Since 1986, Police in the UK

have used the Public Order Act

to punish unreasonable use of
abusive language likely to
cause distress. The act, first
instated to regulate violent
rioters and football hooligans
is now being used in a more
liberal manner. However, the
definition of abusive language
has now seemingly extended to
religious beliefs. Take for
example the case of 42 year
old Baptist preacher Dale
McAlpine, who was arrested for
sharing his belief that
homosexuality is a sin.
McAlpine claims that he quietly
mentioned his belief during a
theological debate. However,

the police assert that his claim

was loud and that he had used
abusive language unreasonably
to cause harassment, alarm, or
distress.
While I distrust both testimonies
I do believe we should look at the
situation from both sides. From the
viewpoint of a conservative
Christian this is completely
unacceptable. A fellow Christian is
being jailed for spreading the word
of god and it is being justified by a
vague biased law. They cannot sit
idly by while this happens. They
must fight for his freedom and for
their freedom, their freedom of
speech. However, the odds are
against them, while the Public

Order Act was established in 1986,

UK citizens were only guaranteed
freedom of expression In 1998 and
there are many exceptions to this
freedom including, you guessed it,
abusive language. Thus they can
only hope to disprove the claim of
the police.
On the other hand, from the
viewpoint of a more liberal person,
one who strongly supports
homosexuals and opposes hateful
speech this is a necessary measure
needed to keep order among the
people. If this is allowed, then who
knows what other kind of antiprogressive movements will be
allowed? How long will it be before
we begin going backwards? Before

the conservatives dominated

others with fear and hate and
collapse humanitys moral
progress? It simply cannot be
allowed as it will spark more and
more conflict. However, not all
people follow this logic and most
support the right even for those
with controversial views to speak
freely.
This brings us to our last
viewpoint. A neutral viewpoint. The
viewpoint of the police force. Not
individuals, but rather the force in
entirety. It is their job to uphold the
act and it is their responsibility to
make judgements to ascertain
whether or not a phrase was
abusive and was meant to harass,

alarm or distress others. As a whole

they do not further their own
desires through this. One mans
bias is just as easily countered by
another mans opposite bias. Thus I
believe that from this viewpoint,
justice can be reasonably sought
out and order maintained. Thank
you for listening.