NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.planetout.com/news/article.html?date=2005/11/10/5

What this pastor said is a far cry from "hate speech." He did not advocate hurting anyone. He did say that according to his religious beliefs homosexuals are a cancer. He wants them to repent and says if they don't they will burn in hell.

Now, you may not agree with what he said, but certainly, you would agree that he has the right to say what he did. The conclusion is, "This man is being persecuted for his religious beliefs and has no freedom of speech."

I am surprised at this as I thought that Sweden was a country that believed in the ideals of freedom of religion and speech.

What say you?

I'm not going comment on this, because the OP is, well, so shallow and ignorant of the Swedish justice system.

I don't believe in hate speech laws, so I disagree with this whole thing on the basic premise that it interferes in this man's freedom of speech. And I'm gay, so it's not like I approve of what this dumb ass says either.

http://www.planetout.com/news/article.html?date=2005/11/10/5

What this pastor said is a far cry from "hate speech." He did not advocate hurting anyone. He did say that according to his religious beliefs homosexuals are a cancer. He wants them to repent and says if they don't they will burn in hell.

Now, you may not agree with what he said, but certainly, you would agree that he has the right to say what he did. The conclusion is, "This man is being persecuted for his religious beliefs and has no freedom of speech."

I am surprised at this as I thought that Sweden was a country that believed in the ideals of freedom of religion and speech.

What say you?

I agree with you...insofar that his right to free speech and practice of religion should not be trodden upon.

Even if I disagree with what he's saying. That I believe his words are hateful and ignorant. That's practicing MY right to free speech there. :D

Well, if you don't like it, then ask Fass to change the laws. Seeing as he's the only Swede in the world.

I hate hate-speech laws even more than I hate hate-speech.

Now, you may not agree with what he said, but certainly, you would agree that he has the right to say what he did. The conclusion is, "This man is being persecuted for his religious beliefs and has no freedom of speech."
His religion doesn't say these things though.

Fact of the matter is that he was in an official position, as a preacher to many people. His tirades did imply that there is something wrong with homosexuality, and that it needs to be eradicated somehow.

I think the Swedish Government is right to make sure that kind of person does not get to infect people's minds.

think the Swedish Government is right to make sure that kind of person does not get to infect people's minds.
Funny. That's the same line of logic the homophobes use to justify their own brand of anti-gay legislation in the US.

His religion doesn't say these things though.

Fact of the matter is that he was in an official position, as a preacher to many people. His tirades did imply that there is something wrong with homosexuality, and that it needs to be eradicated somehow.

I think the Swedish Government is right to make sure that kind of person does not get to infect people's minds.

I'm fairly certain that his kind are a minority, and that few will REALLY listen to him.

Any form of censorship -even if it is for "the best intentions" (*cough* GTA)- is still censorship, and I wont have it.

Note: I really think that you're poll is asking the wrong question. The Swedish government isn't prosecuting him for his religious beliefs. They're prosecuting him because he's spreading hate-speech which is against the law in Sweden. According to them (I think, I may be wrong), anyone in a public position who dispenses hate-speech should be prosecuted.

Your rights end where the others' start.

He did not respect homosexuals' rights, so why would his "freedom of speech" be respected ?

I'm not going comment on this, because the OP is, well, so shallow and ignorant of the Swedish justice system.

So, now is the time to educate us on the justice system. Is that justice system supressing freedom of religion and speech?

The fact that Sweden already has hate speech laws means that they recognize that freedom of speech must sometimes be limited, and this could legitamately be called one of those times. Whether it is or not would depend on whom the sermon was directed. If the guy was just ranting in his own church to fellow fundies, then there really isn't a problem because he's just saying what's already on their minds. If he's saying this on national television, then there's a problem.

Ah well, hate-speech isn't universally tolerated. Tough-o, pastor. The world isn't your backyard, after all.

Vive la difference!

Note: I really think that you're poll is asking the wrong question. The Swedish government isn't prosecuting him for his religious beliefs. They're prosecuting him because he's spreading hate-speech which is against the law in Sweden. According to them (I think, I may be wrong), anyone in a public position who dispenses hate-speech should be prosecuted.

Amen

Yours rights ends where the others' start.

He did not respect homosexuals' rights, so why would his "freedom of speech" be respected ?
And what right did he violate? Their right to be coddled? Their right to never have anyone hurt their ickle feewings? Their right to be free from meanie heads? Cry me a river, baby, I could use a good swim.

Your rights end where the others' start.

He did not respect homosexuals' rights, so why would his "freedom of speech" be respected ?

...This one makes a point...

(Gives Seaweedia a Bolol Nuclear Cookie Mk. 2)

Your rights end where the others' start.

He did not respect homosexuals' rights, so why would his "freedom of speech" be respected ?
I have to disagree with you on this.

Two wrongs don't make a right.
The government should be setting an example, not making an example of the pastor. People's basic rights should be followed all the time, no matter the circumstance. As soon as we start to create reasons as to why they don't apply, we start to lose our humanity and become hipocrits.

Funny. That's the same line of logic the homophobes use to justify their own brand of anti-gay legislation in the US.
Except that
a) being gay is not a lifestyle choice - it's not like you could decide to un-gay yourself (or even should have to)
b) rallying against gays as "tumours" is a lifestyle choice. He has every opportunity to not do it while holding a ceremony.

I'm fairly certain that his kind are a minority, and that few will REALLY listen to him.
Of course - but that hardly means it's okay to ignore him. Censorship is one thing, stopping Neo-Nazis from demonstrating on rememberance day, or the KKK from advocating genocide, or this kind of thing is another.

Any form of censorship -even if it is for "the best intentions" (*cough* GTA)- is still censorship, and I wont have it.
GTA didn't hurt anyone, nor did it advocate to hurt anyone. This guy did.

Your rights end where the others' start.

He did not respect homosexuals' rights, so why would his "freedom of speech" be respected ?

The question is, did he actually harm their rights? People don't have a right to not be made fun of. Where is the actual harm? I understand there's intent to harm, but you can't regulate intent.

And what right did he violate? Their right to be coddled? Their right to never have anyone hurt their ickle feewings? Their right to be free from meanie heads? Cry me a river, baby, I could use a good swim.


Do I need to quote the Declaration of Human Rights, really ?

Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.


Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

GTA didn't hurt anyone, nor did it advocate to hurt anyone. This guy did.

While I am not fully versed on the Sweedish justice system, if he did in fact threaten homosexuals they can get him with assault.

You have to remember, tolerance only works one way. Usually that requires the old to be tolerant of the new, or the conventional to be tolerant of the unconventional. Never the other way. That would just be wrong.
http://www.planetout.com/news/article.html?date=2005/11/10/5

What this pastor said is a far cry from "hate speech." He did not advocate hurting anyone. He did say that according to his religious beliefs homosexuals are a cancer. He wants them to repent and says if they don't they will burn in hell.

Now, you may not agree with what he said, but certainly, you would agree that he has the right to say what he did. The conclusion is, "This man is being persecuted for his religious beliefs and has no freedom of speech."

I am surprised at this as I thought that Sweden was a country that believed in the ideals of freedom of religion and speech.

What say you?

Can we agree that we cannot have ANY of these free speech laws without someone getting pissed off?

I have to disagree with you on this.

Two wrongs don't make a right.
The government should be setting an example, not making an example of the pastor. People's basic rights should be followed all the time, no matter the circumstance. As soon as we start to create reasons as to why they don't apply, we start to lose our humanity and become hipocrits.

I did not express my point correctly.

I meant that he has no right of speech if he is to persecute gays' rights.

Do I need to quote the Declaration of Human Rights, really ?
Do I need to point out that the Declaration of Human Rights is a feel good peice of excrement, really ?
"Act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood"-indeed. I'm surprised that everyone is bequeathed the right to a two layer cake on their Birthday every year as well.

Do I need to quote the Declaration of Human Rights, really ?

Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.


Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Except: you haven't shown that he makes them unfree, unequal, or unrighted, nor does he make the law discriminate against them. How is he violating their rights?

Just wondering, what exactly does the law say? The full sermon wasn't recorded, nor was there any in-depth description of the hate speech law; it's hard to tell if this could be construed as a violation of FOS/FOR unless they actually went after him even though he did nothing wrong.

His religion doesn't say these things though.

Fact of the matter is that he was in an official position, as a preacher to many people. His tirades did imply that there is something wrong with homosexuality, and that it needs to be eradicated somehow.

I think the Swedish Government is right to make sure that kind of person does not get to infect people's minds.

The point is he beleives his religion says those things and he is telling his parishoners what he believes the religion says. So, you think the Swedish government should supress religious freedom?

http://www.planetout.com/news/article.html?date=2005/11/10/5

What this pastor said is a far cry from "hate speech." He did not advocate hurting anyone. He did say that according to his religious beliefs homosexuals are a cancer. He wants them to repent and says if they don't they will burn in hell.

Now, you may not agree with what he said, but certainly, you would agree that he has the right to say what he did. The conclusion is, "This man is being persecuted for his religious beliefs and has no freedom of speech."

I am surprised at this as I thought that Sweden was a country that believed in the ideals of freedom of religion and speech.

What say you?

Well, his personal beliefs might think they are a cancer, but the official ones of his religion certainly don't say that. Also, unlike a cancer, they are not reproducing prodigiously, so that comparison is rather unfair.

Asking someone to repent for their sexual orientation is rather like asking someone to repent because they're insane...It's not like most of them had the choice, and its not like most of them would be able to change it whether they wanted to or not.

What he's saying could also be comparable to claiming that all blonde people will go to heaven, or that there are such things as "inferior races". Not to mention that promising them eternal damnation and torture for not changing something that they are unable to change seems a bit odd for someone who is merely "stating his beliefs" and not participating in hate speech or some similar thing.

As an aside, I actually don't believe he had the right to say (at least in public) what he did, and as such I don't think he is being persecuted.

Sincerely,

Number III

Do I need to point out that the Declaration of Human Rights is a feel good peice of excrement, really ?
"Act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood"-indeed. I'm surprised that everyone is bequeathed the right to a two layer cake on their Birthday every year as well.

So you don't believe in freedom of speech and religion, right ?

Except that
a) being gay is not a lifestyle choice - it's not like you could decide to un-gay yourself (or even should have to)
b) rallying against gays as "tumours" is a lifestyle choice. He has every opportunity to not do it while holding a ceremony.
a) Hey, no problem. Myself? Sometimes I feel like a nut. Sometimes I don't. To me the argument as to homo/bi/trans-sexuality's origins, be it genetics, choice or both has little to do with freedom of speech. The argument against free speech doesn't hold much water regardless of what science eventually tells us.
We have the right to be here and queer, and they should have the right to vocalize their wish not to get used to it. We can't hurry the evolution of religious subhumans, but we don't need to trash civil liberties because of a few stone age fundies.

b)It's not a lifestyle choice per se, just an opinion. And you know what they say about opinions. I just believe that freedom of speech is not supposed to be an easy or comfortable arrangement either way, but that's the price you pay for liberty.
Besides, I wouldn't want to lose my right to call Jesus a fag. Would you?

So, now is the time to educate us on the justice system.

The Scandinavian justice system is a breed of its own, and really would take quite some study to understand. Suffice it to say that the government is not the prosecuting party, but the judicial system.

Is that justice system supressing freedom of religion and speech?

Freedom of speech, yes. Freedom of religion? No. It's not that simple. The case is basically about determining if you can use freedom of religion to shield yourself against this law even if the things you said are not covered by your holy book (like the paedophilia statements) or your religion directly, but instead are just said in conjunction with your bible quotes and from a pulpit. The large question in the case is if you can use freedom of religion as a shield for anything and everything just because you're holding a Bible while you're saying it.

Note that I don't support the law and I think it should be abolished, but now that it is in place, I think that freedom of religion does not apply in this case, because this shithead was using the pulpit as an excuse, and did it on purpose to get prosecuted, as he sent out copies of his speech to newspapers and other suck institutions to meet the requirement of sufficient dissemination for the law on agitation against population groups to be applicable. He is an attention-whore that should have been ignored, but now that he got what he wanted, he should not be able to escape the consequences because of a feeble attempt to use religion as an exculpatory excuse.

Except: you haven't shown that he makes them unfree, unequal, or unrighted, nor does he make the law discriminate against them. How is he violating their rights?


One word : dignity (taken from Article 1)

Note: I really think that you're poll is asking the wrong question. The Swedish government isn't prosecuting him for his religious beliefs. They're prosecuting him because he's spreading hate-speech which is against the law in Sweden. According to them (I think, I may be wrong), anyone in a public position who dispenses hate-speech should be prosecuted.

What do you believe hate speech is? He did not advocate hurting, injuring, or killing any homosexuals. All he said is they are a cancer on society and will burn in hell. The former is hate speech, the later is his religous belief. There is no hate speech involved and that was upheld by an appeals court.

What do you believe hate speech is? He did not advocate hurting, injuring, or killing any homosexuals. All he said is they are a cancer on society and will burn in hell. The former is hate speech, the later is his religous belief. There is no hate speech involved and that was upheld by an appeals court.

The law is not just a "hate speech" law. It is also a defamation law. This is multi-layered and cannot be explained or understood in simplistic US terms.

Freedom of religion shouldn't go so far as to condone or allow the hassling of non-adherents to join up. It's tacky.

The law is not just a "hate speech" law. It is also a defamation law. This is multi-layered and cannot be explained or understood in simplistic US terms.

Good one :p

May people understand what you truly (I suppose) mean by this...

The point is he beleives his religion says those things and he is telling his parishoners what he believes the religion says. So, you think the Swedish government should supress religious freedom?
See Fass' post - he knows a lot more about the case and the law than I do.

Suffice to say that personally, I don't think religion has any place whatsoever in a legal case. I don't give a sh*t what his religion says - if Voodoo Priests sacrifice people they don't get away with "religious freedom" either.

Besides, I wouldn't want to lose my right to call Jesus a fag. Would you?
If I was in a position of public importance, and people looked up to me, then I would have to adhere to whatever laws we have. Religion is not a safeguard, and freedom of speech isn't either.
There is no reason for me to say "Jesus is a fag" other than to make Christians angry and provoke confrontation. There's no other conceivable purpose to it, and so they are right when they tell me I can't do it.

The fact that Sweden already has hate speech laws means that they recognize that freedom of speech must sometimes be limited, and this could legitamately be called one of those times. Whether it is or not would depend on whom the sermon was directed. If the guy was just ranting in his own church to fellow fundies, then there really isn't a problem because he's just saying what's already on their minds. If he's saying this on national television, then there's a problem.

How is it a problem if he said it on National TV? He did not advocate any type of violence against homosexuals. He didn't even say he hates them, he just belives there life style is wrong,

So you don't believe in freedom of speech and religion, right ?
I do believe in the freedom of speech and religion, that kind of is my whole point in arguing, but I don't believe that the Declaration of Human Rights is a worthwhile document, mainly due to bits like the aforementioned line. It is designed to make everyone feel good about themselves, and I don't think anyone has ever cared to enforce it.
Its like passing a law against poverty. There will still be poor people, but somehow the idiots who wrote it up think that they have made a big difference.

he sent out copies of his speech to newspapers and other suck institutions to meet the requirement of sufficient dissemination for the law on agitation against population groups to be applicable. He is an attention-whore that should have been ignored, but now that he got what he wanted, he should not be able to escape the consequences because of a feeble attempt to use religion as an exculpatory excuse.
Well, I suppose that is the problem. See, in the US people who highlight injustice and force the masses to pay attention to it are regarding with a certain amount of respect.
Apparently in Sweden its a better plan to just sweep it under the rug and only an "attention-whore" would point it out.

GTA didn't hurt anyone, nor did it advocate to hurt anyone. This guy did.

No he did not advocate hurting anyone. Read the article.

Do I need to quote the Declaration of Human Rights, really ?

Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.


Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

So specifically, how did the pastor "violate the rights" of homosexuals? What about the right of the pastor and his congregation to practice their religion? What about the right of the pastor to engage in "freedom of speech?"

I was in a position of public importance, and people looked up to me, then I would have to adhere to whatever laws we have. Religion is not a safeguard, and freedom of speech isn't either.
There is no reason for me to say "Jesus is a fag" other than to make Christians angry and provoke confrontation. There's no other conceivable purpose to it, and so they are right when they tell me I can't do it.
I'm sorry, but I think you're confusing freedom of speech and freedom from speech. There's a big difference, and once a precedense is set, it's hard to justify almost any example of offensive speech. This policy is too succeptible to current trends in politics and who holds the majority of power.

You see, if this kind of law was enforced in the same way here in America, it would be moreso spread out acroos the board. Or because of our current political climiate, it could also result in laws that would forbid scathing sociopolitical commentary comparing Christian fundamentalists to dog excrement.

If it means listening to a few more offensive jokes or shit-spewing pastors, then so be it. The price is too high, and the laws would be too vague to justify them, IMHO. One of those situations where liberty becomes far more important than security, or the right not to be offended.

So specifically, how did the pastor "violate the rights" of homosexuals? What about the right of the pastor and his congregation to practice their religion? What about the right of the pastor to engage in "freedom of speech?"

As I said before : he violated their right to dignity by saying they're a cancer to society.
Like if I said that church and its followers are HIV.

Except: you haven't shown that he makes them unfree, unequal, or unrighted, nor does he make the law discriminate against them. How is he violating their rights?

Posting the same post multiple times is not helping your argument. I don't think he has a valid answer for you question, so your point is proven.

I don't hate you, but you're a cancer.

I believe that should be Hallmark's next line of "Things it's ok to say about Fags, but not Republicans, Christians, or White People" Valentine's cards.

Posting the same post multiple times is not helping your argument. I don't think he has a valid answer for you question, so your point is proven.

What does an answer need in order to be considered as "valid", please ?

Well, his personal beliefs might think they are a cancer, but the official ones of his religion certainly don't say that.

How do you know the "official ones of his religion" don't say that? Are you a member of his denomination? Do you know what the Pentecostal theology is? I think not. They are a very fundamentalist denomination.

I don't hate you, but you're a cancer.

I believe that should be Hallmark's next line of "Things it's ok to say about Fags, but not Republicans, Christians, or White People" Valentine's cards.
Its okay to say it to anyone, and there are analogies between disease and religion all over the place. It is also okay to call Republicans parasites and accuse white people of being the root of all evil. It happens all the time around here and no one has gone to jail for it.

How do you know the "official ones of his religion" don't say that? Are you a member of his denomination? Do you know what the Pentecostal theology is? I think not. They are a very fundamentalist denomination.
So why don't they go elaborate on their own fundaments amongst themselves, and stop bothering people about their fundaments?

"Things it's ok to say about Fags, but not Republicans, Christians, or White People" Valentine's cards.

Keruvalia, that would be correct if we were forbidden to make bastardly comments about Republicans, Christians, or White People. But, thank Buddha, we aren't in our respective countries (at least not in the US, not positive about Australia).

If it means listening to a few more offensive jokes or shit-spewing pastors, then so be it. The price is too high, and the laws would be too vague to justify them, IMHO. One of those situations where liberty becomes far more important than security, or the right not to be offended.
I'll agree then. Ultimately, I think that there is no place for commentary like this in society, Germany has for example seen enough of it, and you know where it lead.
The defamation issue comes into it as well - is lying about a politician in a newspaper okay? Saying you can't do it is taking away your freedom of speech, is it not?
But it is unlikely that the majority will follow my shining example of progressive opinions, and thus in practical terms there are issues with such laws.
Nonetheless, you won't see me shed a tear if he gets locked away for a few years.

No he did not advocate hurting anyone. Read the article.
I take it Nazi Propaganda (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/nazi_propaganda_gallery_05.shtml) about the Jews was okay then too, correct?
Sorry to bring it up - but to somehow renounce the link between calling people a tumour, and the obvious implication that there needs to be action to remove it is impossible to me.

Its okay to say it to anyone, and there are analogies between disease and religion all over the place. It is also okay to call Republicans parasites and accuse white people of being the root of all evil. It happens all the time around here and no one has gone to jail for it.

My god I have illicited a serious response from H N Fiddlebottoms VIII!!

I WIN NATIONSTATES!!!! WOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

Anyway, yeah .... around *here* ... you can pretty much say what you like shy of causing riots. We're talkin' about Sweden ... a country I know nothing about. If what this Preacher did is a jailable offense in Sweden, who are we to balk at their laws? That Preacher should have known and must be held accountable for his illegal actions.

Otherwise ... meh .... you get what ya pay for.

a) Hey, no problem. Myself? Sometimes I feel like a nut. Sometimes I don't. To me the argument as to homo/bi/trans-sexuality's origins, be it genetics, choice or both has little to do with freedom of speech. The argument against free speech doesn't hold much water regardless of what science eventually tells us.
We have the right to be here and queer, and they should have the right to vocalize their wish not to get used to it. We can't hurry the evolution of religious subhumans, but we don't need to trash civil liberties because of a few stone age fundies.

b)It's not a lifestyle choice per se, just an opinion. And you know what they say about opinions. I just believe that freedom of speech is not supposed to be an easy or comfortable arrangement either way, but that's the price you pay for liberty.
Besides, I wouldn't want to lose my right to call Jesus a fag. Would you?

You have a very helathy prespective on the situation. As I have said many times, "I may not agree whith what your are saying, but I agree with your right to say it."

Now, of he were advocating hurting or killing people because o ftheir sexual, political, or religous orientation that would be hate speech.

Fuck hate-speech laws.
What give anybody the right to decide what is acceptable and what isn’t in public?

Its okay to say it to anyone, and there are analogies between disease and religion all over the place. It is also okay to call Republicans parasites and accuse white people of being the root of all evil. It happens all the time around here and no one has gone to jail for it.

I dare a politican to say that white people are the root of all evil, or a catholic clergy man to declare that black people are stupid and dangerous.

Sexual orientation, as race, is not determined by one's will.

The Scandinavian justice system is a breed of its own, and really would take quite some study to understand. Suffice it to say that the government is not the prosecuting party, but the judicial system.

So the judicial system is not a part of the govenment?

The law is not just a "hate speech" law. It is also a defamation law. This is multi-layered and cannot be explained or understood in simplistic US terms.

So you admit that sweden has abandoned the rule of law then?

You have a very helathy prespective on the situation. As I have said many times, "I may not agree whith what your are saying, but I agree with your right to say it."

Now, of he were advocating hurting or killing people because o ftheir sexual, political, or religous orientation that would be hate speech.

one question : what do we do with cancer ?
one answer : eradicate it

Now, hurting, killing ? Sounds OK in that logic...

Fuck hate-speech laws.
What give anybody the right to decide what is acceptable and what isn’t in public?

The constitution. It has an exception specifically for this law. Any more questions based in ignorance of Swedish law or the history that lead to the institution of this law?

So the judicial system is not a part of the govenment?

Should never be !

Read Montesquieu ! In the modern state, the three types of power (legislative, executive, judicial) should be separated.

So you admit that sweden has abandoned the rule of law then?

Huh? What? He is being prosecuted because the prosecutor thinks he broke a law. He is being prosecuted according to the law. The rule of law has not been breached in any respect.

Do you know what rule of law is?

The constitution. It has an exception specifically for this law.
Well then your constitution is fucked up. To actually limit rights in a constitution, unthinkable in the modern world.

So the judicial system is not a part of the govenment?

Of course it isn't. It's independant from the government. I believe the same is true in the US.

Why do so many people vote "yes" in the poll?

Regardless of whether you agree with the laws or not - it is 100% certain that it has nothing to do with his religion!
As Fass outlined earlier, the guy is trying to get away with what is considered illegal in Sweden (namely calling homosexuality the same as paedophilia etc) by using religion as an excuse - that is the only connection.

You can say that freedom of speech is under attack here, fair enough. But freedom of religion certainly isn't, and he is even more certainly not under attack for his religion, or even his beliefs.
Merely his statements which were illegal.

The constitution. It has an exception specifically for this law. Any more questions based in ignorance of Swedish law or the history that lead to the institution of this law?

Don't bother, Fass. You'll only end up getting a headache, which will make you want to drink, which will cause you more headaches, which will make you drink more until you're laying in hospital dieing of advanced liver disease all because some asshole Americans refuse to acknowledge that there's a planet outside their borders.

Calm blue ocean. Throw on a Social Distortion album and have some smooth hash and let it all melt away.

The law is not just a "hate speech" law. It is also a defamation law. This is multi-layered and cannot be explained or understood in simplistic US terms.

So, what you are saying is there is no freedom of speech in Sweeden. If I say I hate people who wear red because the color red angers me, I can go to jail for defemation?

Well then your constitution is fucked up. To actually limit rights in a constitution, unthinkable in the modern world.

Haha. Such ignorance. I wager you haven't read the pertinent part of the constitution, or, well, any other constitution in the West except perhaps the US one?

My god I have illicited a serious response from H N Fiddlebottoms VIII!!

I WIN NATIONSTATES!!!! WOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!
I've been serious before, and responses like that teach me that my only option is insanity. The entire system has been set-up to be sure that the clowns stay clowny! Its the MAN keepin' me down, dude!

Anyway, yeah .... around *here* ... you can pretty much say what you like shy of causing riots. We're talkin' about Sweden ... a country I know nothing about.
And according to Fass, we shall remain forever in the dark about it. Apparently their laws are based on magic numbers or leprechauns or the phases of the moon or something.
If what this Preacher did is a jailable offense in Sweden, who are we to balk at their laws? That Preacher should have known and must be held accountable for his illegal actions.
And the fact that the US acts within its own laws when it tortures people and denies gay marriage and wants to put big wholes in Alaska and <insert topic of latest rant here>. Yet, the US still catches Hell for it from people who don't live here and probably aren't experts on our civic system.
This is my turn to call someone else's nation out for pullling shit, and you think I'm going to piss it away by saying "Its Sweden, what can you do?"

Ultimately, I think that there is no place for commentary like this in society, Germany has for example seen enough of it, and you know where it lead.
Actually, free speech of any kind wasn't the cause of the holocaust tradgedy, but the lack thereof. It was because of German citizen's inablility to speak out against the government without harsh retalliation that lead to the coersion of an entire nation by one lunatic. More free speech, not less might have prevented the Nazi regime from taking total control over its people in such a short amount of time.
The defamation issue comes into it as well - is lying about a politician in a newspaper okay? Saying you can't do it is taking away your freedom of speech, is it not?
That depends, at least here in the US. Chris Rock isn't going to prison because he says some pretty offensive (and defamatory) things about George Bush. Neither is Michael Moore, or Rush Limbaugh for their commentariies.

Of course, if a newspaper ran an article about an individual and passed off lies for truth, that would be caseworthy. It wouldn't be illegal in any way though to publish an article denouncing a particular group, though. I could write about how disgusting I think fat people are without fearing prison.
It's tricky, and I'd prefer it wasn't. That's because, ultimately, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. And I don't want to have to fear persecution because of what I choose to say about those I consider assholes. That's not progress. When people hno longer have the urge to say mean things about each other, that'll be real progress.
The illusion of civility still isn't the real thing.

Of course it isn't. It's independant from the government. I believe the same is true in the US.
Our federal judicial system is overseen by congress as our most state judiciaries oversaw by state legislatures. The Supreme Court is a branch of government.
Merely his statements which were illegal.
You should know as well as anybody that something can be perfectly legal and still be oppression.

One word : dignity (taken from Article 1)

So he was making them be born less dignified? How does that work?

The right he's violating isn't in the stuff you quoted, but keep searching and you'll find it.

Haha. Such ignorance. I wager you haven't read the pertinent part of the constitution, or, well, any other constitution in the West except perhaps the US one?
You’d be right there.
A constitution is meant to protect the rights of the people, not infringe upon them.

Well then your constitution is fucked up. To actually limit rights in a constitution, unthinkable in the modern world.
Well then you probably shouldn't go making too many assumptions about other countries' constitutions in the modern world, I'd say. Obviously their constitution isn't fucked up, there's no rioting in the streets of Stockholm I've heard of lately - could it just be that theirs is a different constitution, reflecting the will of a people ever-so-slightly different than the people you're used to? :p

So, what you are saying is there is no freedom of speech in Sweeden.

Anybody who claims has obviously not read our constitution.

If I say I hate people who wear red because the color red angers me, I can go to jail for defemation?

No. The law is very concise, directed, and only applies in certain cases, and most certainly would not apply to scenario you have conjured up. I suggest you read it before you discuss it. Or, have you already? And the precedents it rests upon?

Our federal judicial system is overseen by congress as our most state judiciaries oversaw by state legislatures. The Supreme Court is a branch of government.
At any rate, it is not the Parliament, nor the PM and not the King who are doing this...it's the judicative, not the legislative. Still Government though (just not in the sense commonly understood to be Government).

You should know as well as anybody that something can be perfectly legal and still be oppression.
Which is true, has no bearing on the argument though. The law was to my knowledge started as a response against Neo-Nazi newspapers and the like.
It is not a religious law, and the guy is not being persecuted for his religion.

You’d be right there.
A constitution is meant to protect the rights of the people, not infringe upon them.

So, in short, because you think the US constitution doesn't do it, all others shouldn't? And, well, I've still to see you supply the pertinent wording of the constitution.

Huh? What? He is being prosecuted because the prosecutor thinks he broke a law. He is being prosecuted according to the law. The rule of law has not been breached in any respect.

Do you know what rule of law is?

From what you have said, the law is rather indefinite and vague, and is also capable of unequal enforcement. Therefore no rule of law for you.

Either that, or you are just not explaining why this isn't in fact a content based restriction on speech and therefore a completely bullshit law very well.

I've been serious before, and responses like that teach me that my only option is insanity. The entire system has been set-up to be sure that the clowns stay clowny! Its the MAN keepin' me down, dude!

Burst my bubble and I'll rape your monkey.

Yet, the US still catches Hell for it from people who don't live here and probably aren't experts on our civic system.

What can I say .... it's lonely at the top.

I dare a politican to say that white people are the root of all evil, or a catholic clergy man to declare that black people are stupid and dangerous.
Actually, there is a Preacher who lives nearby, and every Sunday rants into a megaphone about how White People are Pure Evil and Black People are the super humans who will rule the world with Black Jesus. Months have past, no one says boo to him.
Sexual orientation, as race, is not determined by one's will.
Did I say it was? No, I didn't. I agree that this pastor is bat-shit insane, but I feel much more strongly that not letting him say his spiel is a line that no government should be in the business of crossing.
And Fass, I feel sympathy for you that you should have to live in a country so restrictive that one cannot speak their mind without fear of the government. Almost as much sympathy as you were feeling for gays in the US a little while ago, but not quite as much because you are morally superior do to European breeding.:p

Note, Starting with "And Fass, I" the above statement used hyperbole and sarcasm, though this should be obvious, I pointed it out anyway. In reality, I would never feel sorry for Fass.

From what you have said, the law is rather indefinite and vague, and is also capable of unequal enforcement. Therefore no rule of law for you.

Wow, you truly don't know what rule of law is, and you truly have not read this law if you think it is capable of unequal enforcement.

Either that, or you are just not explaining why this isn't in fact a content based restriction on speech and therefore a completely bullshit law very well.

It is restriction of speech. That does not make it a violation of rule of law, as the constitution was changed as per law, and he is being prosecuted under the law, by an independant judicial system.

You’d be right there.
A constitution is meant to protect the rights of the people, not infringe upon them.
German Constitution (http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/eurodocs/germ/ggeng.html)
Article 1 (Protection of human dignity).
(1) The dignity of man is inviolable. To respect and protect it is the duty of all state authority.
(2) The German people therefore acknowledge inviolable and inalienable human rights as the basis of every community, of peace and of justice in the world.
(3) The following basic rights bind the legislature, the executive and the judiciary as directly enforceable law.

Article 18 (Forfeiture of basic rights).
Whoever abuses freedom of opinion, in particular freedom of the press (Article 5, paragraph 1) freedom of teaching (Article 5, paragraph 3), freedom of assembly (Article 8), freedom of association (Article 9), the secrecy of mail posts and telecommunications (Article 10),property (Article 14), or the right of asylum (Article 16, paragraph 2) in order to attack the free democratic basic order, forfeits these basic rights. The forfeiture and its extent are pronounced by the Federal Constitutional Court.

So this too is uncivilised and unthinkable in the modern world?

Well then you probably shouldn't go making too many assumptions about other countries' constitutions in the modern world, I'd say. Obviously their constitution isn't fucked up, there's no rioting in the streets of Stockholm I've heard of lately - could it just be that theirs is a different constitution, reflecting the will of a people ever-so-slightly different than the people you're used to? :p
What ever happened to protecting the rights of the minority? The individual is the smallest minority after all.
So, in short, because you think the US constitution doesn't do it, all others shouldn't?
Governments should never infringe upon people’s rights, period. It should simply protect people from having their fundamental rights infringed upon. The right to not be offended, especially by a guy you consider to be a complete asshole, is not a fundemental right.

Actually, there is a Preacher who lives nearby, and every Sunday rants into a megaphone about how White People are Pure Evil and Black People are the super humans who will rule the world with Black Jesus. Months have past, no one says boo to him.

Did I say it was? No, I didn't. I agree that this pastor is bat-shit insane, but I feel much more strongly that not letting him say his spiel is a line that no government should be in the business of crossing.
And Fass, I feel sympathy for you that you should have to live in a country so restrictive that one cannot speak their mind without fear of the government. Almost as much sympathy as you were feeling for gays in the US a little while ago, but not quite as much because you are morally superior do to European breeding.:p

I'd be more affraid to live in the US actually, where being something (lets say, homosexual) might attract harm and hatred from others.

Our federal judicial system is overseen by congress as our most state judiciaries oversaw by state legislatures. The Supreme Court is a branch of government.

*ahem* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checks_and_balances)

The government is not prosecuting.

You know, the last time I saw more-or-less the same gang of NSers pillorying a nation for not permitting hate speech, the target was Canada.

(What're you Americans planning to do, invade us all in order to defend Fred Phelp's right to be an asshole wherever he goes?)Things aren't just like the States all round the western hemisphere. And shocking as you all seem to find it, we prefer not having to endure that sort of behaviour, and that preference is reflected in our own nation's constitutions and laws.

Tough-o.

There's a reasonable limitation on freedom of expression. Americans will agree with this, of course - whenever they squawk about 'inappropriate' art exhibits, for example.

Actually, there is a Preacher who lives nearby, and every Sunday rants into a megaphone about how White People are Pure Evil and Black People are the super humans who will rule the world with Black Jesus. Months have past, no one says boo to him.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh, how can you not love free speech? That's just fucking funny. Now that's a sermon I might just be able to stay awake for!.

Haha. Such ignorance. I wager you haven't read the pertinent part of the constitution, or, well, any other constitution in the West except perhaps the US one?

Don't worry, the US one doesn't support his argument either.

Listen people, rights will always be limited because they always conflict with other rights. The question is just which right is chosen at any given time. At this point we have a conflict between right to security of person and freedom of speech (and maybe religion). And yes, just because he's not actually saying people should do anything specific to gays doesn't mean he doesn't contribute to violation of security of person. Lets say after seeing him and nine other people advocate his position, people go out and lynch a gay person as a direct consequence of the speeches. The preacher then is guilty of 1/10 of a murder, which is assault. Swedish law decides this trumps his freedom of speech.

Here in Australia our freedom of speech has gone down the toilet. Even a flippant comment about terrorism posted on the internet could land you in JAIL... even browsing a website which advocates terrorism could land you in jail (I mean, has anyone here, ever, in their history of web usage, ever clicked on a url, and as the page opened, discovered that the page is not what they expected? Wow - silly question... it's a bit far fetched isn't it).

Last year before the federal elections a member of a horrible right wing party called the Family First Party said that he believed Lesbians should be burnt at the stake... and that we should tear down "Satan's houses" - that being brothels, pubs, bottle shops, muslim mosques and hindu temples. He got a slap on the wrist and somehow his party holds the balance of power in the senate.

My point is that "Freedom of Speech" is a nice concept. And I agree that individual people should have the right to make an absolute arse (or "ass" if you will) of themselves, but people in positions of authority should not have the freedom to say whatever they feel. That Swedish pastor didn't make those comments as an individual, but as a member of the church (and what's more, promoting a view which is not standard in the church) - and I believe he was wrong to do that and the Swedish judicial system is right to prosecute him. His comment was dangerous because it makes it seem as if it is still somehow acceptable to hate a group of people merely based on the gender of their sexual partners... People listen to Pastors, just as they listen to teachers, doctors, and to some extent politicians, and although he didn't directly condone homophobic violence it is not a huge leap to see how someone could be inspired toward that from his sermon. And to compare homosexuality with paedophilia is the lowest of lows... paedophilia hurts people (thus it is immoral), homosexuality does not hurt people any more than heterosexuality...

Our Prime Minister, John Howard, actually said that gay marriage could threaten the survival of the human race... where was the outcry about that? No one even commented that that doesn't make sense...

Anyway, that's my opinion (made as an individual).

Han hatar bögar, alltså hatar jag honom. Så enkelt är det!

Alc

one question : what do we do with cancer ?
one answer : eradicate it

Now, hurting, killing ? Sounds OK in that logic...

Some cancer can not be cured. Cancer can not be eradicated.

Governments should never infringe upon people’s rights, period. It should simply protect people from having their fundamental rights infringed upon. The right to not be offended, especially by a guy you consider to be a complete asshole, is not a fundemental right.

According to whom? Your constitution? You do realise that the US constitution is irrelevant in this matter? Or will you persist with the US-centric definition of what a "fundamental right" is?

Don't bother, Fass. You'll only end up getting a headache, which will make you want to drink, which will cause you more headaches, which will make you drink more until you're laying in hospital dieing of advanced liver disease all because some asshole Americans refuse to acknowledge that there's a planet outside their borders.

Calm blue ocean. Throw on a Social Distortion album and have some smooth hash and let it all melt away.

You seem to unfortunately be correct. They all are stuck in a US-centric sphere of definitions and basically have no understanding of Swedish law and our system.

German Constitution (http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/eurodocs/germ/ggeng.html)
Article 1 (Protection of human dignity).
(1) The dignity of man is inviolable. To respect and protect it is the duty of all state authority.
(2) The German people therefore acknowledge inviolable and inalienable human rights as the basis of every community, of peace and of justice in the world.
(3) The following basic rights bind the legislature, the executive and the judiciary as directly enforceable law.

Article 18 (Forfeiture of basic rights).
Whoever abuses freedom of opinion, in particular freedom of the press (Article 5, paragraph 1) freedom of teaching (Article 5, paragraph 3), freedom of assembly (Article 8), freedom of association (Article 9), the secrecy of mail posts and telecommunications (Article 10),property (Article 14), or the right of asylum (Article 16, paragraph 2) in order to attack the free democratic basic order, forfeits these basic rights. The forfeiture and its extent are pronounced by the Federal Constitutional Court.

So this too is uncivilised and unthinkable in the modern world?
Stateist bullshit.
There's a reasonable limitation on freedom of expression. Americans will agree with this, of course - whenever they squawk about 'inappropriate' art exhibits, for example.
This American doesn’t agree. ‘Inappropriate’ art exhibits are fine with me.

Stateist bullshit.
As opposed to any other constitution on the planet, including the American one?

My point is that "Freedom of Speech" is a nice concept. And I agree that individual people should have the right to make an absolute arse (or "ass" if you will) of themselves, but people in positions of authority should not have the freedom to say whatever they feel. That Swedish pastor didn't make those comments as an individual, but as a member of the church (and what's more, promoting a view which is not standard in the church) - and I believe he was wrong to do that and the Swedish judicial system is right to prosecute him. His comment was dangerous because it makes it seem as if it is still somehow acceptable to hate a group of people merely based on the gender of their sexual partners... People listen to Pastors, just as they listen to teachers, doctors, and to some extent politicians, and although he didn't directly condone homophobic violence it is not a huge leap to see how someone could be inspired toward that from his sermon. And to compare homosexuality with paedophilia is the lowest of lows... paedophilia hurts people (thus it is immoral), homosexuality does not hurt people any more than heterosexuality...

Our Prime Minister, John Howard, actually said that gay marriage could threaten the survival of the human race... where was the outcry about that? No one even commented that that doesn't make sense...

Anyway, that's my opinion (made as an individual).

Han hatar bögar, alltså hatar jag honom. Så enkelt är det!

Alc

You are so right...

And your PM is a retrograde jerk... How can gays threaten the human race, anyways ?

There's a reasonable limitation on freedom of expression. Americans will agree with this, of course - whenever they squawk about 'inappropriate' art exhibits, for example.

Or flag burning ...

Or gay marriage ...

Or marijuana ...

Or buying liquor on Sunday in Texas ...

Or ... well come to think of it ... the US does - in fact - restrict more personal and individual freedoms than any other country on the planet with the possible exception of Saudi Arabia.

Allah bless America.

You seem to unfortunately be correct. They all are stuck in a US-centric sphere of definitions and basically have no understanding of Swedish law and our system.
Much like how you seem to be stuck in a Sweden-centric sphere of definitions and have no basic understanding of US law and our system when it comes to Gay Marriage?

There's a reasonable limitation on freedom of expression. Americans will agree with this, of course - whenever they squawk about 'inappropriate' art exhibits, for example.
And as an art student we spent a fair amount of time fighting censorship by the campus and local museums in order to get our work shown. I didn't like it, and I'm just not interested in censoring anyone else who wishes to shock or otherwise offend the majority (or a minority) of citizens. But Canada is yours, so vote as you please. For Sweden or Canda, this type of legislation may turn out to be less problematic than it would here in the US.
There's a lot of things that seem to work far better for the Swedes than would be possible in the US, IMHO.

Han hatar bögar, alltså hatar jag honom. Så enkelt är det!

Pratar du svenska? För det där var för grammatiskt korrekt för att komma från ett översättningsprogram. :)

Och hata inte honom. Det är idioten och uppmärksamhetshoran verkligen inte värd.

Some cancer can not be cured. Cancer can not be eradicated.

Hey have you ever heard a doctor saying "This cancer's uncurable. Let's leave it as it is."

By all means, we try to control and eradicate tumours... come on !

According to whom? Your constitution? You do realise that the US constitution is irrelevant in this matter? Or will you persist with the US-centric definition of what a "fundamental right" is?
Unfortunately, not according to the US constitution. There isn’t a government on this earth that doesn’t suck and isn’t worthy of excessive bashing. It's just Sweden’s turn right now.
And it is hardly US-centric. The US banned gay marriage remember?

You have to remember, tolerance only works one way. Usually that requires the old to be tolerant of the new, or the conventional to be tolerant of the unconventional. Never the other way. That would just be wrong.

Yes, being tolerant of the intolerant makes no sense whatsoever. Tolerate the KKK and their racial profiling, they're exercising their rights when they hang blacks to intimidate their voting choices (although they haven't been doing this much recently). Tolerate it when PETA and ALF torch medical labs. Or better yet, why not tolerate Osama Bin Laden and the rest of those crazy people?

Because you can't, can you?

As opposed to any other constitution on the planet, including the American one?
Of course including the American one.

Much like how you seem to be stuck in a Sweden-centric sphere of definitions and have no basic understanding of US law and our system when it comes to Gay Marriage?
What system? You're actively changing the law to make it impossible for gay people to get married!
US law is pretty clear on this: As long as things are morally pure and correct (eg gun ownership), they're allowed - when they aren't (eg two people wanting to spend their lives and incomes together) then the law needs to be changed so the Reborn-Lobbies don't stop their support.

You seem to unfortunately be correct. They all are stuck in a US-centric sphere of definitions and basically have no understanding of Swedish law and our system.

A great many are, yes. I find it very sad and, as an American, I offer my sincerest and most humble apologies. Sometimes, though, you will find a rare gem among the coals. Some of us have travelled and read things other than Stephen King and the USA Today headlines and enjoyed the fruits of the global community, alas, we are but few dreamers and poets that nobody takes very seriously anyway.

Or flag burning ...

Or gay marriage ...

Or marijuana ...

Or buying liquor on Sunday in Texas ...

Or ... well come to think of it ... the US does - in fact - restrict more personal and individual freedoms than any other country on the planet with the possible exception of Saudi Arabia.

Allah bless America.

Exactly. Think Patriot Act.

Much like how you seem to be stuck in a Sweden-centric sphere of definitions and have no basic understanding of US law and our system when it comes to Gay Marriage?

I understand your system. I understand the constitution, "states' rights," "full faith and credit" and several other aspects, including the judical standing of marriage as it pertains to the US, as I have been able to read the actual laws in the matter. Here it seems that not even the law discussed, much less the Swedish constitution or the Swedish system, has been taken into advisement at all by those mainly USians to post so far.

*ahem* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checks_and_balances)

The government is not prosecuting.

Being nitpicky: ahem: courts have enforceable authority and therefore are government. The legislative branch (which I do believe in certain countries is called Government, not government), is not prosecuting, but the courts are.

Pratar du svenska? För det där var för grammatiskt korrekt för att komma från ett översättningsprogram. :)

Och hata inte honom. Det är idioten och uppmärksamhetshoran verkligen inte värd.


Now *that's* a lot of umlauts!

Unfortunately, not according to the US constitution. There isn’t a government on this earth that doesn’t suck and isn’t worthy of excessive bashing. It's just Sweden’s turn right now.
And it is hardly US-centric. The US banned gay marriage remember?

Yes, but you are claiming something to be a fundamental right. What defines one as such is our constitution. Your personal definition is irrelevant if just spoken without an understanding of our constitution and system.

I understand your system. I understand the constitution,

Really. You seemed to be under the misapprehension that the US consitution actually supports the argument that was being made about inviolable rights. Maybe you don't have the understanding you think you do.

Wow, you truly don't know what rule of law is, and you truly have not read this law if you think it is capable of unequal enforcement.

It is restriction of speech. That does not make it a violation of rule of law, as the constitution was changed as per law, and he is being prosecuted under the law, by an independant judicial system.


I haven't read the law. I am going by your description. Any law that is multi-layered blah blah blah, sounds like it is capable of selective enforcement. That is why I questioning whether or not the rule of law is still extant in Sweden.

I understand that you, in fact, probably have no idea what actually constitutes the rule of law, but let me assure you, it involves more than just slavishly following the regulations. The term void for vagueness springs to mind.

In any case, it is a content based restriction, and therefore unacceptable. Sweden is a signatory to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, is it not?

What system? You're actively changing the law to make it impossible for gay people to get married!
Which is perfectly legitimate in the US and under US law, and you'd realize that if you got out out of your German-centric view of the law.
The Swedish Constitution isn't naturally occuring. It didn't grow on a log or get carved into stone by the wind, at one point, they changed the way things were legally.
US law is pretty clear on this: As long as things are morally pure and correct (eg gun ownership), they're allowed - when they aren't (eg two people wanting to spend their lives and incomes together) then the law needs to be changed so the Reborn-Lobbies don't stop their support.
Exactly. And in Sweden as long as things are morally pure and correct, they're allowed - when they aren't (eg someone making hurting a bunch of people's feelings) then the law needs to be changed to make everyone play together in the sandbox.
The fact is, Gay Marriage wasn't "the way things are" at any real point. It wasn't an issue, and there was an understood ban on it. All that is happening now is people are taking the law from unspoken, to spoken.

The Swedish Constitution isn't naturally occuring. It didn't grow on a log or get carved into stone by the wind

Maybe not ... but I adore that image.

I haven't read the law. I am going by your description. Any law that is multi-layered blah blah blah, sounds like it is capable of selective enforcement. That is why I questioning whether or not the rule of law is still extant in Sweden.

I understand that you, in fact, probably have no idea what actually constitutes the rule of law, but let me assure you, it involves more than just slavishly following the regulations. The term void for vagueness springs to mind.

In any case, it is a content based restriction, and therefore unacceptable.

The question is whether or not it actually is a content based restriction, which we don't seem to have proven. It could just as easily be a consequence based restriction. Fass hasn't given us the logic behind it, and we're all far to lazy to look it up. He did mention that it's more of a defamation law, though, which seems to indicate its consequence based.

And yes, there are consequences besides "hurt feelings" to hate speech, I showed that earlier on this thread.

Yes, but you are claiming something to be a fundamental right. What defines one as such is our constitution. Your personal definition is irrelevant if just spoken without an understanding of our constitution and system.
I really don’t care what your government, or any government has to say about rights. They are only out to preserve their own power.

Part of the problem in this debate is cultural. In the US, our Constitution grantees freedom of speech. I can say I hate a specific group, I can even say all of these people should be killed and I cannot be sent to jail for my opinion. I can only be sent to jail if I act and try to incite a riot or try to kill or harm someone.

Our Constitution also guarantees the right of freedom of religion. I can preach on the streets that according to my religion a specific group is a cancer on society and a scourge on the earth, and can not go to jail for it.

Americans do get upset when people who claim to advocate the ideals, such as freedom of speech and religion do, not practice what they advocate. You cannot have it both ways folks.

Really. You seemed to be under the misapprehension that the US consitution actually supports the argument that was being made about inviolable rights. Maybe you don't have the understanding you think you do.

To what are you referring? I have not read every post here, and have been selective in my replies. Tell me the aspect I seem to have missed in a bit more detail, and I'll try to give my understanding of it in light of the US constitution and federal system. (Not that this is on-topic, but indulge me.)

I really don’t care what your government, or any government has to say about rights. They are only out to preserve their own power.

Well, then, what is the point of discussing with you if you are using your own definitions for things?

The question is whether or not it actually is a content based restriction, which we don't seem to have proven. It could just as easily be a consequence based restriction. Fass hasn't given us the logic behind it, and we're all far to lazy to look it up. He did mention that it's more of a defamation law, though, which seems to indicate its consequence based.

You can't defame a class of people. That's black letter law. What's more defamation sounds in tort, not criminal law. Of course, Fass already knows this being an expert in the US legal system.

I understand your system. I understand the constitution, "states' rights," "full faith and credit" and several other aspects, including the judical standing of marriage as it pertains to the US, as I have been able to read the actual laws in the matter. Here it seems that not even the law discussed, much less the Swedish constitution or the Swedish system, has been taken into advisement at all by those mainly USians to post so far.
I have yet to see someone argue with US law, though. You may understand the law, but then you disregard it to comment on the nature of things. Well, I'm disregarding it to comment on the nature of things. An injustice is being done, and it doesn't matter whether it is the State or the Courts persecuting based on the Law or the Constitution.

That said, I'm going to leave this argument because, while it was fun to see another country being told how to run its internal affairs by damned foriegners, the joke has grown rather stale.

Americans do get upset when people who claim to advocate the ideals, such as freedom of speech and religion do, not practice what they advocate. You cannot have it both ways folks.

Exactly! However, I believe in cleaning up your own backyard before complaining about your neighbors. Too many restrictions on individual civil liberties occur in the United States ... we should not be bickering and complaining about Sweden and their take on religious hate speech.

How about we tend our own sheep for once, eh?

You seem to unfortunately be correct. They all are stuck in a US-centric sphere of definitions and basically have no understanding of Swedish law and our system.

My problem Fass is you profess to believe in freedom; you want the right to say what you believe, yet you want to deny other people the freedom to believe and speak about their beliefs.

Exactly! However, I believe in cleaning up your own backyard before complaining about your neighbors. Too many restrictions on individual civil liberties occur in the United States ... we should not be bickering and complaining about Sweden and their take on religious hate speech.

How about we tend our own sheep for once, eh?

Agreed 100%.

My problem Fass is you profess to believe in freedom; you want the right to say what you believe, yet you want to deny other people the freedom to believe and speak about their beliefs.

There's a lot of that going around.

To what are you referring? I have not read every post here, and have been selective in my replies. Tell me the aspect I seem to have missed in a bit more detail, and I'll try to give my understanding of it in light of the US constitution and federal system. (Not that this is on-topic, but indulge me.)

You were claiming that the reason someone thought of freedom of speech as inviolable was due to the fact that they were using the US constitution, but the US constitution isn't any more an advocate of that than any other. The US constitution denies the inviolability of rights precisely because it establishes multiple rights. There may not be a specific article that says that when rights conflict one must be restricted, but that's because such an article would be redundant.

That said, I'm going to leave this argument because, while it was fun to see another country being told how to run its internal affairs by damned foriegners, the joke has grown rather stale.
Who says it's a joke? The last time this bunch took aim at Canada, it was one of the longer-running threads I ever saw on NS. That's just the thing, Fiddlebottoms - what you treat as fodder for jokes, a lot of people on these forums claim to be undeniable truths that they're apparently willing to die to defend (or at least pontificate thereon), even in cultures not their own.

I thought this sort of thing was stale thirty years ago, but hey, what's that matter?

I haven't read the law. I am going by your description. Any law that is multi-layered blah blah blah, sounds like it is capable of selective enforcement. That is why I questioning whether or not the rule of law is still extant in Sweden.

The legal situation is multi-layered, as what is affected concerns constitutional matters. And the law itself has decades of precedent behind its application - while not in agitation against homosexuals, but in agitation against ethnic or religious minorities (aspects of the "popular group" that are covered). It is a complex and multi-layered matter, but that in no way implies breach of rule of law. All precedings and all courts and all arrests and every aspect around this case have been dealt with as per law. There has been no breach of it or action beyond or outside of it. The rule of law is intact.

I understand that you, in fact, probably have no idea what actually constitutes the rule of law, but let me assure you, it involves more than just slavishly following the regulations. The term void for vagueness springs to mind.

You seem to not understand it yourself. His rights as per law, as well as equality and due process before it, have not been violated. As far as I know, and according to a search in the ECHR rulings database, such has not happened in conjuction with the use of this law.

In any case, it is a content based restriction, and therefore unacceptable. Sweden is a signatory to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, is it not?

"(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society."

This law is not in contradiction of the Declaration.

How about we tend our own sheep for once, eh?
Why should we worry about our sheep? Other countries have been telling us how to keep our flocks happy and free for years, and USians are now returning the favour. It is quite simple, really, Sweden tells us how to run our country, we tell them how to run theirs, and no one has to actually worry about dealing with their own shit! Its the perfect solution to every problem!

You can't defame a class of people. That's black letter law. What's more defamation sounds in tort, not criminal law. Of course, Fass already knows this being an expert in the US legal system.

I didn't say it was exactly the legal definition of defamation, that's why there's a separate law. The issue is that the law is there with the same basic purposes. Once the problem involves a class of people a lawsuit is much more difficult to carry out, thus it is moved into criminal law. Besides, in Swedish law defamation of individuals could also be criminal.

What system? You're actively changing the law to make it impossible for gay people to get married!

No, we are not changing the law, we are making a law. There is a big difference.

Why should we worry about our sheep? Other countries have been telling us how to keep our flocks happy and free for years, and USians are now returning the favour.

An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

You were claiming that the reason someone thought of freedom of speech as inviolable was due to the fact that they were using the US constitution, but the US constitution isn't any more an advocate of that than any other.

I was claiming that the definition of a fundamental right, and the subsequent treating of this as a violation of such a right, were US centric. I wasn't aware I had made any statements as to the content of the US constitution. I am aware, though, that "freedom of speech" isn't inviolable in the US either, but that was not what I was referring to.

The US constitution denies the inviolability of rights precisely because it establishes multiple rights. There may not be a specific article that says that when rights conflict one must be restricted, but that's because such an article would be redundant.

Naturally, but I was not aware that the opposite was being contended by him. Did I miss that?

An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.
Nice one. Good ol' Mohandas K. helpin' keep an even keel.

Thanks Keru.;)

An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.
Ah, but a tooth for a tooth makes the pudding industry rich.

No, we are not changing the law, we are making a law. There is a big difference.

Actually, no ... we're changing the law. Loving vs. Virginia is a prime example of establishing a Constitutional right to marriage. By forcing into law what one religion defines as marriage, we are - in fact - in violation of the First Amendment and dozens of case precident throughout SCOTUS history.

But, of course, as long as it doesn't violate the Second Amendment, nobody cares ... right? :p

Ah, but a tooth for a tooth makes the pudding industry rich.

I'm genuinely afraid of what a hand for a hand does. :eek:

Actually, no ... we're changing the law. Loving vs. Virginia is a prime example of establishing a Constitutional right to marriage. By forcing into law what one religion defines as marriage, we are - in fact - in violation of the First Amendment and dozens of case precident throughout SCOTUS history.

But, of course, as long as it doesn't violate the Second Amendment, nobody cares ... right? :p

Good one ! THAT second amendment, mother of all and ruler of the universe !

My problem Fass is you profess to believe in freedom; you want the right to say what you believe, yet you want to deny other people the freedom to believe and speak about their beliefs.

Did you miss where I wrote that I did not agree with this law and wished that it be abolished (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9914527&postcount=33)?

I was claiming that the definition of a fundamental right, and the subsequent treating of this as a violation of such a right, were US centric. I wasn't aware I had made any statements as to the content of the US constitution. I am aware, though, that "freedom of speech" isn't inviolable in the US either, but that was not what I was referring to.


Naturally, but I was not aware that the opposite was being contended by him. Did I miss that?

Hmm...ok. Problem is that if the fundamental right established is freedom of speech, and the Swedish constitution still respects freedom of speech (which it might not, but I'm guessing it does) than it seems that the person could just as easily have been Sweden-centric as US-centric. It's the same degree of violation in either system, so there's no basis for an accusation of bias.

I'm genuinely afraid of what a hand for a hand does. :eek:
Well, it makes the idea of getting a girlfriend or boyfriend a lot more attractive.

No, we are not changing the law, we are making a law. There is a big difference.
Today, I call upon the Congress to promptly pass and to send to the states for ratification an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.

America's a free society which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. This commitment of freedom, however, does not require the redefinition of one of our most basic social institutions.
You are changing your constitution to appeal to the whim of fundamentalist strata in your society. Whether or not you call an amendment a change, or a new law, you're changing the rules nonetheless.

I don't buy the idea that you are simply turning a social rule into a legal one. It's part of the enlightenment and secularisation of society that old taboos disappear, and that is as it should be. To claw to the past, where people lived under oppressive rulings and traditions is contrary to everything the US stands for - afterall, there was a time when you called yourself "the land of the free".

But this is a thread-jack. I said all I wanted to say about the Swedish case - and I still can't understand how so many could vote "yes" to the question as it is framed in the poll.

Exactly! However, I believe in cleaning up your own backyard before complaining about your neighbors. Too many restrictions on individual civil liberties occur in the United States ... we should not be bickering and complaining about Sweden and their take on religious hate speech.

How about we tend our own sheep for once, eh?

So they can point out our faults, but we can not point out theirs? Are you advocating censorship Keru?

An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

An eye for an eye is a zero profit situation. Better to trade for an eye and a spleen, unless the target eye is better.

You are changing your constitution to appeal to the whim of fundamentalist strata in your society. Whether or not you call an amendment a change, or a new law, you're changing the rules nonetheless.

I don't buy the idea that you are simply turning a social rule into a legal one. It's part of the enlightenment and secularisation of society that old taboos disappear, and that is as it should be. To claw to the past, where people lived under oppressive rulings and traditions is contrary to everything the US stands for - afterall, there was a time when you called yourself "the land of the free".

But this is a thread-jack. I said all I wanted to say about the Swedish case - and I still can't understand how so many could vote "yes" to the question as it is framed in the poll.

Conservatism has always been, over a long period of time, the source of a society/regime's downfall, or a major factor to it.

Hmm...ok. Problem is that if the fundamental right established is freedom of speech, and the Swedish constitution still respects freedom of speech (which it might not, but I'm guessing it does) than it seems that the person could just as easily have been Sweden-centric as US-centric. It's the same degree of violation in either system, so there's no basis for an accusation of bias.

"Art. 12. The rights and freedoms referred to in Article 1, points 1 to 5, in Articles 6 and 8, and in Article 11, paragraph two, may be restricted in law to the extent provided for in Articles 13 to 16. With authority in law, they may be restricted by other statute in cases under Chapter 8, Article 7, paragraph one, point 7, and Article 10. Freedom of assembly and freedom to demonstrate may similarly be restricted also in cases under Article 14, paragraph one, sentence two.

The restrictions referred to in paragraph one may be imposed only to satisfy a purpose acceptable in a democratic society. The restriction must never go beyond what is necessary having regard to the purpose which occasioned it, nor may it be carried so far as to constitute a threat to the free formation of opinion as one of the fundaments of democracy. No restriction may be imposed solely on grounds of a political, religious, cultural or other such opinion.

A draft law under paragraph one, or a proposal for the amendment or ab-rogation of such a law, shall be held in abeyance, unless rejected by the Riksdag, for a minimum of twelve months from the date on which the first Riksdag committee report on the proposal was submitted to the Chamber, if so moved by at least ten members. This provision notwithstanding, the Riksdag may adopt the proposal, provided it has the support of at least five sixths of those voting.

Paragraph three shall not apply to any draft law prolonging the life of a law for a period not exceeding two years. Nor shall it apply to any draft law concerned only with

1. prohibition of the disclosure of matters which have come to a person’s knowledge in the public service, or in the performance of official duties, where secrecy is called for having regard to interests under Chapter 2, Article 2 of the Freedom of the Press Act;

2. house searches and similar invasions of privacy; or

3. deprivation of liberty as a penal sanction for a specific act.

The Committee on the Constitution determines on behalf of the Riksdag whether paragraph three applies in respect of a particular draft law.

Art. 13. Freedom of expression and freedom of information may be restricted having regard to the security of the Realm, the national supply of goods, public order and public safety, the good name of the individual, the sanctity of private life, and the prevention and prosecution of crime. Freedom of expression may also be restricted in commercial activities. Freedom of expression and freedom of information may otherwise be restricted only where particularly important grounds so warrant.

In judging what restrictions may be introduced by virtue of paragraph one, particular regard shall be had to the importance of the widest possible freedom of expression and freedom of information in political, religious, professional, scientific and cultural matters.

The adoption of provisions which regulate in more detail a particular manner of disseminating or receiving information, without regard to its content, shall not be deemed a restriction of the freedom of expression or the freedom of information."

This law has been upheld as meeting all these requirements. How is it a "breach" of a "fundamental right" if the constitution allows for it? Never mind that the Freedom of the Press Act and the Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression are where these things are further stipulated, and let's stick with this quarter, The Instrument of Government, of the Constitution

So they can point out our faults, but we can not point out theirs? Are you advocating censorship Keru?

Not in the slightest. I even believe people should be allowed to scream fire in a crowded theater simply because it's a great prank. Believe me ... I take the First Amendment deadly serious. You can take my right to be a Jewish Muslim Pastafarian, Christian hating, Republican bashing, Bush loathing, pot smoking, folk singing, liberal leftist tree hugging hippie when you pry it from my cold, dead hand.

Likewise for the converse.

What I am merely advocating is that maybe we should ask ourselves why States are being allowed to spit on the Constitution of the United States while people sit idley by and argue about Sweden. I'm advocating priorities, not censorship.

An eye for an eye is a zero profit situation. Better to trade for an eye and a spleen, unless the target eye is better.

Oh come on! A spleen is easily worth 3 eyes and a kidney.

Did you miss where I wrote that I did not agree with this law and wished that it be abolished (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9914527&postcount=33)?
Then why are you defending it?

Did you miss where I wrote that I did not agree with this law and wished that it be abolished (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9914527&postcount=33)?

As I have read all the posts, I know what you wrote it that one. I also know what you wrote in all the others. You may not agree with the law, but you agree with the prosicution of the pastor. Humm, sounds like doublespeek.

Well 4:00 AM comes early so I will log off for now. I'll check in again tomorrow night and see how things are going. :fluffle:

This law has been upheld as meeting all these requirements. How is it a "breach" of a "fundamental right" if the constitution allows for it? Never mind that the Freedom of the Press Act and the Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression are where these things are further stipulated, and let's stick with this quarter, The Instrument of Government, of the Constitution

My point was that it wouldn't necessarily be a breach of a US right either, as the US also accounts for similar extenuating circumstances. Claiming that it is a breach of a fundamental right is thus not US-centric. Maybe wrong, but that doesn't always mean US-centric.

Well 4:00 AM comes early so I will log off for now. I'll check in again tomorrow night and see how things are going. :fluffle:

4:00 AM? The hell do you need to be up and 4:00 AM for on a Friday? :p Oh wait ... I forgot ... some people work for a living ....

Night, Celt!

Oh come on! A spleen is easily worth 3 eyes and a kidney.

Depends what you're going to use it for.

The legal situation is multi-layered, as what is affected concerns constitutional matters. And the law itself has decades of precedent behind its application - while not in agitation against homosexuals, but in agitation against ethnic or religious minorities (aspects of the "popular group" that are covered). It is a complex and multi-layered matter, but that in no way implies breach of rule of law. All precedings and all courts and all arrests and every aspect around this case have been dealt with as per law. There has been no breach of it or action beyond or outside of it. The rule of law is intact.

Well you could have said that in the first place, instead of talking about how it is too complex to explain, and indicating that he is an attention whore that should have been ignored. Because, frankly that indicates that the law is capable of, and has been, selectively enforced. And any time laws are selectively enforced, the rule of law is called into question, no matter how scrupulously the particular defendant's rights are scrupulously observed.

You seem to not understand it yourself. His rights as per law, as well as equality and due process before it, have not been violated. As far as I know, and according to a search in the ECHR rulings database, such has not happened in conjuction with the use of this law.

As long as everyone else who is similarly situated is being prosecuted, regardless of whether or not they contacted the newspapers, then that's fine.


"(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society."

This law is not in contradiction of the Declaration.

So your contention is that Article 29 basically negates Article 19? Fair enough. I guess that means that you have to start being nice to people.

Depends what you're going to use it for.
Blood pudding? A voodoo ritual?

4:00 AM? The hell do you need to be up and 4:00 AM for on a Friday? :p Oh wait ... I forgot ... some people work for a living ....

Night, Celt!

I go swimming in the morning from 5 AM to 6 AM, hit the steam room for about 5-10 minutes, then the hot tub for 5-10 minutes, then cool down in the pool for about 10 minutes. When I get to work at 7 AM, I am wide awake. :)

Then why are you defending it?

I am arguing against what I see as ignorant arguments. I do not support the law, but I am aware of what it says and how the Swedish system applies. I am not defending it, but I want it to be attacked on grounds of merit as per the legal system and culture it is part of, and not due to some cockamamy lack of information about this law and the myriad of aspects that the Supreme Court has to weigh in when ruling in the matter, and how a ruling fits into our constitution and our system of government without such baseless and shallow assertions as to "violation of freedom of speech" or "freedom of religion" based in a US centric perspective.

My point was that it wouldn't necessarily be a breach of a US right either, as the US also accounts for similar extenuating circumstances. Claiming that it is a breach of a fundamental right is thus not US-centric. Maybe wrong, but that doesn't always mean US-centric.

But seeing as he later went on to admit the US-centrism, it is this which I attacked, and not the veracity of it.

I am arguing against what I see as ignorant arguments. I do not support the law, but I am aware of what it says and how the Swedish system applies. I am not defending it, but I want it to be attacked on grounds of merit as per the legal system and culture it is part of, and not due to some cockamamy lack of information about this law and the myriad of aspects that the Supreme Court has to weigh in when ruling in the matter, and how a ruling fits into our constitution and our system of government without such baseless and shallow assertions as to "violation of freedom of speech" or "freedom of religion" based in a US centric perspective.

And you still ignore my argument as to why it isn't US centric...ah well, I won't press it. It's not really on topic, and it would just be nitpicky of me. The straw man is really annoying, though.

Edit: Just my luck, you post your reply right before I post this. Sorry for the inconvenience, though I still don't remember anyone but H N Fiddlebottoms admitting to US centrism.

Well you could have said that in the first place, instead of talking about how it is too complex to explain, and indicating that he is an attention whore that should have been ignored. Because, frankly that indicates that the law is capable of, and has been, selectively enforced. And any time laws are selectively enforced, the rule of law is called into question, no matter how scrupulously the particular defendant's rights are scrupulously observed.

Seeing as reliance on rule of law is a right in this country, and it not having been violated, your attack was baseless, insofar as you miscontrued what I was saying.

As long as everyone else who is similarly situated is being prosecuted, regardless of whether or not they contacted the newspapers, then that's fine.

The law has a requirement in purposeful dissemination to a sufficiently large groupe of people (there are numerous precedents to factor in as to the what this size is considered as). It is a directed law in such way as that it punishes this purposeful "hets" as it is called in Swedish, so as to minimise the intrusion into freedom of speech. It is not selectively applied - it can only be applied if this requirement is met. the purpose of the law is to deal with widespread and systematic defamation and agitation against people based in the aspects outlined.

Having requirements for severity of an action for a law to be in effect is not a violation of rule of law.

So your contention is that Article 29 basically negates Article 19? Fair enough. I guess that means that you have to start being nice to people.

What article 29 does is give room for laws like these. The ECHR would have struck it down long ago had it not been for it.

I go swimming in the morning from 5 AM to 6 AM, hit the steam room for about 5-10 minutes, then the hot tub for 5-10 minutes, then cool down in the pool for about 10 minutes. When I get to work at 7 AM, I am wide awake. :)

Now that's just damn cool. Learn something new about people every day. I usually cough myself out of bed at around 6ish, stumble into the kitchen for some coffee, grab whatever fatty nasty food is on the counter (doughnuts, etc) for breakfast, grog my way through a shower, help the kids get ready for school, sip coffee while I exchange tired grunts with the other parents at the bus stop, then collapse into a strange coma for 4-6 hours while I write (drinking coffee the whole time) and hope to everything that is holy my publisher won't change too much of it, breaking now and then to pray when the Azhan calls, and I'm usually awake by 6 or 7 in the evening.

As I have read all the posts, I know what you wrote it that one. I also know what you wrote in all the others. You may not agree with the law, but you agree with the prosicution of the pastor. Humm, sounds like doublespeek.

I agree with the prosecution of him as what he did may have broken the law. I would like to see him acquitted, but the prosecution is warranted. It's not doublespeak - it's nuance and seeing the story from different angles.

Now *that's* a lot of umlauts!

Wë dö lïkë thëm! :P

I agree with the prosecution of him as what he did may have broken the law. I would like to see him acquitted, but the prosecution is warranted. It's not doublespeak - it's nuance and seeing the story from different angles.
So, the prosecution of any citizen participating in Thoreau’s gift to the world is warranted?
If a women walks down the street without her veil in Saudi Arabia, is her prosecution warranted because she broke the law?

So, the prosecution of any citizen participating in Thoreau’s gift to the world is warranted? If a women walks down the street without her veil in Saudi Arabia, is her prosecution warranted because she broke the law?

Yes, the prosecution is warranted. "Civil disobedience is still disobedience" especially if you do it to challenge a law, which was Green's intent. If you break the law, no matter how stupid it is, expect to be prosecuted. Thoreau did not advocate a society devoid of consequence just because he was keen on civil disobedience to unjust laws.

I don't believe in hate speech laws, so I disagree with this whole thing on the basic premise that it interferes in this man's freedom of speech. And I'm gay, so it's not like I approve of what this dumb ass says either.

I don't believe in hate speech laws either.

What this man said is extremely repugnant, but the answer should be to defeat his ideas in the marketplace of ideas. Not to censor him.

I do think Cetlund exaggerates, however. There are limits on both freedom of religion and freedom of speech in the U.S. This is a limit that I disagree with, but it is only a slight matter of degree from our ban on "fighting words."



(BTW< let us be clear this has nothing to do with US hate crime laws.

Except: you haven't shown that he makes them unfree, unequal, or unrighted, nor does he make the law discriminate against them. How is he violating their rights?

Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Although I don't agree with the prosecution -- I say it is persecution -- you did overlook how the man was inciting discrimination against gays and lesbians.

What is it with christians and this damn persecution complex?

That man made a hate-filled speech filled with lies (the bit about gay men raping children more often than straight ones... no, most pedophiles are straight men) and they have a law against that. If someone had set up a milk crate stage and tried to incite a crowd like that without the biblical verses, they'd be prosecuted too.

I don't believe in hate speech laws either.

What this man said is extremely repugnant, but the answer should be to defeat his ideas in the marketplace of ideas. Not to censor him.

I do think Cetlund exaggerates, however. There are limits on both freedom of religion and freedom of speech in the U.S. This is a limit that I disagree with, but it is only a slight matter of degree from our ban on "fighting words."



(BTW< let us be clear this has nothing to do with US hate crime laws.
Wow Cat-Tribe, I didn't see you taking this side. You haven't ceased to suprise me yet from time to time. ;)

Wow Cat-Tribe, I didn't see you taking this side. You haven't ceased to suprise me yet from time to time. ;)

Um. which side did I take? why did that surprise you?

Um. which side did I take? why did that surprise you?
I don't believe in hate speech laws either.
That suprised me.

That suprised me.

Hmm.

I'm a strong believer in freedom of speech.

I do support hate crime laws.

Let me first say that THAT man is a cancer on society. His message is backwards and wrong. Men like him are most likely to rape choir boys and have their bishops cover it up.


Now. Should I go to jail for saying that? I attacked the man's belief system just as he attacked gay beliefs. I am sure a vein would have popped in the mans neck if I said that to him. Should I go to jail for saying what I believe?

No. The man's message may be something I hate, but he has a right to say it.

Now. Should I go to jail for saying that? I attacked the man's belief system just as he attacked gay beliefs. I am sure a vein would have popped in the mans neck if I said that to him. Should I go to jail for saying what I believe?

This law protects groups of people, not individuals, so your analogy is flawed.

This law protects groups of people, not individuals, so your analogy is flawed.

Fine, what if I included everyone who supported that man's message?

Fine, what if I included everyone who supported that man's message?

Still insufficient, becuase opinion is not one of the protected aspects.

And the fact that the US acts within its own laws when it tortures people and denies gay marriage and wants to put big wholes in Alaska and <insert topic of latest rant here>. Yet, the US still catches Hell for it from people who don't live here and probably aren't experts on our civic system.
This is my turn to call someone else's nation out for pullling shit, and you think I'm going to piss it away by saying "Its Sweden, what can you do?"

Hey we stopped the idea of Drilling in Alaska, Republicans took enough slack from American public that they changed their minds for now....

The torture thing...who can defend that,...

But I gotta admit: you can't imply he wants to kill their lifestyle (he said their lifestyle was cancer not them) because he didn't say so.

Yes, some people eradicate cancer but he didn't anything about that. One would assume people would ask before doing so.
I notice the new law to extend this to homosexuals is 2 years old. Why did they change the law 2 years ago?

Plus haven't people heard of prayer? You know the two communication between God and them? Or does their faith thinks it is one way only?


So this too is uncivilised and unthinkable in the modern world?

Neu Leonstein, you constitution is civilized.

Whether Sweeden is we don't know till we see it, but the word do far is "no" based on what we see in this thread.


Listen people, rights will always be limited because they always conflict with other rights. The question is just which right is chosen at any given time. At this point we have a conflict between right to security of person and freedom of speech (and maybe religion). And yes, just because he's not actually saying people should do anything specific to gays doesn't mean he doesn't contribute to violation of security of person. Lets say after seeing him and nine other people advocate his position, people go out and lynch a gay person as a direct consequence of the speeches. The preacher then is guilty of 1/10 of a murder, which is assault. Swedish law decides this trumps his freedom of speech.

Nope, becuse he never put the idea to kill them into their minds.

You are only an accomplice if you make the idea/help.
If he called for the erradication of cancer immediately after the speech you'd have a case.
He can't control what others do if he didn't tell them.
Or did we suddenly lose Free Will?

My point is that "Freedom of Speech" is a nice concept. And I agree that individual people should have the right to make an absolute arse (or "ass" if you will) of themselves, but people in positions of authority should not have the freedom to say whatever they feel. That Swedish pastor didn't make those comments as an individual, but as a member of the church (and what's more, promoting a view which is not standard in the church) - and I believe he was wrong to do that and the Swedish judicial system is right to prosecute him. His comment was dangerous because it makes it seem as if it is still somehow acceptable to hate a group of people merely based on the gender of their sexual partners... People listen to Pastors, just as they listen to teachers, doctors, and to some extent politicians, and although he didn't directly condone homophobic violence it is not a huge leap to see how someone could be inspired toward that from his sermon. And to compare homosexuality with paedophilia is the lowest of lows... paedophilia hurts people (thus it is immoral), homosexuality does not hurt people any more than heterosexuality...

Yoda Speak:
Hate the lifestyle he did; hate the people not he did.
Learn you must; the difference to know you should.

He sad their life style (being gay) was a cancer. He wants to save the people which is why he didn't say that to the people. I agree that he shouldn't be saying stuff like that though.

He saidfhate their lifestyle. He didn't say hate the people. Read the whole article (not just the forums words on it) again.

But you should only punish on what he says not what you think he said or implys. "When you assume, you make an @ss out of you and me " :D


Allah bless America.

In my religion you just said, "Jesus bless America". :p
Allah does not = God in my religion. Jehovah and Allah both refer to Jesus. Elohim is Heavenly Father.

But either way that was funny to me. :D
No offense meant.


Exactly. Think Patriot Act.

Unconstitutional actually.


You can't defame a class of people. That's black letter law. What's more defamation sounds in tort, not criminal law. Of course, Fass already knows this being an expert in the US legal system.

Really? I did not know this...


Actually, no ... we're changing the law. Loving vs. Virginia is a prime example of establishing a Constitutional right to marriage. By forcing into law what one religion defines as marriage, we are - in fact - in violation of the First Amendment and dozens of case precident throughout SCOTUS history.

But, of course, as long as it doesn't violate the Second Amendment, nobody cares ... right?

Been changed for a year or two than hasn't it. The Virginia Senate back then made it illegal.null and void papers for two people of same gender to run any legal transactions such as buying a house together, marriage, going in to business together, etc.

I find it unconstitutional on many points, but no one has challenged it.

We don't need an amendment as long as this is in the books.
Really the Amendment will be redunant here.


Not in the slightest. I even believe people should be allowed to scream fire in a crowded theater simply because it's a great prank. Believe me ... I take the First Amendment deadly serious. You can take my right to be a Jewish Muslim Pastafarian, Christian hating, Republican bashing, Bush loathing, pot smoking, folk singing, liberal leftist tree hugging hippie when you pry it from my cold, dead hand.

Keruvalia I'm hurt, you hate me (I'm Christian)? Shall we go to sweeden so I get you arrested. ;)

Still insufficient, becuase opinion is not one of the protected aspects.

The bottom line is, Sweden says it's ok for me to say his church is evil, but he can't say gay lifestyle is evil and against God. You can't pick and choose which viewpoints are allowed to be spoken if you claim to have freedom of speech. He never incouraged anyone to perform crimes against gays. No crime was commited save him being an pious asshole.

The bottom line is, Sweden says it's ok for me to say his church is evil, but he can't say gay lifestyle is evil and against God. You can't pick and choose which viewpoints are allowed to be spoken if you claim to have freedom of speech. He never incouraged anyone to perform crimes against gays. No crime was commited save him being an pious asshole.
That is not a fair reflection of why he is being prosecuted.

This whole thread shows a lack of understanding as to why he is being preosecuted. It also shows a complete lack of understanding of Swedish law. It's also mad to say that it's the government who is prosecuting him, it's not. The courts, prosecution system and police do not prosecute people because the government tells them to.

That is not a fair reflection of why he is being prosecuted.

This whole thread shows a lack of understanding as to why he is being preosecuted. It also shows a complete lack of understanding of Swedish law. It's also mad to say that it's the government who is prosecuting him, it's not. The courts, prosecution system and police do not prosecute people because the government tells them to.

Basically what I spent 12 forum pages saying. Funny, no? ;)

Here's my 2 cents. Please add "in my opinion" to all of this.

Did he break the law? YES
Is the law just? NO
Do I like his message? NO
Should he be silenced? NO
Is Sweden the great country people think it is? Apparently not.
Is Sweden a bad country? NO

Here's my 2 cents. Please add "in my opinion" to all of this.

Did he break the law? YES
Is the law just? NO
Do I like his message? NO
Should he be silenced? NO
Is Sweden the great country people think it is? Apparently not.
Is Sweden a bad country? NO
It's not possible to add an opinion to this. Your analysis is too simplistic.

Basically what I spent 12 forum pages saying. Funny, no? ;)
Yes, now I see. It's both funny and very irritating at the same time.

Green must be loving this thread. He has again suceeded in getting what he wants; attention. In a way, a bit like you, I feel like I shouldn't contribute to this thread because of this... but at the same time, I was unable to stop myself as some of the things said are so far off reality. Maybe now I will leave it.

It's not possible to add an opinion to this. Your analysis is too simplistic.
Oh yeah, I forgot. I'm just a dumb American with no idea about anything besides bombing brown people and torture.

Oh well, at least I can say what I want here without getting arrested for it.

I think hate speech laws are an unwarranted infringement on freedom of speech. That said, the Swedes seem to like their hate speech laws - it's their country.

If you don't like the laws in your country, and can't muster the political clout to change them, move to a country where you like the laws.

Well then your constitution is fucked up. To actually limit rights in a constitution, unthinkable in the modern world.

I should point out that many things the US does are unthinkable in the "modern world". Retaining the death penalty, seriously considering teaching Creationism in schools, refusing to sign the International Convention on the Rights of Children... All of those are completely unthinkable throughout the West - except in the US. That doesn't stop some Americans from advocating them.

What exactly do you know about various constitutions, anyway?

Keruvalia I'm hurt, you hate me (I'm Christian)? Shall we go to sweeden so I get you arrested. ;)

I don't hate you, I hate what your religion has become. Hate the sin, not the sinner. ;)

I should point out that many things the US does are unthinkable in the "modern world". Retaining the death penalty, seriously considering teaching Creationism in schools, refusing to sign the International Convention on the Rights of Children... All of those are completely unthinkable throughout the West - except in the US. That doesn't stop some Americans from advocating them.

What exactly do you know about various constitutions, anyway?
Is it seriously impossible to have a thread about a nation without saying America is satan?

I don't hate you, I hate what your religion has become. Hate the sin, not the sinner. ;)
If it makes you all feel better, I hate all of your religions equally! :D

No, the pastor is being prosecuted for breaking the law. Is the law just? well that is another matter entirely.

Is it seriously impossible to have a thread about a nation without saying America is satan?

Nah. I was just bringing it up to give him a sense of perspective, and knock him out of his americanocentrism.

Besides, weigh your words please. I've never painted anything in black and white. I leave that to the flocks of simplistic people, of whatever nationality, who seem so numerous in these fora.

Nah. I was just bringing it up to give him a sense of perspective, and knock him out of his americanocentrism.

Besides, weigh your words please. I've never painted anything in black and white. I leave that to the flocks of simplistic people, of whatever nationality, who seem so numerous in these fora.
I didn't particularly mean to aim that at you, but yours was the post I happened to be looking at when I realized I'd read more about America in a thread about Swedish freedom of speech (or lack thereof)

BTW, my words weigh 3.4 lbs. ;)

BTW, my words weigh 3.4 lbs. ;)

What's that, like, 2 grams? :p

What's that, like, 2 grams? :p
3.4 lb, lbs = 1,542.214058 grams ;)

If it makes you all feel better, I hate all of your religions equally! :D

Hooray! Equality! :D

Hooray! Equality! :D
What can I say? I'm an equal opportunity hater! :D

Now, you may not agree with what he said, but certainly, you would agree that he has the right to say what he did. The conclusion is, "This man is being persecuted for his religious beliefs and has no freedom of speech."

I am surprised at this as I thought that Sweden was a country that believed in the ideals of freedom of religion and speech.

What say you?

Well, I'm not surprised, because I think Sweden is like Germany: You can say everything as long as you follow the liberal "tolerant" mainstream. A tolerance that tolerates everything but unconventional opinions ;-)

Or to say it short: The dictatorship of political correctness has replaced the freedom of speech and thoughts.

"Celtlund is a cancerous tumor, and is positions are abnormal, on par with murder. Is positions will eternaly divorce him from the inteligent humans."

Now, I really don't mean that above (seriously), but if I was to state that in public, you could sue me for slander or something. Now, would that offend my right for free speech? I don't think so. Now, you might consider that sending the priest to jail is too much, but the basics, which basically are that freedom of speech doesnt grant you immunity to spew nonsense, and slander people.

There is a great difference between my first paragraph and "Celtlund is wrong, as in Sweden you can indeed state your mind, you just need to be respectfull about it".

(In other words, that priest is being persecuted for being an asshole, not for not liking gays)

(In other words, that priest is being persecuted for being an asshole, not for not liking gays)
If being an asshole is illegal in Sweden, I know a certain Swede who should lock their door! :D (sorry, I couldn't resist!)

On a more serious note, I think it would be way easier to just people say whatever they want, but then let people kick their ass if it offends them. What can I say, I'm a fan of the wild west.

http://www.planetout.com/news/article.html?date=2005/11/10/5

What this pastor said is a far cry from "hate speech." He did not advocate hurting anyone. He did say that according to his religious beliefs homosexuals are a cancer. He wants them to repent and says if they don't they will burn in hell.

Now, you may not agree with what he said, but certainly, you would agree that he has the right to say what he did. The conclusion is, "This man is being persecuted for his religious beliefs and has no freedom of speech."

I am surprised at this as I thought that Sweden was a country that believed in the ideals of freedom of religion and speech.

What say you?

If he had said, "I believe that homosexuals represent a problem, and I wish to help them if I can" then he wouldn't be in this mess. If he had said "I hate homosexuals, they are a cancer, they are sick, they are paedophiles and rapists, I hope they die so that they can burn in hell," then he would be in this mess.

Guess what he said.

It would be the same if it was the other way around. If I said, "I do not like Christians. I view their history with disdain, and I find their preachings offensive" then there would be no problem. If had said "I hate Christians, they are the scum of the universe, I wish they would all die," then there would be a problem.

It's not favouritism. It's nothing to do with freedom of religion. It's just that Christians of this nature (not all -- you people are far too pedantic for your own good sometimes) are generally extremely hostile when they express their 'beliefs', grounded or not. If he expressed his beliefs like a sane person, he wouldn't be in this mess. People might even have listened to him.

Which is, incidentally, a good point for the rest of you nutcases. If you express your beliefs in a rational way, however irrational the actual belief is, you're more likely to get a debate out of your opponents. If you express yourself in the same kind of obnoxious, hostile way, the only people who will take you seriously are those who are already on your side. Which is great, except for the fact that it doesn't accomplish anything.

Note offcourse, that in america, tolerance for nonsence is alot higher:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051111/ap_on_re_us/robertson_evolution

But it is an exageration to claim that sweden "does not believe in freedom of speech"

Your rights end where the others' start.

He did not respect homosexuals' rights, so why would his "freedom of speech" be respected ?

You don't respect his religious rights, so why should any of your rights be respected?

Not that I agree with either my own above statement [or yours], but both of them are based from a fundamental flaw of misapplication of the actual principle of the precept "Your rights end where another's begin"... No one has a right to be "respected"... However, they do have fundamental rights which must be respected... There is nothing the pastor said which imposed upon any rights of homosexuals...

Do I need to quote the Declaration of Human Rights, really ?

Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Vague, and not acting in a direct manner. I can ignore this one.


Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.


Ok, this makes rights equal, past that, it taked no individual action.


Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Let's see, did the pastor violate any part of this one?

Did he deny the homosexuals equal protection before the law? No
Did he deny them equal protection from discrimination? No

Can you post something, which has applicability to this case, or are you going to keep posting rhetoric?

One word : dignity (taken from Article 1)

One word "should"... Article I has no force behind it's language... It's optional...

Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Vague, and not acting in a direct manner. I can ignore this one.

In fact, "act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood is so undefined, that one might imagine that if Tekania were visiting Sweden, and refused the sexual advances of ANYONE - straight, gay, or bi - that he would be failing to act "in a spirit of brotherhood".

It sounds like hurting someone's feelings is against the law, and it's far, far too easy to hurt someone's feelings.

I personally find it funny (in a tragic sort of way) that this law has existed for some time protecting people of ethnicity, religion, and the like. Only when the "sexual preference" part was added did it become an issue of international interest.

I personally find it funny (in a tragic sort of way) that this law has existed for some time protecting people of ethnicity, religion, and the like. Only when the "sexual preference" part was added did it become an issue of international interest.

Perhaps that's because in the US, we don't buy into the idea of hate speech laws (at least so far... I'm sure that there's a party in the US that would love to implement them).

The law is not just a "hate speech" law. It is also a defamation law. This is multi-layered and cannot be explained or understood in simplistic US terms.

So, they are applying defamation to control of religious doctrines of various churches? And are making legal statements as to the validity of individual religious beliefs... Therefore Sweden denies freedom of religion, as a legal principle.

I dare a politican to say that white people are the root of all evil, or a catholic clergy man to declare that black people are stupid and dangerous.

Sexual orientation, as race, is not determined by one's will.

I've seen public figures make responses like that.

In free societies, however, they are not arrested for saying that.

I've seen public figures make responses like that.

In free societies, however, they are not arrested for saying that.

We don't arrest them in the US because we want to train our citizens not to be idiots. In other countries, the government does all the thinking for you.

So, they are applying defamation to control of religious doctrines of various churches? And are making legal statements as to the validity of individual religious beliefs... Therefore Sweden denies freedom of religion, as a legal principle.

No. That is a complete misunderstanding of the merits in the case, which I have explained earlier. The large question here is: Does religious freedom excuse behaviour unconnected to the religion if you're holding a Bible in your hand while you're doing it.

You’d be right there.
A constitution is meant to protect the rights of the people, not infringe upon them.

Well, our constitution is designed with that in mind. However, most of the constitutions of nations on this planet are not designed with that in mind.

I guess the question we have to ask is "What constitutes incitement to violence?" As disgusting as racism, homophobia and other forms of hate are, we can't claim to have freedom if people are prosecuted by the government for what they say. (Prosecuted by the "invisible hand" of the market, now, that's different.)

I don't think you can nab someone for saying "The Bible says 'xyz'", when it clearly states "ABC" instead. Everyone is entitled to misinterpret his holy texts as he wishes, as well as to distribute that misinterpretation to those who will hear him.

Incitement to violence is different, though. Saying, "Gay people are a cancer upon the body politic" is pretty harsh, but saying, "Let us excise this cancer with fire and blood" is going a step too far.

No. That is a complete misunderstanding of the merits in the case, which I have explained earlier. The large question here is: Does religious freedom excuse behaviour unconnected to the religion if you're holding a Bible in your hand while you're doing it.

The material you blame for the minister's speech is in the Bible. Maybe Swedes should start burning some books.

The material you blame for the minister's speech is in the Bible.

No, it isn't in the Bible. If he had only quoted the Bible, the case would have been dismissed a long time ago.

Maybe Swedes should start burning some books.

Maybe Americans should start reading them?

No, it isn't in the Bible. If he had only quoted the Bible, the case would have been dismissed a long time ago.

Maybe Americans should start reading them?

Books can be interpreted in many ways. I'm glad there's no restriction on speech in the US the way there is in Sweden.

Whatever works for you, but don't be surprised when you visit the US.

The material you blame for the minister's speech is in the Bible. Maybe Swedes should start burning some books.
Cancer's not in the Bible, and while the Old Testament does say it is detestable for men to commit a certain kind of gay sex act, the New Testament is not as clear - largely, because people seem to be more likely to read the New Testament in translated form than the OT.

Just an aside: commercial translations are generally not reliable. You're better off going directly to someone who knows the language in question and asking him directly.

No, it isn't in the Bible. If he had only quoted the Bible, the case would have been dismissed a long time ago.



Maybe Americans should start reading them?
Sorry Fass, but your wrong there, buddy! As much as I hate the bible, I know what's in it.
Maybe Swedes should start reading them, instead of insinuating that Americans don't?

Leviticus 20:13 - If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Books can be interpreted in many ways. I'm glad there's no restriction on speech in the US the way there is in Sweden.

Yeah, we don't have such absurd obscenity laws here. Nipplegate, anyone? I guess not all speech/expression is unrestricted over there...

Whatever works for you, but don't be surprised when you visit the US.

I already have visited the US.

Yes, being tolerant of the intolerant makes no sense whatsoever. Tolerate the KKK and their racial profiling, they're exercising their rights when they hang blacks to intimidate their voting choices (although they haven't been doing this much recently). Tolerate it when PETA and ALF torch medical labs. Or better yet, why not tolerate Osama Bin Laden and the rest of those crazy people?

Because you can't, can you?

In each case, the first in speech, is free... The second is the imposition against the rights of another; and is thus prosecuted.

I will not advocate or support the supression of someone's right to hate some other race, regardless whether it is a White KKK member against blacks or a Black Nation of Islam member agaisnt whites... When one or the other, however, acts to impose against the others right to life or property; then I will advocate for their prosecution.

So, they are applying defamation to control of religious doctrines of various churches? And are making legal statements as to the validity of individual religious beliefs... Therefore Sweden denies freedom of religion, as a legal principle.Sweden is drawing a line where it says your freedom of religion ends: When it hurts others. Having a freedom of religion does not entail the right to preach that another social group is inferior on grounds of your religion. You're entitled to think this way, but preaching it is wrong. Preaching murder of infidels is wrong too. Freedom of religion has it's limits.

Leviticus 20:13 - If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

How does that cover what he said? And religious freedom is not an excuse for incitement to commit a crime, which murder is.

Sweden is drawing a line where it says your freedom of religion ends: When it hurts others. Having a freedom of religion does not entail the right to preach that another social group is inferior on grounds of your religion. You're entitled to think this way, but preaching it is wrong. Preaching murder of infidels is wrong too. Freedom of religion has it's limits.
So basically, ALL people should be arrested.
Sorry, but when you start prosecuting everyone who hurts someone elses feelings, we will ALL be in jail.

Sorry Fass, but your wrong there, buddy! As much as I hate the bible, I know what's in it.
Maybe Swedes should start reading them, instead of insinuating that Americans don't?

Leviticus 20:13 - If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.And yet, somehow, I see no one protesting in front of sea food restauraunts (http://www.godhatesshrimp.com)...

How does that cover what he said? And religious freedom is not an excuse for incitement to commit a crime, which murder is.

So, if I read the part from Leviticus (about homosexuality being an abomination) loudly on a street corner in downtown Stockholm, how long would it be before I was arrested?

Not that I believe it's an abomination myself, but the language is in there.

How does that cover what he said? And religious freedom is not an excuse for incitement to commit a crime, which murder is.
It doesn't. But you said that if he had quoted the bible, it would be ok. So he can say that gays need to be put to death, without fear of prosecution, but he can't say he hates them?

Do me a favor. Make some sense.

So basically, ALL people should be arrested.
Sorry, but when you start prosecuting everyone who hurts someone elses feelings, we will ALL be in jail.There's a difference in between my feelings being hurt by having to sit near my ex girlfriend and my feelings being hurt by someone preaching I'm scum because of my ethnic background/sexual preference/color of shoelaces.
It's not about feelings being hurt, it's about which cases of feelings being hurt are punishable.

So, if I read the part from Leviticus (about homosexuality being an abomination) loudly on a street corner in downtown Stockholm, how long would it be before I was arrested?

Not that I believe it's an abomination myself, but the language is in there.Judging from how much crap you can get away with in Sweden, probably after several days...

So, if I read the part from Leviticus (about homosexuality being an abomination) loudly on a street corner in downtown Stockholm, how long would it be before I was arrested?

You would not be arrested for it. You may be arrested for disturbing the peace if it ends up being a demonstration of sorts you don't have a permit for, or somehow are disturbing people, but that would not be "hets." Quoting the Bible is not sufficient to break this law - what the Supreme Court has to decide is if the things he went and made up all on his own are protected under freedom of religion.

You would not be arrested for it. You may be arrested for disturbing the peace if it ends up being a demonstration of sorts you don't have a permit for, or somehow are disturbing people, but that would not be "hets." Quoting the Bible is not sufficient to break this law - what the Supreme Court has to decide is if the things he went and made up all on his own are protected under freedom of religion.

So, you can't make up a religion in Sweden? What do you do with Scientologists?

It doesn't. But you said that if he had quoted the bible, it would be ok. So he can say that gays need to be put to death, without fear of prosecution, but he can't say he hates them.

He can quote the Bible, but he cannot urge people to do it.

You would not be arrested for it. You may be arrested for disturbing the peace if it ends up being a demonstration of sorts you don't have a permit for, or somehow are disturbing people, but that would not be "hets." Quoting the Bible is not sufficient to break this law - what the Supreme Court has to decide is if the things he went and made up all on his own are protected under freedom of religion.
So they do regulate religion? Where is this list of acceptable religions for Sweden?

So, you can't make up a religion in Sweden?

You can, but it may not be recognised as such.

What do you do with Scientologists?

IIRC, they are not a recognised religion.

Leviticus 20:13 - If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Dude, the word "man" is ish, whereas the word "mankind" is zakhar. Those two words, while both masculine, have a really very different meaning. Zakhar connotes youth, childhood. Ish carries no such connotation.

Also. Your source translates V'ish asher yishkav et zakhar mishkevei isha as "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman," where a more accurate translation would be so: "And if a man lieth with a male [connot. male child] the lyings of woman", then yes, it's an abomination.

Now, what "the lyings of woman" are, I just don't know. (Before someone gets too silly, mishkav refers to stretching out horizontally, not telling false tales.)

He can quote the Bible, but he cannot urge people to do it.
Just what exactly did he urge people to do that was violent?

So they do regulate religion? Where is this list of acceptable religions for Sweden?

The courts have tests for it. There are precedents. You can't just invent some cockamamy thing and call it a religion and have it recognised as such.

What that article is not specific on is exactly which portion of his speech caused the charge. In Canada, for example, the determining factor is usually incitement to hate.

So a preacher giving a sermon stating that homosexuality is against God's wishes is fine. Saying that God will deny them access to the Kingdom of HEaven is also acceptible as it is well founded as being a traditional viewpoint of Christianity.

However, telling parisioners that gays are to be feared as they have a tendancy to rape children and animals is not fine. Nor, to be fair, can it possibly be construed to be a part of the dogma of the church as there are no such references within the Bible. the preacher's subsequent excuse that he was "warning gays of Gods wrath" is bullshit in relation to his actual statements.

Warning a gay that God will deny them access to heaven is fine.
Telling everyone else to be fearful of any gays about as they might rape your children and pets is across the line for a person in a position of social power.

So if it were that portion of the speech that caused the charge, then I feel that it was an appropriate instance under which the limits of free speech should have been tested in the courts.

IIRC, they are not a recognised religion.
I think you are right, I don't think the Scientologists are. If I remember correctly, they were judged to more of a commercial organisation... their behaviour pretty much immitates a company rather than a relgion.

Just what exactly did he urge people to do that was violent?

The law does not deal with violence only. The law is a restriction of freedom of speech, you know. It doesn't have to be violent. Read the law.

did anyone notice that its mentioned that the pastor said:

In 2003, Green told his congregation on the small island of Oland that homosexuality was "a deep cancerous tumor on all of society," and warned that Sweden risked a natural disaster because of leniency toward gays. He also said gays were more likely than others to rape children and animals.

seems like is trying to inspire a bit of hatred there to me.

Had he refered to his interpretation of levitus and said the good book (:rolleyes: ) says this or that, that would be different.

Amusingly enough, his good book says nothing of the sort - in fact, it seems to refer more to pederasty. See above. :3

The courts have tests for it. There are precedents. You can't just invent some cockamamy thing and call it a religion and have it recognised as such.
Sounds like regulation to me.

So they do regulate religion? Where is this list of acceptable religions for Sweden?They do it in Germany too. There are several levels of it, with the German Catholic and Protestant churches being the only recognized official religions (with the exception of the Jehova's Witnesses in the state of Berlin). Then there are communities of faith that receive certain rights. And then there's cults like Scientology that are occasionally outright illegal.

Sounds like regulation to me.
Why can't a country's government decide to regulate the public expression of religion? From here, it seems like there shouldn't be a problem with it. We damnyankees have a document that forbids our government from doing that in many ways, but not everybody else's has got such clauses.

They do it in Germany too. There are several levels of it, with the German Catholic and Protestant churches being the only recognized official religions (with the exception of the Jehova's Witnesses in the state of Berlin). Then there are communities of faith that receive certain rights. And then there's cults like Scientology that are occasionally outright illegal.

That's what I remember from Germany.

There are also some subjects that are banned from books, and some books that are banned, and some symbols that are banned. Mostly Nazi stuff.

Why can't a country's government decide to regulate the public expression of religion? From here, it seems like there shouldn't be a problem with it. We damnyankees have a document that forbids our government from doing that in many ways, but not everybody else's has got such clauses.
A government can do whatever the hell it wants. Well, except convince me that it's citizens are free.

A government can do whatever the hell it wants. Well, except convince me that it's citizens are free.
No apostrophe, and why should people be free to make up whatever cockamamie ramblings they like, call it a Bible, and get government recognition for their new religion?

Our own government does grant religions certain benefits, you know. So this is relevant. The Swedish approach is just a different one from ours. (Wasn't there a Universal Church of Light or something that you could buy an ordination from for a few dollars?)

Edit: I think it's Universal Life Church.

Sounds like regulation to me.
Give me one example of a country that doesn't regulate religion.