UNLESS physical injury or civil disorder is involved, no!
But at the heart of a trial that opened yesterday in Liverpool are the “hurt feelings” of a Muslim convert who claims to have been abused by a pair of dotty Christian fundies who ran the hotel at which she was staying earlier this year.
Ericka Tazi
Ericka Tazi, 60, who described herself in court as “a normal Warrington girl who liked the Beatles”, scuttled off to the police after she was allegedly subjected to a “tirade of abuse” by Bounty House owners, Benjamin Vogelenzang and his wife Sharon, who are fundamentalist Christians.
The pair were subsequently 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.
When the trial began the couple denied using threatening, abusive or insulting words which were religiously aggravated.
Tazi claims the abuse was sparked by her appearing one day in Muslim garb – a hijab and gown.
According to the BBC, Tazi had worn normal European dress during her four-week stay at the hotel but a row flared after she came down on her last day in traditional Islamic dress.
She said Mr Vogelenzang asked her “Why are you wearing those clothes?” and began laughing at her.
Prosecutor Anya Horwood told magistrates that Mr Vogelenzang then began to discuss his Christian faith but became angry – at which point his wife joined in.
Tazi walked away but was followed by Mr Vogelenzang, who was acting like “a whirling dervish”, repeatedly asking her if she was a “terrorist”.
Giving evidence, Tazi told the bench that dressing in her hijab seemed to “trigger something” in the hotelier.
The 60-year-old, who suffers from fibromyalgia and lives with chronic pain, said:
He just couldn’t accept the way I was dressed. He asked me if I was a murderer, if I was a terrorist. I’m a 60-year-old disabled woman, I couldn’t understand where it was coming from, it was shocking to me.
Tazi said Vogelenzang followed her into the dining room “flailing” his arms and “jumping up and down”.
Benjamin Vogelenzang and his wife Sharon pictured at the prayer rally organised by the Christian Institute
She added:
Sharon came running in, she was shouting ‘you started this with your dress’ and she was pointing in my face and I was frightened at this stage. I was absolutely traumatised by it all.
The prosecutor said Vogelenzang, 53, had called the prophet Mohammed a “warlord” and likened him to Saddam Hussein and Hitler.
And his 54-year-old wife told Mrs Tazi her Islamic dress represented “oppression” and was a form of “bondage”.
After Tazi had contacted Merseyside Police, detectives questioned the couple. They claimed they had merely been sharing their “faith views”.
Tazi told Hugh Tomlinson QC, for the defence, that she was not trying to make a statement by wearing the hijab and denied having robust arguments about religion with other guests.
She told him she tried “many religions” before converting to Islam when she married.
She added:
My journey has been a long, long journey, it was a very difficult decision to wear these clothes… I’m a normal Warrington girl who liked the Beatles.
Guests at the hotel told the court that Mrs Tazi was left distraught by the row.
Pauline Tait, 52, another “committed Christian”, described it as “a very upsetting and volatile exchange”.
Another guest, Shirley Tait, said she was in her bedroom when she heard Mr Vogelenzang shouting the words “Nazi” and “warlord”.
A fundie in full cry at the CI's prayer rally
The Christian Institute lost no time in milking the case for every inch of publicity they could gain, claiming the trial was an example of free speech being trampled upon.
The CI’s website carries a quote from the couple’s lawyer, David Whiting, who said in September:
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 CI also organised a prayer rally in supports of the Vogelenzangs at Bridge Chapel, Liverpool – and promptly posted it on YouTube:
The case continues today.
Hat Tip: Marcus & BarrieJohn
UPDATE: The case against the foolish fundies was dismissed earlier today.
The Freethinker was founded in 1881 by GW Foote, an outspoken critic of religion. After the publication of 
December 9th, 2009 at 9:54 am
So is it:
“a normal Warrington girl who likes the Beatles” (para 2)
“I’m a normal Warrington girl who liked the Beatles.” (para 20)?
Anyway, another excuse for me to trot out the “two bald men fighting over a comb” again!
December 9th, 2009 at 10:23 am
Since she was a paying guest at the hotel I think there is a definite issue of staff misconduct, since they obviously mistreated their customer and gave them a poor experience. Overinflating this issue to one of “free speech” or “religious freedom” is a smokescreen by the Christians, imo. Then again, they’ve have a couple of millenia to perfect the art of obfusication.
The pair could be fined for treating their customer poorly, but I’m struggling with a religiously aggravated disorder offence with the story that’s been presented by the press. Having said that, if someone started freaking out and launched into a tirade against me because I was wearing blue jeans, only to be told by their partner that it was my fault for wearing them then I’d probably be a little bit annoyed, too.
gutts
December 9th, 2009 at 10:50 am
Hmmmn,
First
Guest does not wear Hijab for four weeks and comes down for brekkie in Hijab on last day but is NOT looking to provoke a reaction?
Second
Guest is subjected to an hour long tirade?
@Gutts – I agree with your overall sentiment BUT my cynical nature would wonder whether Mrs Tazi having had 4 weeks staying at the hotel and getting to know the Hoteliers may have been aware how committed they would be to their faith while they clearly would have found it a surprise that Mrs Tazi was a muslim. How could Mrs Tazi expect that this would not provoke some sort of discussion?
Very difficult to judge how heated a “debate” may be come when dealing with politics or religion which is why its much much better to leave your politics AND religion OUT of your business as I believe the Vogelenzangs are finding to their cost.
It’ll be a sad day for Britain if a legal precedent is set that you can effectively provoke an easy target (i.e. insert faith group here) into a position where they have to defend a set of irrational beliefs or refute soemone else’s irrational beliefs and then prosecute based on a charge of a religious aggravated offense.
Lesson 1 – Keep faith out of your business
Lesson 2 – Keep your nose clear of someone else’s faith.
Both parties are going to come out of this with their reputations tarnished across Britain except within their own faith groups where they’ll all be martyrs to their own opposing causes.
December 9th, 2009 at 11:04 am
“…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.”
In other words, it is the defence’s contention that fundies have the god-given right to impose their highly repugnant beliefs on anybody they want to, whenever they want to without hindrance or impediment no matter how aggressively they go about it, and to abuse and intimidate anybody who might have the audacity to hold different, if equally absurd beliefs to their own.
Tossers.
December 9th, 2009 at 11:11 am
“I couldn’t understand where it was coming from, it was shocking to me”
Regardless of whether you believe Islam is a religion of peace or not you’d really need your head in the sand to have no idea where the association of Muslim and Terrorist was coming from!
For example, as an Irish kid in the 80’s whenever I’d come to the UK everyone would ask me about terrorism. I never killed anyone, but I knew why people were asking!
December 9th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
‘Wore normal european dress for the first 4 weeks’….and then wore sub-normal, provocative, especially to christian fundies, non-eurpoean islamic dress. Like waving a red rag at a bull! Prosecute both may be? But its the Hijab and gown that caused the problem!
December 9th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Oh, the irony! Complaining that the owner was like a whirling Dervish – don’t they realise he was imitating a Sufi Muslim? Surely the sincerest form of flattery! It would have added to the fun no end if he’d started some Shia self-flagellating, though. It would have made it all nice and ecumenical, too, ‘cos popes do it.
December 9th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
@ Openmind & others: If your comment does not appear at once, or appears to vanish without trace, chances are that it has gone into the moderation folder, or has been identified as spam. Have patience, it will appear within an hour or two, as I check both folders erm *religiously* several times a day.
December 9th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
@ Tim: My typo. Sorry. Corrected now.
December 9th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
@OpenMind
Maybe she was wearing it on the last day because she was heading home? My partner wears different dress when visiting her Muslim family. My point being that whatever her reasons may have been for wearing what she did on that particular day doesn’t diminish the fact that those people were completely in the wrong to abuse her.
If a man stayed at that hotel for two weeks and then on the last day of his stay came downstairs wearing a pink suit with a rainbow pin-badge and those same people had starting shouting at him that he was destined for hell-fire and that it was his fault for flaunting his homosexuality, I’d be just as annoyed. People shouldn’t intimidate or abuse others because they don’t agree with their choice of clothing, let alone paying clients!
It does draw attention to the fact that it’s not just Muslims who need lessons in secularism.
gutts
December 9th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
@Gutts,
Even if it turns out that reason was to provoke a reaction?
I await further develoments in the courthouse.
Also no-one needs lessons in secularism, I hold it to be a truism that when opposingb religous opinions are held there’s nothing so valuable as the ability to hold on’es tongue.
Both parties would do well to remember this.
December 9th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
@ Barry – thanks for the info.
December 9th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Nothing to do with free speech. I am with the hotel guests. They should wear what they want. I also have sympathy with someone who suffers chronic pain and with the particular condition. As for free speech, try getting a “non faith comment” on Thought for the Day and see how free is speech on the Today programme. (Ann Atkins whining-boring away yesterday – same old religious gang day after day.)
I suggest an experiment. Appear at that hotel with its – to me – repellant owners and make clear that you are an atheist. Or you could throw 8n that you are a lesbian or homosexual atheist – whatever. Perhaps a few queries on why their all loving god left people with these illnesses and chronic pain.
Owners seem like a pair of fundy twats to me and – so what else is new – cruel and nasty with it.
December 9th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
@OpenMind
It doesn’t matter whether she was attempting to “provoke a reaction”. What matters is that it was innapropriate for them to react the way they did, and that it wholly their responsibility. On a professional level, they should have just held their tongues. Even outside of the business context, they simply had no right to shout and become abusive, because it is intimidatory.
If I walk down the street wearing pink shoes, a homophobe might say I was provoking a reaction if someone abused or assulted me. When a woman walks around without hijab, some Muslims say that she is provoking sexual advances from men. Provocation is an argument often used to diminish an aggressor’s responsibility for their actions, effectively blaming the victim.
gutts
December 9th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
@ Broga – entirely possible.
However, if being ignorant is criminal we’re going to need more lawyers, judges and police.
FFS – both parties should NOT have engaged in religious discussion when their views are so opposed particularly in the case of the owners who have put their business at risk (in actual fact bookings are down by 80% and the hotel is for sale at 246K with Reeds Rains I believe).
This case carries unfortunate overtones and IMO is a misuse of the legislation put in place.
I’m sure Mrs Tazi was upset but then I also suspect there was a little mischief going on there too.
The hoteliers are idiots for sure, however they are going to pay a high price win or lose while at this point its unclear what Mrs Tazi has on the line in what may or may not yet prove to be a less than concrete prosecution.
i.e. legally it could prove to be a very inexpensive position to throw stones from – and its from that perspective that my wider concern is for the appropriate use of legislation in this country.
I say again in clearer terms – I in no way endorse the position of either the complainant or defendants in this case. This one case could prove to be but a drop in the ocean.
December 9th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Having a snigger at someone wearing a hijab or an Iroquois feathered head-dress is one thing but hectoring someone in a captive environment is pretty nasty. But then what do you expect from fundies?
Not sure it justifies a prosecution though.
December 9th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Disgusting as I find these symbols of female oppression, muzzie women should be able to wear what they want including the Hijab; after all, they are showing to the World what a bunch of spineless, pliable morons they are.
I’m pleased this case has come to court because of the damage it does to religious belief and that it shows how intolerant religions are of each other. Islam v Christianity – fight!
December 9th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Running a hotel while taking your own convictions very seriously seems to be pretty stupid; you may end in up in some kind of paradise, but you won’t be running a successful enterprise. Maybe they should have put a sign at the entrance: “Christians bigots only”.
December 9th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
I think it is a waste of time pursuing this. I guess what we will now find is that the opposing sides will now push this with a “There you are. No freedom for us.”
And Angela, you are right, in that the way so many muzzie women by submitting to the dress and all the rest it they indicate an acceptance that men rule as they seem to think they have an Allah given authority to do.
December 9th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....r_embedded
I think this video is particularly funny on 6.59 minutes……..
“the increasing visibilty of the headscarf and the full face veil has been a potent sign of female identity!”
December 9th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Was mrs tazI trying to provoke a reaction from the hoteliers? Hard to say but she must of known about their, ahem, faith after staying with them for four weeks ffs. Storm in a teacup imo. The judge should just take them all aside and bang their retarded heads together for wasting his time.
December 9th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
All this nonsense about allowing muslims to wear what they want. They are allowed to wear what they want. Just as the hoteliers should be allowed to say what they want. It does come down to an issue of free speech. It doesn’t matter a jot what their motivations are. Of course, what the hoteliers did was stupid, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be allowed to do it.
December 9th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Committed Christians again!
December 9th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
“The prosecutor said Vogelenzang, 53, had called the prophet Mohammed a “warlord” and likened him to Saddam Hussein and Hitler.
And his 54-year-old wife told Mrs Tazi her Islamic dress represented “oppression” and was a form of “bondage”. ”
But, but but… that is correct!
December 9th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Surely a simple ‘would you mind f*cking off, while I eat my breakfast?’ would have sufficed.
December 9th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/eng.....403923.stm
a small update.
December 9th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
@rog,
possibly the best “in a nutshell” response Mrs Tazi could have given. Would have saved a lot of this crap and judicial time.
December 9th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Smaller update rog, case dismissed
December 9th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Reading that update, It seems that the lady in question was happy to ‘dish it out’ when it was going her way…
Personally, I blame the CPS for this waste of time and money.
December 9th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
@OpenMind
well at least someone saw sense!
December 9th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Also convenient that according to times online article that Mrs Tazi had incomplete recollection of events due to being so traumatised.
Don’t have the links but I’ve looked at lots of this story today and the above is one statement while another is that she’s reported to have told the ambulance driver that she was upset because the hoteliers had taken the piss out of her.
If taking the piss is going to become an offence I’m going to have to go deep deep deeeeeep undercover.
December 9th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
ambulance driver ?!?!? should this woman have even been out in public if she is that ‘fragile’?
…….
Paramedic: where are you hurt, where are you cut?
Woman: no, I told 999 that I suffered ‘a cutting insult’.
December 9th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Whatever provocation there may have been, this was undoubtedly a disgraceful way to treat an hotel guest. Who did he think he was – Basil Fawlty?
December 9th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Since this is an ongoing case, I can only speculate based upon what I’ve read so far. However, I think that religion should be considered merely as a motivator for the aggressors, rather than principle factor when considering such an incident. From what I can make out, a woman attending a course to help her find ways to manage her pain (it can be a debilitating condition) was subjected to an hour long tirade from two people in a closed environment, who were apparently abusive and intimidatory. She attempted to physically leave the argument and was followed. If such an incident did in fact take place, the opinions being expressed really don’t matter, in my opinion. Regardless of the confusion that religionists would like to introduce, I’m seeing this as a fairly simple case (if her claims can be verified).
If the woman were an atheist and the hoteliers were a pair of islamic fundamentalists, I doubt anyone here would be considering whether the atheist had provoked the fundies by wearing a Humanist t-shirt. The problem is the way the hoteliers conducted themselves.
gutts
December 9th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
I hear that the Vogelenzangs have been nominated for a BAFTA:
the BAsil Fawlty Twats’ Award for hotel management and public relations!
December 9th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
barriejohn
Hahaha, She must be thankful that Basil wasn’t running that Hotel!
December 9th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
I don’t get it. Apart from the lack of curlers or a fag hanging out of her mouth, does Mrs Tazi look any different from most 60 year old women in Aintree?
Bet she’s got track suit bottoms on under that tent!
December 9th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
At least they got the bit about Mo right, the guy never put his sword down, so warlord is fairly accurate. Not to sure about the Hitler reference but both Mo and Hitler gave in common that they were responsible for the slaughter of many people Hitler was at least upfront and ‘i think’ did not claim ‘god told him to do it’.
December 9th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
“Don’t mention the burqa! I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it!!”
December 9th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
So here we have a situation where both Muslims and Christians are upset. I knew I was going to end today with a smile on my face !!
December 9th, 2009 at 11:27 pm
Somehow I don’t think we’ve seen the last of the Vogelenzangs (sounds like dutch gnomes) by a long shot. Look for them to pop up a few more times yet selling the story of how a well intentioned little debate with a guest ended with the thought rozzers turning up, or that their business has suffered after the lefty media turned them into hate figures. The CI will be referring back to the case as an example of Orwellian Christian oppression for at least the next three years.
I expect the chronic failures that are the Christian Legal Centre regret getting on board for this as a case being dismissed would have actually chalked up a result of sorts for them.
December 10th, 2009 at 12:09 am
When I first read about their bizarre behaviour, Stuart W, I did wonder whether they had actually orchestrated this argument, but surely they wouldn’t have put their livelihood at risk just for the publicity – would they?
December 10th, 2009 at 9:08 am
Thanks, Barry —
I wasn’t trying to be pedantic (OK, yes I was),– it just seemed that the past tense (liked the Beatles) was more appropriate for a Muslim convert. It’s the devil’s music, after all.
December 10th, 2009 at 9:14 am
@ barriejohn – no I’m sure they wouldn’t.
btw – two staff lost their jobs as the owners couldn’t afford to keep them on when business dropped off due to Walton hospital removing them from their hotel referrals list for patients.
@ barriejohn again – “Don’t mention the warlord! I did once but I think I got away with it” scans better
@ Gutts – disagree my friend, the principal motivator was two opposing theologies. Remove the theologies and noone cares what you’re wearing.
Finally, in reading summing up statements reported from the judge it seems there were inconsistencies in testimony which made a succesful prosecution non viable.
IMO what we have had is a fairly recent convert (18 months) who has taken the opportunity to display and defend her new religion to two (foolish) hoteliers known to be committed followers of an opposing theology knowing they would bite but misjudging how aggressively she would find the argument. We have a large Dutch man, thick accent, english as second language. We also have a predisposed state of mind to misinterpret (on both sides) the content of the discussion. We have statements in court reporting from third party witnesses that Mrs Tazi at one point said “Are you then calling me a Nazi? Are you then calling me a terrorist?” for which there is no testimony that this was anwered in the affirmative by the owners. Furthermore when this is cross referenced against the original newspaper story which broke around 28th September with the headline “They all but called me a terrorist” it would suggest to me that Mrs Tazi took the opportunity to present the owners with the chance to agree that she was a nazi and a terrorist which they wisely declined to take her up on. Furthermore furthermore when Mr Vogelenzang was reported (again in court) to have said “Mohammed stands for terrorism, mohammed stands for murder. Do you then stand for murder?” that Mrs Tazi took this to mean she was being labelled as a terrorist and a murderer when in actual fact the phrase “stand for” can be more accurately be replaced by “supports” – a phrase someone with english as a first language would probably have used in preference to “stands for”. By modern day values there is plenty in the Koran which would qualify by independant assessment as advocating terror and murder (so draw your own conclusion whether Mohammed supported the contents of the Koran)so actually it was a question as to whether Mrs Tazi supported terrorist acts , unfortunately this will have come across as her being labelled.
This label was never applied to Cherie Blair when she (a few years ago now) said she understood why the people of Palestine were resorting to suicide bombing – but then again that was a matter of some criticism discussed in media by well educated people who could carry out a reasoned analysis in English without bringing religion into it whereas here we have 3 arses who are looking for a barney.
I guess that’s my final word on the matter.
December 10th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
I wonder if Mr. Vogelenzang has asked himself why his takings are down 80% and he’s being forced to sell his hotel?
Is it because:
a) His god thinks he’s a cunt
or
b) Most people would rather not stay with, or give their business to, a slap-headed fundamentalist loon?
December 10th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
I read that the local hospital was putting people up there, but withdrew their business because of this case.
December 10th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
@rog – true, also self correction – its reported that the couple had to release 9 staff from service due to loss of business – these staff who have lost their jobs in a recession are the real losers in this.
@Tim – lol, but really referrals can be the lifeblood of this sort of business. I’ve actually read some reviews of the Bounty House which predate this debacle and I’ve not come across any negative reviews re: religious barracking or otherwise. Surely if this were a habit digital britain would have a spate of googlable negative reviews to trawl through.