awe-inspiring system of criminal justice that punished shoplifters with incarceration and murderers with hanging. How long until Great Britain follows Northern Ireland in having armed gendarmes? The coppers I pass on my way into Parliament already carry weapons, because they belong to a unit called Parliamentary and Diplomatic Protection. Unlike bobbies of old, they wear soft caps and look slovenly, with gadgets hanging from their flak jackets. Theirs was the unit that gave us Wayne Couzens, who murdered Sarah Everard, and David Carrick, who pleaded guilty to multiple counts of rape over a 20-year period. Might there be a connection between carrying a gun and throwing your weight around? Might our old criminal justice system, strict, certain and effective, be giving way to something more arbitrary? Asymmetric policing is turning the immigration fiasco into a crisis of state legitimacy. When people see officers protecting masked pro-immigration thugs outside asylum hotels, they conclude that the apparatus of the British state is being used to push an unpopular policy down their throats. If it were a one-off, things might be different. But people in Essex know how woke their cops are. Their current Chief Constable, Ben-Julian Harrington, boasts that he is a champion of diversity, equality, and inclusion, and a 'firm ally for LGBTQ+ communities.' A true ally would, of course, serve ethnic minority and gay people in Essex in the same way as he served everyone else, namely by protecting property. Instead, Essex Police have made 1,570 arrests under the Online Safety Act – more than one per day since that flawed law came into effect. The same force that harassed my Telegraph colleague Allison Pearson over a non-threatening Tweet provides Leftist activists in Epping with an escort – just as the Hampshire Constabulary recently did for hooded agitators outside an asylum hotel in Aldershot. The system that keeps Lucy Connolly locked up over a quickly-deleted Tweet releases muggers early. Cops used to be citizens in uniform, and judges disinterested enforcers of the law. Now both look like partisans of the diversity cult which, without any public mandate, has become the official ideology of all our official bodies. People feel that the system is against them. Broadcasters who made a police killing in Minneapolis in 2020 their top story for weeks are largely silent when crimes are committed by asylum seekers – usually the proximate cause of local discontent. The protests in Epping, for example, were provoked by a charge of alleged sexual assault against an Ethiopian asylum-seeker on a 14-year-old girl, though you won't hear it on the airwaves. For decades, 'they're coming for our women' has been a punchline for BBC comedians parodying the imagined racism and stupidity of the white working class. Our state broadcaster seems to lack the vocabulary to respond to real-life sexual assaults by immigrants. Hence the BBC's awkward throat-clearing over the grooming gangs scandal. The Establishment appears far more interested in the human rights of scoundrels and illegal entrants than those of anybody else. Every group seems to be in on the racket: immigration lawyers hand out their numbers in the Calais camps, sometimes on phones in waterproof bags; the Border Force brings migrants across the Channel; Home Office officials won't remove illegals; judges overturn deportation orders on any pretext; broadcasters refuse to report the resulting protests other than as far-Right agitation. Oddly enough, none of these groups gets as much blame as MPs, even though most MPs, if only for reasons of self-interest, are desperate to stop the boats. Unless you have seen it up close, you will struggle to believe how powerless politicians are before the standing apparat. The fact that the trade union representing Home Office civil servants went to court to overturn the Rwanda scheme is as telling as the fact that the courts did overturn it. Politicians know that blaming judges and civil servants sounds pathetic, so they prefer to make tough statements and hope for the best. That approach created the present mess. Fixing immigration policy will require intelligence, delicacy and patience. A government truly determined to stop the boats and to deport illegal entrants will need to derogate, at least in part, from numerous international treaties – not just the ECHR, but all those cited by pro-immigration judges, including the Refugee Convention and possibly the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It will need to scrap a mass of domestic laws, including the Human Rights Act and the Equality Act. It will need to override the current system of judicial review and create a mechanism to remove partisan judges. Doing these things will make Brexit look straightforward. The human rights Blob will fight tooth and nail to maintain, not just its influence, but its livelihood. Overcoming that resistance will consume most of a new government's energies for an entire Parliament and will require immense tactical dexterity. The trouble is that almost no one is interested. Last month, the Conservatives announced a major review along the lines I have just mentioned, but I'd be surprised if one voter in a hundred has heard of it. You might put this down to poor communications, but the truth is that structural reform leaves most voters cold. The candidate who talks about fixing the plumbing, ending judicial activism and dismantling the Blairite juridicial state, will never be as appealing as the one who pretends that it is straightforward and who demands, ingenuously, that boats be turned back mid-Channel (as if no one had tried that before). Politicians might justly blame the current crisis on immigration tribunals, Leftist civil servants and, yes, PC PCs. But I sense that voters are past caring. They are like a man who is about to take a sledgehammer to his malfunctioning computer. It might not fix the problem, but it will feel good. There is an existing democratic remedy to woke policing. Local constabularies are answerable either to mayors or to elected Police and Crime Commissioners. But, at last year's PCC elections, more than three in four registered voters declined to cast a ballot. The chance to elect candidates who might have reordered local police priorities was lost. People engage in street protests, not because they have exhausted every democratic option, but because they have given up on the whole process. And who can blame them when they see the Britannia Hotel in Canary Wharf, where rooms can go for £400 a night, requisitioned to house young men who have broken into our country. Protesters outside that hotel brandish slogans that show quite how far our nomenklatura has drifted from public opinion: 'Justice for Our Girls', 'Stop the Boats', and even 'The English Began to Hate' – a sad but apt comment on where we are. It was not suddenly bred, It will not swiftly abate, Through the chill years ahead, When Time shall count from the date That the English began to hate.
The Herald Scotland
3 days ago
- The Herald Scotland
'South Park' takes on Trump, Colbert cancellation, '60 Minutes' suit
The episode depicts Trump literally getting into bed with Satan, his lover, using actual photos of the president crudely placed on an animated body. It's the same depiction that Saddam Hussein received in 1999's "South Park" movie, and Satan even comments that Trump and Saddam are "exactly alike." In the episode, Trump is portrayed as a thin-skinned bully who threatens to sue anyone who gets on his bad side. The main plot revolves around the supposed death of "wokeness" and the president pushing Christianity in classrooms by having Jesus physically appear at the boys' school. When the parents of South Park get angry and push back, Trump decides to sue the town. The episode goes on to take aim at Paramount for its controversial settlement with Trump over a "60 Minutes" interview with Kamala Harris, which he alleged was deceptively edited. A pair of "60 Minutes" anchors are shown covering the protests in South Park, but they nervously praise Trump and insist they don't agree with the protesters, as if they are worried he will sue again. All seasons of 'South Park' have a new streaming home. Where can you watch? Eventually, Jesus arrives at the South Park protest and, speaking nervously with clenched teeth, reveals he came to the kids' school "because it was part of a lawsuit and the agreement with Paramount." "(Trump) can do whatever he wants now that someone backed down," Jesus continues, adding, "You guys saw what happened to CBS? Well, guess who owns CBS? Paramount! You really want to end up like Colbert? ... Just shut up, or we're going to get canceled, you idiots!" The episode aired less than a week after the cancellation of Colbert's "Late Show," which CBS said was for financial reasons. But critics accused the network, which Paramount owns, of canceling the show to appease Trump amid a proposed merger with Skydance that requires Trump administration approval. Colbert is a vocal Trump critic and mocks him on almost every episode of "The Late Show." Colbert's cancellation: A ratings crisis or a political bribe? We investigate The season premiere ends with the people of South Park settling with Trump and agreeing to do pro-Trump messaging as part of their agreement. So the show cuts to a supposed pro-Trump public service announcement, in which Trump, in live-action, is shown crawling through a desert completely nude. With its surprisingly pointed critique of Paramount, the episode also aired on the same day that Paramount announced a five-year agreement with Parker and Stone for 50 new episodes of "South Park."
