Pastor "Not Guilty" on Both Counts

“The courts need to be very careful not to criticise speech which, however contemptible, is no more than offensive. It is not the task of the criminal law to censor offensive utterances. Accordingly I find Pastor McConnell not guilty of both charges.” With these words, district court judge Liam McNally closed a case that, for 18 months, and after 7 court appearances, had relentlessly travelled along parallel lines with another high profile, anti-Christian case in Northern Ireland – the persecution of Asher’s Bakery. He passed “not guilty” verdicts on the two counts on which the pastor had been arraigned and appeared to question the usefulness of the entire enterprise of pushing the pastor into court. In certain respects it resembles the attempt by the first openly lesbian mayor of the Houston, Texas, Annise Parker, to censure the sermon notes of local pastors. The city of Houston issued subpoenas demanding a group of pastors turn over any sermons dealing with homosexuality or gender identity. Ministers who failed to comply could be held in contempt of court. There is no doubt that this trial: 1 Exposes an absurd and dangerous law. Never mind the inexcusable bias and incompetency of the Public Prosecution Service. Initially, Pastor McConnell was interviewed on suspicion of committing a hate crime.

Four witnesses from the Muslim community - none of whom appeared in person during the court case - had claimed to be grossly offended by the pastor’s remarks. It emerged through cross-examination that two of these complainants arrived for police interview, armed with almost identical statements, and citing detailed sections of the law - not at all normal behaviour from complainants. In a determined effort to make some charge stick, the PPS steered wide of the obvious route to secure the conviction of James McConnell, and pressed into service a rather obscure 2003 law about transmitting “grossly offensive” remarks over an electronic communications network. Newton Emerson, writing for The Irish News on 8 October 2015, made this telling observation: “Plenty has been said about how bringing McConnell to court over an anti-Islamic sermon threatens free expression and freedom of religion but the full recklessness of the case is only emerging as its mechanics come to light. McConnell is being prosecuted under a 2003 law against transmitting “grossly offensive” remarks over an electronic communications network. This is widely seen as a cunning move by the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) to side-step questions of free speech and freedom of religion by treating the sermon solely as an offensive internet broadcast. However, the woolly concept of ‘offensiveness’ - which the 2003 law makes no attempt to define - is still at the heart of the case.” 2 Exposes the gross wastage of public money in pursuing nonsensical, malicious cases. At a time when our Health Service and Education Boards are desperate for funding, tens of thousands of pounds are unnecessarily squandered on a fruitless trial of this nature – one that the majority of informed commentators have insisted, “should never have made it to court.” 3 Exposes inconsistency in the application of the law. While Pastor McConnell was being investigated and tried (during which time he repeatedly emphasised that he would not harm a hair on the head of any Muslim, but remained implacably opposed to the doctrines of their faith), the chief source of complaints against his sermon, the Belfast Islamic Centre, prominently displayed the writings of a Muslim extremist preacher named Bilal Philips on its website. This Muslim scholar, despite his many protestations, is banned from entering our United Kingdom – and is similarly prevented from entering Australia, Germany, Kenya, and has been expelled from Bangladesh and the Philippines. Eddie Delima, an immigration officer in Davao City, stated: “He’s classified as undesirable because of his extremist views and possible link to terrorist groups.” If the Pastor was deemed to be in breach of an electronic communications act, where is the corresponding case taken by the PPS against the promotion of this controversial Islamic preacher by the Belfast Islamic Centre? A final comment. The judge today stated that, while he considered the pastor’s remarks against Islam to be “offensive,” he did not consider them “grossly offensive” under the law. The Bible reminds us that the preaching of the cross will always cause offence in those who oppose it; that Christ Himself is, “a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient” (Romans 9:33, 1 Peter 2:8). It is inevitable, no matter how much we try to guard against it, that in a society in which many people are queueing up to claim offence in order to pressurise the Christian church into remaining silent, that collisions in court of this nature will continue to occur. May God give His people backbone, holy resolve, grace and compassion to keep preaching Christ to a perishing world.