NationStates Jolt Archive

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.Only Nazi stuff, and not even all of it. You can get away with saying or displaying something similar, and technically, if you never have guests, you can even store the things in your house. The ban doesn't apply to historical-educational purposes.
We had a case not too long ago where a bunch of neo-nazis got no extra punishment because it was ruled that it is legal to display mottos that are similar but not identical to the SS motto.

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.

The only book that's banned outright is "Mein Kampf". If you want to take it out of any library, you'll need an official proof that you need it for research. Kind of pointless these days, as you can download it online or order it from amazon, but there you are. The law's a bit outdated.

Actually, I'm quite amazed that Sweden is getting all this flak. Germany is "much" tougher on hate speach than Sweden, which is why a big portion of German neo-nazi sites are based in Sweden.

Give me one example of a country that doesn't regulate religion.
Did I ever claim there was, or are you just out of arguments, and want to change the subject?

We can talk about kittens if you like.

Give me one example of a country that doesn't regulate religion.
It's far, far easier to start a religion here in the US.

The majority of Protestants in the US do not attend the mainstream Protestant churches - they attend independent churches (or small groups of churches) that were put together by men who merely announced that they were men of the cloth. Technically Christian, but adhering to no previous denomination at all.

Plenty of wacky cults, too.

Did I ever claim there was, or are you just out of arguments, and want to change the subject?

We can talk about kittens if you like.
So you are effectively ranting that the Swedish government is regulating religion for the hell of it? It's not like they don't have legitimate reasons for it. It'S just that you wanted to criticize their way of doing things for sheer joy, heedless that your own government is doing something eerily similar.

Or did you want to make a point?

Actually, I'm quite amazed that Sweden is getting all this flak. Germany is "much" tougher on hate speach than Sweden, which is why a big portion of German neo-nazi sites are based in Sweden.

Hmm... Germany seems to be have far less religious fanatics. Or at least they are less outspoken. I can't remember any cases of priests or other religious people ever getting in trouble with this particular law... it only ever seemed to get applied to neo-Nazis

Hmm... Germany seems to be have far less religious fanatics. Or at least they are less outspoken. I can't remember any cases of priests or other religious people ever getting in trouble with this particular law... it only ever seemed to get applied to neo-Nazis
You must have missed the Caliph of Cologne then. He's been deported to Turkey for his treason trial by now.

So you are effectively ranting that the Swedish government is regulating religion for the hell of it? It's not like they don't have legitimate reasons for it. It'S just that you wanted to criticize their way of doing things for sheer joy, heedless that your own government is doing something eerily similar.

Or did you want to make a point?
We can talk about any government in the world that you would like, and their downfalls. But not in a thread about SWEDEN. The thread is about SWEDEN, therefore I will talk about the SWEDISH government.

Or do you just want to rant about America in this SWEDISH thread?

You must have missed the Caliph of Cologne then. He's been deported to Turkey for his treason trial by now.

Well, I've been here a few years now... who was he, and what did he do?

The question, I thought, is "How free is Sweden in terms of religion". Given that freedom does not exist in a vacuum but rather exists in comparison to other degrees of freedom or lack thereof, I assumed Sick Nightmares and others were comparing Sweden to Germany, the US and other countries where religion is regulated.

It is meaningful to bring in examples of other countries, when you're talking about how free a particular one is, just as it makes sense if you're going to brag about how large your penis is, to have a reliable comparison.

Well, I've been here a few years now... who was he, and what did he do?Preached murder against infidels and propagated the violent overthrow of the German (and Turkish) government to instate a radical islamic Caliphate. He went to jail for it for a few years and then there was a big controversy and fight between Schily and the courts whether they could extradite him to Turkey for him to face his Treason trial. The courts ruled that he wouldn't be safe in Turkey, from a rule of law point of view.

Sounds like regulation to me.

In the sense that the government can choose not to recognise it if it's something you conjured up, like pastafarianism. Would the US government recognise pastafarian teachings to give "faith-based" funding to? No, because they realise it's not a real religion. There are requirements for something to be considered a religion in every country.

In the sense that the government can choose not to recognise it if it's something you conjured up, like pastafarianism. Would the US government recognise pastafarian teachings to give "faith-based" funding to? No, because they realise it's not a real religion. There are requirements for something to be considered a religion in every country.


We give faith-based funding to $cientology. And that was invented by a science fiction writer who couldn't succeed as a writer, so he pulled a religion out of thin air.

We give faith-based funding to $cientology. And that was invented by a science fiction writer who couldn't succeed as a writer, so he pulled a religion out of thin air.

And that's a source of pride?

And that's a source of pride?

We're being fair, not proud, Fass.

And that's a source of pride?


Of commitment, anyway.

We're being fair, not proud, Fass.

That's not fairness. That's foolishness.

That's not fairness. That's foolishness.
Given that many atheists believe that Christianity in all forms is foolishness, who would you have judge that Christianity is a "real" religion, and $cientology is not?

Not that I like $cientology, but in all fairness, you can't make the judgment without being completely unfair.

We can talk about any government in the world that you would like, and their downfalls. But not in a thread about SWEDEN. The thread is about SWEDEN, therefore I will talk about the SWEDISH government.

Or do you just want to rant about America in this SWEDISH thread?
I did not want to rant about the US. I'm failing to see why you condemn the Swedish government for his treatment of religious organisation based on "they're regulated" without, you know, explain what kind of regulation you view as wrong, what exactly is the problem with the Swedish regulations or to make a case about why religion shouldn't be regulated.

Failing that, I'd like you to comment on what exactly do your country does differently than Sweden in terms of regulating religion and why do you think your way is better.

You konw, try to generate a debate or discussion. Quit being trollish.

I did not want to rant about the US. I'm failing to see why you condemn the Swedish government for his treatment of religious organisation based on "they're regulated" without, you know, explain what kind of regulation you view as wrong, what exactly is the problem with the Swedish regulations or to make a case about why religion shouldn't be regulated.

Failing that, I'd like you to comment on what exactly do your country does differently than Sweden in terms of regulating religion and why do you think your way is better.

You konw, try to generate a debate or discussion. Quit being trollish.

I've already done that...

He can quote the Bible, but he cannot urge people to do it.
He didn't urge anyone to kill/hurt/murder anyone. You are just making stuff up now.


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.

Amboebistan, I agree. He didn't tell them to kill anyone: he did lie aboiut them being more likely to rape people but that is it. Since he didn't say it under oath, no crime.


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

He never advocated murder; that was your translation of "cancer" means.


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.

Is someone reading differently than me?
He didn't say: 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.

He said: "I don't like homosexual's lifestyle, they are a cancer, they are sick, they are more likely to be paedophiles and rapists; when they die they shall burn in hell,"

He clarified that twice in the article: He was calling their lifestyle a cancer not the people. Since one can't kill a lifestyle, he wasn't advocating murder (he didn't advocate anything actually). Basically he is calling them a sinner and since they haven't repented they will be punished.
That was what he said.

Sheesh, it sounds like you assumed instead if reading every page. Not that you didn't, but it sounds like it.


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

Sick_Nightmares, I kinda agree here.
My list:
1.Did he break the law? Maybe
2. Is the law just? NO
3. Do I like his message? NO
4. Should he be silenced? NO
5. Is Sweden the great country people think it is? Apparently not.
6. Is Sweden a bad country? Maybe

I changed 1 and 6.


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

Isn't that partially what the guy is being put in court for? So I could still bring you to sweden and get you arrested. ;)
But than I couldn't debate with you :D

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.

So you believe the US should prosecute all illegal aliens? Also, if Jerry Falwell or Pat Robinson went on TV in Sweden they would probably be prosecuted if someone asked them a question about how they felt about homosexuality and same sex marriage?

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.

You are telling me that in Sweden the police and the courts are not part of the government? The courts and the police functions are contracted out to companies that make a profit from enforcing the law? How do judges in Sweden get their job? Are they elected, are they appointed, or are they hired by some company?

You are telling me that in Sweden the police and the courts are not part of the government? The courts and the police functions are contracted out to companies that make a profit from enforcing the law? How do judges in Sweden get their job? Are they elected, are they appointed, or are they hired by some company?
Except for the whole low freedom's it sounds like a Libratarians dream country.

A few Libs said that we shouldn't pay taxes. But the problem was taxes pay for troops and stuff.

If the Courts, police, etc are contracted and funded by companies then we wouldn't need the taxes.

I wonder if there ever will be a movie with that idea.

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

Keruvalia, I don't think you hate what the Christian has become, I think you hate what some people have done to it. Not all Christians are bad, there are many who still believe in what Jesus taught and who do not bastardize those teachings.

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

No! :eek:

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"

And if he had said that in Sweden he would probably be in jail.

And if he had said that in Sweden he would probably be in jail.
You got any support for that assertion?

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.

Then they criticize the US because our people are allowed to think for themselves here. :eek:

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?
To be fair, he's not being persecuted for his religious beliefs, he's being persecuted for being a jackass. Now, I believe that it should be perfectly legal to be a jackass, but let's not confuse the issue. Whether or not somebody is being a jackass "for religious reasons" is irrelevant. Saying that your jackassery is at the direction of a magic sky fairy doesn't make you any less of a jackass, and it certainly doesn't mean people should treat you with any more (or less) respect than somebody who's being a jackass for secular reasons.

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.

Fass, in this case it is not "unconnected to the religion." I am sure the pastor can quote you chapter and verse to support his interpretation of the Bible. Please note I said his interpretation, but who is to say his interpretation is any less valid than someone else’s interpretation. Interpretation is why we have so many denominations in the Christian religion. So, the pastors behavior is not unconnected to his religion.

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

So basicly the only people who can express their views are those you agree with?

So basicly the only people who can express their views are those you agree with?
Well, considering how things work in the US, Sweden might as well oppress the shit out of every Christian and homophobe within their borders...think of it as a way to bring balance to the Force...;)

(just to be clear: KIDDING.)

Fass, in this case it is not "unconnected to the religion." I am sure the pastor can quote you chapter and verse to support his interpretation of the Bible. Please note I said his interpretation, but who is to say his interpretation is any less valid than someone else’s interpretation. Interpretation is why we have so many denominations in the Christian religion. So, the pastors behavior is not unconnected to his religion.
Simple question:

If a bunch of satanic priests kidnap your relative and sacrifice him/her in some ritual - does freedom of religion mean they are okay to do that?

It's a much harsher example, but it is the same principle: Breaking the law for religious reasons is not any less of a crime.

So basicly the only people who can express their views are those you agree with?
Yes. :D

Keep reading the thread, and you'll find that various practical considerations mean that my views cannot always be law.

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.

Getting your feelings hurt for any reason may get you an, "Oh poor baby" but hurting someone’s feelings should never ever be punished by the law. We do not have enough jails for that kind of idiocy.

Simple question:

If a bunch of satanic priests kidnap your relative and sacrifice him/her in some ritual - does freedom of religion mean they are okay to do that?

It's a much harsher example, but it is the same principle: Breaking the law for religious reasons is not any less of a crime.
I totally agree. However, I think the question here is whether a law prohibiting homophobic speech is a good idea. Personally, I think it should be completely legal to say homophobic, racist, sexist, or religious things, because I believe everybody has the right to make an ass of themselves. I don't think we should have a "right to not be offended," or a "right to not have our feelings hurt."

If some idiot wants to embarass himself by flaunting his sexual insecurities in church, then I'm more than willing to laugh my ass off at the superstitious, homophobic, ignorant shmuck. He gets attention, I get to chuckle over my morning coffee as I read about his antics...everybody's a winner!

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



IIRC, they are not a recognised religion.

Recognized by who? The government? In Sweden a religion must be recognized by the governmet? The government controls what religions are acceptable? Is there freedom of religion in Sewden or not?

I totally agree. However, I think the question here is whether a law prohibiting homophobic speech is a good idea. Personally, I think it should be completely legal to say homophobic, racist, sexist, or religious things, because I believe everybody has the right to make an ass of themselves.
Well, to my knowledge the law was originally framed against Neo-Nazis, and I'm a fan of restricting Skinhead-Freedom of Speech any time. But that's for personal reasons.

But it's still defamation - you wouldn't want a newspaper writing that some politician is raping little boys when it's a lie. This is a lie made about people as well - made for whatever purpose.

Recognized by who? The government? In Sweden a religion must be recognized by the governmet? The government controls what religions are acceptable? Is there freedom of religion in Sewden or not?
Well, in a way a religion must be recognized by the government in America. I mean, anybody can say some stuff and claim it's because of their religion, but if you get into the legal sphere then you can get seriously challenged. For instance, tax status of an organization can be impacted by whether or not the government recognizes it as religious. Also, certain behaviors can get special exemptions if they are deemed religious in nature. Personally I think this is pure crap, because I don't think religious organizations/beliefs should get any better (or worse) treatment than secular organizations/beliefs, but that's just how it works sometimes.

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.

So, you finally admit there is no freedom of speech in Sweden. Thank you for your honesty.

But it's still defamation - you wouldn't want a newspaper writing that some politician is raping little boys when it's a lie. This is a lie made about people as well - made for whatever purpose.
I dunno. Directly lying about a factual or empirical reality is different from stating a particularly disliked opinion...saying a politician is a rapist when he is not is different from saying you personally believe all gays will burn in Hell, because rape is real and Hell is an opinion. Saying homosexuality is "a cancer" can be an opinion statement, since one definition of "cancer" is "a pernicious, spreading evil," and evil is a matter of opinion.

I dunno. Directly lying about a factual or empirical reality is different from stating a particularly disliked opinion...
I believe he also said things about Homosexuality being the same as Paedophilia (opinion.....maybe), and that Gay men are more likely to rape children (defamation!).

So, you finally admit there is no freedom of speech in Sweden. Thank you for your honesty.

And thank you for your ignorance, because you still seem to not have read either the law or our constitution. 20 forum pages on and you still have not read what you wish you were able to talk about, but about which you are so lacking in understanding that it's just hilarious to see you go on in this intellectual lassitude.

Tip: The Riksdag has the constitution available in English on their website. I suggest you do what you have so far failed to do.

And that's a source of pride?

Only in the fact that we believe in freedom of religion, not regulation of which religions are acceptable. We also don't normally throw people in jail for preaching what they beleive. There are still pleanty of ne-nazis running around this country.

I believe he also said things about Homosexuality being the same as Paedophilia (opinion.....maybe), and that Gay men are more likely to rape children (defamation!).
Fair enough (I haven't read up on the specific case, to be honest). If that is so, then the real question is whether or not it should be legal to lie in public, to the public, about the public, or in public media.

Simple question:

If a bunch of satanic priests kidnap your relative and sacrifice him/her in some ritual - does freedom of religion mean they are okay to do that?

It's a much harsher example, but it is the same principle: Breaking the law for religious reasons is not any less of a crime.
Differences appear:

If satanist kipnap/sacrifice they are doing physical harm. If they threatened to do it: it is still illegal.

If the Satanist said, acting Straight and beign virgin means someone might someday kidnap your relative and sacrifice them and they don't do anything: that isn't a crime unless they didn't threaten or cause harm.

Breaking the law for a religious reason isn't less than a crime, but he has yet to break the law.
If he had advocated this reversed would we be having this argument?

If he had been Homosexual and said: I don't like straight people's lifestyles, they are a cancer, they are sick, they are more likely to be paedophiles and rapists; when they die they shall burn in hell,"

Now would he be going to court in Sweden? If the answer is no...than why is the law unequal? Why does one type of people have more rights than another?
Are we not equal under the law? Or is that only in America?


(just cut and replace with Homosexual people and you have his statement)

Neu Leonstein, please, he didn't say they are the same. He said more likely to commit pedophila and rape. Personally I say Catholic Priest that do that are acting (and are) homosexual (having sexual relations with same gender).

Now some psychiatrist say you can be straight and sleep with the same gender if you are a pedophile, but I don't understand that argument.

Neu Leonstein, please, he didn't say they are the same. He said more likely to commit pedophila and rape.
Neu's point (I believe) is that the claim that homosexuals are more likely to commit rape and pedophilia is false. Heterosexual males are statistically far more likely to commit acts of sexual violence, whether those acts be directed at children or adults.

Breaking the law for a religious reason isn't less than a crime, but he has yet to break the law.
That is for the courts to decide. In Sweden this kind of hate-speech (for want of a better word) is illegal, and he is using his religion to test the conviction of the law and those that are supposed to act on it.

If he had been Homosexual and said: I don't like straight people's lifestyles, they are a cancer, they are sick, they are more likely to be paedophiles and rapists; when they die they shall burn in hell,"
Now would he be going to court in Sweden?
I don't know...maybe Fass can aswer that. As far as I know, the receiving groups are not specified in the law, but I haven't read the actual text of it either.

Yes, I support free speech, but some of it goes to extent, I consider it too far when a very influential person does make an opening for hate crimes because of what he/she said.

Well, to my knowledge the law was originally framed against Neo-Nazis, and I'm a fan of restricting Skinhead-Freedom of Speech any time. But that's for personal reasons.

Why should you have the right to criticize radical, right wing, religious zealots and Neo-Nazis, but deny them the right to criticize what you believe in? Isn't that rather two faced? (Please not I said criticize what you believe in, I did not say advocate hurting or killing you)

Why should you have the right to criticize radical, right wing, religious zealots and Neo-Nazis, but deny them the right to criticize what you believe in? Isn't that rather two faced? (Please not I said criticize what you believe in, I did not say advocate hurting or killing you)
You're talking to an AntiFa-Sympathiser and (at one time) almost proper member.
When it comes to Skinheads, my rationality goes out the window mighty quick.

And thank you for your ignorance, because you still seem to not have read either the law or our constitution. 20 forum pages on and you still have not read what you wish you were able to talk about, but about which you are so lacking in understanding that it's just hilarious to see you go on in this intellectual lassitude.

Tip: The Riksdag has the constitution available in English on their website. I
suggest you do what you have so far failed to do.

The point is you have finally admitted that under your law there is no freedom of speech. Under your Constitution, there is no guarantee of freedom of speech or religion, correct? Now, if I have misinterpreted what you have said, please enlighten me.

Fair enough (I haven't read up on the specific case, to be honest). If that is so, then the real question is whether or not it should be legal to lie in public, to the public, about the public, or in public media.

Is it a lie, or is it his interpertation of the Bible which is the foundation of his religion?

Under your Constitution, there is no guarantee of freedom of speech or religion, correct?
http://www.riksdagen.se/templates/R_Page____5562.aspx
Have fun...

You're talking to an AntiFa-Sympathiser and (at one time) almost proper member.
When it comes to Skinheads, my rationality goes out the window mighty quick.

Sorry, but I don't know what an "AntiFa-Sympathiser" is.

Sorry, but I don't know what an "AntiFa-Sympathiser" is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa

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?

Unfortunatly all I know about Swedish history is that my ancestors fought them for many decades, and then you occupied part of the country, and then the russians occupied most of the rest, and lead to the collapse of that nation...

(If you can name the country of which i speak, you win a prize!)

Going at least a bit back on topic, said country would probably not persecute this guy, on account of the fact that it was a haven for religious tolerance.

It's Sweden. They can do whatever they want. That includes committing moral suicide (and not the same morals Ake Green espouses).

http://www.riksdagen.se/templates/R_Page____5562.aspx
Have fun...

Thank you. Nothing about freedom of speech by an individual. If I did not interpret that correctly and the individual has a freedom of speech, then the law that this pastor is being prosecuted under is against your Constitution. Also, I didn't see anything about freedom of religion. Fass has said that religious denominations must be approved by the government. My conclusion is: Sweden does not have freedom of speech or religion. People can, and will be thrown in jail for preaching what they believe in.

Why can't we Americans accept that concept? Because we fought a revolution and several wars so our people can have freedom of speech and religion, yet we are criticized by people who claim they believe in those ideals but do not give those rights to their own citizens.

Thank you. Nothing about freedom of speech by an individual.
http://www.riksdagen.se/templates/R_PageExtended____6319.aspx
1. freedom of expression: that is, the freedom to communicate information and express thoughts, opinions and sentiments, whether orally, pictorially, in writing, or in any other way;
6. freedom of worship: that is, the freedom to practise one’s religion alone or in the company of others.

You didn't look very carefully, did you.

Fass has said that religious denominations must be approved by the government.

Apart from the failure to read the constitution, you've failed to read what I wrote. Where did I write that religious denominations had to be "approved"? I wrote that your religion may not be recognised - especially if it's a cockamamy new one you just invented - by the court as an excuse for your behaviour, as a response to someone asking how a court would apply religious freedom protections. And that's hardly different from anywhere in the world - courts have tests that they run to see if the law you are invoking applies to you.

While the government has requirements on religions for different tax purposes, your religion need not be approved to be a religion, but if you want government recognition in the sense that you want to get special tax status, or to have your ministers be able to wed people, or to have your congragation apply for different subsidies available to religious organisations that do charity work, you will have to meet requirements. Again, nothing strange about that.

None of that amounts to "approval." It amounts to standards of government recognition, which are in fact completely separate from the judical recognition I was talking about in a criminal case.

My conclusion is: Sweden does not have freedom of speech or religion. People can, and will be thrown in jail for preaching what they believe in.

And your "conclusion" is bollocks, especially as even with a link to the constitution, you failed to read the parts of the Instrument of Government that establish freedom of religion and freedom of expression.

http://www.riksdagen.se/templates/R_PageExtended____6319.aspx



You didn't look very carefully, did you.

Thank you very much. So acording to your Constitution, the pentacostal pastor is being prosicuted for exercising his Constitutional rights.

Art. 1. Every citizen shall be guaranteed the following rights and freedoms in his relations with the public institutions:

1. freedom of expression: that is, the freedom to communicate information and express thoughts, opinions and sentiments, whether orally, pictorially, in writing, or in any other way;

2. freedom of information: that is, the freedom to procure and receive information and otherwise acquaint oneself with the utterances of others;

3. freedom of assembly: that is, the freedom to organise or attend a meeting for the purposes of information or the expression of opinion or for any other similar purpose, or for the purpose of presenting artistic work;

4. freedom to demonstrate: that is, the freedom to organise or take part in a demonstration in a public place;

5. freedom of association: that is, the freedom to associate with others for public or private purposes;

Thank you very much. So acording to your Constitution...
My constitution is this (http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/eurodocs/germ/ggeng.html)

...the pentacostal pastor is being prosicuted for exercising his Constitutional rights.
Obviously not. The Swedish Legislative and Judicative would have gone through the law, and declared it constitutional, thus implying that the definition of freedom of expression has its limits - regardless of what the US judicative holds freedom of expression to mean.

Thank you very much. So acording to your Constitution, the pentacostal pastor is being prosicuted for exercising his Constitutional rights.

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.

Art. 23. No act of law or other provision may be adopted which contravenes Sweden’s undertakings under the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Now, this leads to you having to go read the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, also, and see that this law has been upheld as meeting all these requirements. If not, the ECHR would have struck it down long ago. Do you know what the ECHR is, or is European law as foreign to your understanding as the Swedish one?

Frankly, your "conclusions" are as silly as someone saying "the government in the US does not respect the right to life of its citizens" in the US because the US allows the death penalty, or that you have no freedom of expression because of stuff like Nipplegate, the FCC and obscenity laws, which are much more lax in our country. Every country has restrictions on freedom of speech and freedom of expression - does that mean that no one has freedom of speech or expression? Not even the US?

...BIG SNIP...

OK Fass, I give up. Just answer one question; can people in Sweden be prosecuted for expressing their rights of freedom of speech and freedom of religion as guaranteed under the Constitution of Sweden?

The reason I am confused is in one place your Constitution says people have these rights, but in another place, you say they do not have these rights. It cannot be both ways. Remember the person who is being prosecuted did not advocate harming or killing anyone.

[I]BIG SNIP

OK, I read it a little more carefully this time. Now, I'm not a lawyer but what I read is, "The people of Sweden have a right to freedom of speech, religion, assembly, and demonstration unless the government wants to prosecute us for saying what we believe in. Sorry, but after all these pages that is the way I see it.

OK, I read it a little more carefully this time. Now, I'm not a lawyer but what I read is, "The people of Sweden have a right to freedom of speech, religion, assembly, and demonstration unless the government wants to prosecute us for saying what we believe in. Sorry, but after all these pages that is the way I see it.

What it says is that freedom of expression can be restricted, but only if you meet these and these and these requirements. Later on in the Freedom of the Press Act and the Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression, this is even more precise, with guidance for courts how to rule in cases like these and to acquit if there is any sort of doubt as to whether the law meets these constitutional requirements that have been established. Added to that is that no law may violate the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights), and that the ECHR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Human_Rights) in that case can strike it down.

As I have already stated, all countries have restrictions on freedom of speech. Even the US, that does seem to tend to view naked boobies and four letter words as a bigger threat than persecution.

This law has been found to meet all those requirements. What the Supreme Court is to decide upon is if Freedom of Religion/Speech protects Green's speech, something the first instance court did not think, but which the appellate court did. This is why this case is so publicised - the Supreme Court's ruling will be a precedent that establishes if what he said falls under Freedom of Religion/Speech, which is a complicated matter, as he did not just quote the Bible or his religion's views, but contended paedophilia, sickness and a several other things, or not.

To then take this matter and simplify it to mean "you have no freedom of speech in Sweden" is as stupid as it is to say "you have no freedom of speech in the US" because of stuff like the FCC. Would you contend that the US has no freedom of speech because it has restrictions on it, yes or no?

This law has been found to meet all those requirements. What the Supreme Court is to decide upon is if Freedom of Religion/Speech protects Green's speech, something the first instance court did not think, but which the appellate court did. This is why this case is so publicised - the Supreme Court's ruling will be a precedent that establishes if what he said falls under Freedom of Religion/Speech, which is a complicated matter, as he did not just quote the Bible or his religion's views, but contended paedophilia, sickness and a several other things, or not.

I want to thank you Fass and all the others who participated in this debate for their input. I have learned a little about Swedish law and hope that others have learned as well.

The one thing I really appreciate in this thread is (IMHO) there has been no trolling or flaming, but a lot of stimulating rhetoric. Thanks to all for a great debate and I'm looking forward to the next one.

Fass I have a question:

If he had been Homosexual and said: I don't like straight people's lifestyles, they are a cancer, they are sick, they are more likely to be paedophiles and rapists; when they die they shall burn in hell,"
(basically reversed it so he was gay instead of straight and railed against straights instead of homosexuals)


Now would he be going to court in Sweden? If the answer is no...than why is the law unequal? Why does one type of people (or sexual oreintation) have more rights than another?
Are we not equal under the law?

Enlighten me.

Fass I have a question:

If he had been Homosexual and said: I don't like straight people's lifestyles, they are a cancer, they are sick, they are more likely to be paedophiles and rapists; when they die they shall burn in hell,"
(basically reversed it so he was gay instead of straight and railed against straights instead of homosexuals)

The law protects on the grounds of, among others, sexual orientation - not homosexuality.

Now would he be going to court in Sweden? If the answer is no...than why is the law unequal? Why does one type of people (or sexual oreintation) have more rights than another?
Are we not equal under the law?

Enlighten me.

Would he be going to court? I don't know - this is the first case tried under the new law, and no one has been brought to charges on saying stuff like that about straight people. The interesting thing about this law is that it is motivated by a larger, real menace percieved to exist against the, mostly, minorities protected by it. A shrewd lawyer could contend that it is not applicable in cases where a similar menace cannot be demonstrated, e.g. against a majority. The law's design and motivation to restrict freedom of speech and expression as little as possible could be used to argue that such a menace either does not exist, or is so negligible, tha the law should be rendered inapplicable in protecting majorities, because that would lead to a lesser restriction of freedom of speech/expression, if you follow me.

Now, your guess is as good as mine as if this would fly, but it would be an interesting tactic to use the law's own willingness to restrict freedom of expression as little as possible against it.