NationStates Jolt Archive

Norway Criminalizes Blasphemy (http://islamonline.net/English/News/2006-02/15/article04.shtml)

Absolutely pathetic.

Bad idea.

But anyway, what does this have to do with France?

Bad idea.

But anyway, what does this have to do with France?

Surrendering.

Back on topic.

Bad idea.

But anyway, what does this have to do with France?

France bend over for the muslium, and now Norway is doing the same thing.

Surrendering.
:rolleyes:

France bend over for the muslium, and now Norway is doing the same thing.
Ahem, may I remind you?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3619988.stm

EDITED to add:
THE STORY IS A FAKE AND THIS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT ANY NUMBER OF TIMES!!! PLEASE READ THE THREAD BEFORE POSTING!!!

*pants* ok, I'm done ranting.

***

Norway Criminalizes Blasphemy (http://islamonline.net/English/News/2006-02/15/article04.shtml)

Absolutely pathetic.
does this mean then, that taking the Christian Lord's Name in Vain is now punnishable?

or any profane word that is also a religious figure also count?

France bend over for the muslium, and now Norway is doing the same thing.

Yeah, that's why they banned all religious symbols in schools despite protests from the Muslim community.

Yes, yes, we know you hate France because they refuse to do whatever the US says it should do and they are a very secular and intellectual society whilst the US is a very religious and anti-intellectual society, but at least look at the evidence before accusing them of something when they did the exact opposite.

France bend over for the muslium, and now Norway is doing the same thing.

How did France bend over for muslims? The only bit I've heard about France and muslims recently is them being criticised by the religous people on this forum for forbidding female students to wear headscarves at school.

does this mean then, that taking the Christian Lord's Name in Vain is now punnishable?

or any profane word that is also a religious figure also count?

No idea. But the real issue is that, who do you think will be invoking this law? Sven and Johannes, or Ahmed and Ali?

Yeah, that's why they banned all religious symbols in schools despite protests from the Muslim community.

Yes, yes, we know you hate France because they refuse to do whatever the US says it should do and they are a very secular and intellectual society whilst the US is a very religious and anti-intellectual society, but at least look at the evidence before accusing them of something when they did the exact opposite.
wow... from a snide comment about France to an attack on the US.

and nothing about this Gag law in Norway.

How did France bend over for muslims? The only bit I've heard about France and muslims recently is them being criticised by the religous people on this forum for forbidding female students to wear headscarves at school.

I wasn't even referring to modern France. I was referring to France's infamous capitulation in WWII...

No idea. But the real issue is that, who do you think will be invoking this law? Sven and Johannes, or Ahmed and Ali?
with this law in place? who knows. will the cops be able to enforce it, or will it only be enforced when a riot is involved?

Yeah, that's why they banned all religious symbols in schools despite protests from the Muslim community.

Yes, yes, we know you hate France because they refuse to do whatever the US says it should do and they are a very secular and intellectual society whilst the US is a very religious and anti-intellectual society, but at least look at the evidence before accusing them of something when they did the exact opposite.

No, I hate the French government (Lets get one thing straight, I hate the government of France. I don't hate the French themselves) because they flip flop too damn much. The France government has a bad habit of saying one thing, but do another. They've been doing that since WW II when my grandpa saw them fly the German flag before and after his troop walked through a town. When his troop was in town, they flew the American flag. Yea, what an honorable group of politicans.

I wasn't even referring to modern France. I was referring to France's infamous capitulation in WWII...

You mean getting overwhelmed by superior army along with several other countries and then spending years resisting the occupation? Wow, that certianly is terrible, not to mention irrelevant to this article.

But you're right about the law though it does seem crap. Got a better link? I'd just like to get it from a more impartial source.

wow... from a snide comment about France to an attack on the US.


Many right wing Americans hate France irrationally and say all this shit about them 'bending over for muslims' and being cowards without knowing jack shit about France. They do stuff like mock their military history when probably France has a better military record than the US when you look at the big picture (Conquering much of a strong continent multiple times is more impressive than beating smaller and weaker countries on their own) and call them cowards just because they don't agree with them.

You mean getting overwhelmed by superior army along with several other countries and then spending years resisting the occupation? Wow, that certianly is terrible, not to mention irrelevant to this article.

But you're right about the law though it does seem crap. Got a better link? I'd just like to get it from a more impartial source.

They only got occupied by one country, in 17 days, and from my grandpa experience they had no problem appeasing the Nazis.

You mean getting overwhelmed by superior army along with several other countries and then spending years resisting the occupation? Wow, that certianly is terrible, not to mention irrelevant to this article.

Dude, they had 1.2 million POWs after the Battle of France, a battle that lasted four weeks. Do you think those troops might have gone to better use... I dunno... fighting?

Anyway, fuck France. BACK ON TOPIC.

No idea. But the real issue is that, who do you think will be invoking this law? Sven and Johannes, or Ahmed and Ali?
Oh, you should never underestimate religious idiots from any side.

No, I hate the French government (Lets get one thing straight, I hate the government of France. I don't hate the French themselves) because they flip flop too damn much. The France government has a bad habit of saying one thing, but do another.
It does? How well-versed are you in French politics?

They've been doing that since WW II when my grandpa saw them fly the German flag before and after his troop walked through a town. When his troop was in town, they flew the American flag. Yea, what an honorable group of politicans.
Okay, now you go back to age-old stereotypes. What do you suppose they should have done?

Have a good read of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_Gelb

Then read this, and tell me what is wrong with it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Denmark

Many right wing Americans hate France irrationally and say all this shit about them 'bending over for muslims' and being cowards without knowing jack shit about France. They do stuff like mock their military history when probably France has a better military record than the US when you look at the big picture (Conquering much of a strong continent multiple times is more impressive than beating smaller and weaker countries on their own) and call them cowards just because they don't agree with them.

France is the only country that I know that either kills or exiles all it's best militatry leaders throughout history. Joan of Arc, burned. Naopoleon, exiled. etc. etc. :rolleyes:

No, I hate the French government (Lets get one thing straight, I hate the government of France. I don't hate the French themselves) because they flip flop too damn much. The France government has a bad habit of saying one thing, but do another. They've been doing that since WW II when my grandpa saw them fly the German flag before and after his troop walked through a town. When his troop was in town, they flew the American flag. Yea, what an honorable group of politicans.

And I suppose the American government is a shining beacon of nobility, that always does exactly as it promises?

Pah. If you hate France for having a dishonest government you should hate America equally. Shit, you should hate most countries - very few governments do as they say.

France is the only country that I know that either kills or exiles all it's best militatry leaders throughout history. Joan of Arc, burned. Naopoleon, exiled. etc. etc. :rolleyes:
Are you serious?

Joan was captured and killed by the British, and Napoleon was expelled when he lost the war and the Allies took over. Then he came back, and the French put him back into power, and he had to be defeated again. And then for decades the Bonapartists kept trying to reimplement his type of government.

Oh, you should never underestimate religious idiots from any side.


It does? How well-versed are you in French politics?


Okay, now you go back to age-old stereotypes. What do you suppose they should have done?

Have a good read of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_Gelb

Then read this, and tell me what is wrong with it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Denmark


What point did they have of flying the German flag AFTER they were liberated? My grandpa troop marched through AFTER the Nazis were driven out of that area. Yea, like I said, France has no problems with appeasing the enemy. They appeased Hitler, Saddam, etc.

And I suppose the American government is a shining beacon of nobility, that always does exactly as it promises?

Pah. If you hate France for having a dishonest government you should hate America equally. Shit, you should hate most countries - very few governments do as they say.

Who says I don't hate the large and way too powerful government of the United States?

France is the only country that I know that either kills or exiles all it's best militatry leaders throughout history. Joan of Arc, burned. Naopoleon, exiled. etc. etc. :rolleyes:

Uh...we did that. We captured Joan of Arc and burnt her, and we captured Napoleon and exiled him. They didn't do it all by themselves :rolleyes:

Only the British have the right to mock French Military history as Britain has historically won many battles against them whilst outnumbered. What's America done?

Are you serious?

Joan was captured and killed by the British, and Napoleon was expelled when he lost the war and the Allies took over. Then he came back, and the French put him back into power, and he had to be defeated again. And then for decades the Bonapartists kept trying to reimplement his type of government.

Actually, the french did burn Joan of Arc.

# May 1430 Joan was captured by the Burgundians in Compiegne
# tried by Cauchon and the Inquisitor of France in 1430 for her many crimes (witchcraft )
# after a 14 month interegation she was judged guilty on 12 different accounts
# one of her charges included her form of masculine dress however, the most damning off all was the charge of heresy
# while she was in jail she was rehabilitated in a formal court
# people saw her as an agent of the devil
# she was also tried for witchcraft
# on May 30th, 1431 she was burned at the stake, she was only 19 years old
# her ashes were thrown into the Seine river

http://www.yesnet.yk.ca/schools/projects/middleages/joan/joan.html

Hasn't France stould behind the cartoons?

What point did they have of flying the German flag AFTER they were liberated? My grandpa troop marched through AFTER the Nazis were driven out of that area.
Wanna bet that you misunderstood?

The French lynched collaborateurs as soon as they could. They killed them. They shaved women who had married Germans, even if it didn't have any political background. They made them wear signs in the streets, and they spat at them.

Yea, like I said, France has no problems with appeasing the enemy. They appeased Hitler, Saddam, etc.
Is that what they teach you in school over there?

*sits back and watches Thread about Norway's new Law get hijacked into a "Who has the right to critisise France/America Suxs" thread*

Actually, the french did burn Joan of Arc.

# May 1430 Joan was captured by the Burgundians in Compiegne
# tried by Cauchon and the Inquisitor of France in 1430 for her many crimes (witchcraft )
# after a 14 month interegation she was judged guilty on 12 different accounts
# one of her charges included her form of masculine dress however, the most damning off all was the charge of heresy
# while she was in jail she was rehabilitated in a formal court
# people saw her as an agent of the devil
# she was also tried for witchcraft
# on May 30th, 1431 she was burned at the stake, she was only 19 years old
# her ashes were thrown into the Seine river

http://www.yesnet.yk.ca/schools/projects/middleages/joan/joan.html


Burgundy was an ally of the English against France at the time, and Duke Philip of Burgundy sold her off as a captive to the English, who held the trial and burnt her.

Actually, the french did burn Joan of Arc.
That was the English side though.

As you may or may not know, the English royal family claimed France for their own, and so they had a puppet government, against which Joan fought. When she was captured (by Burgundians perhaps, who were not French, nor English, but allied with the English crown), she was handed over to the English puppet government, and executed.

It was hardly "the French" who did it.

*sits back and watches Thread about Norway's new Law get hijacked into a "Who has the right to critisise France/America Suxs" thread*
They should make criticising France illegal. :D

Wanna bet that you misunderstood?

The French lynched collaborateurs as soon as they could. They killed them. They shaved women who had married Germans, even if it didn't have any political background. They made them wear signs in the streets, and they spat at them.

Nah, grandpa pretty much made it cleared what happened. He went into the village to scout it out. They were flying German flags. His troops marched through, they were flying American Flags. For the hell of it he decided to back track, they went back to German flags.


Is that what they teach you in school over there?

Who do you appeased Hitler when he wanted to take over Austria and Prusia? Britian (before Churchill) and the French government decides to appeased him.

France also did some deals with Saddam in the Oil for Food program upon other things.

Nah, grandpa pretty much made it cleared what happened. He went into the village to scout it out. They were flying German flags. His troops marched through, they were flying American Flags. For the hell of it he decided to back track, they went back to German flags.

Dude, that's fucking hilarious. I can picture it mentally. When he's watching, American flags. Back turned, German flags. American, German, American, German, American, German...

Nah, grandpa pretty much made it cleared what happened. He went into the village to scout it out. They were flying German flags. His troops marched through, they were flying American Flags. For the hell of it he decided to back track, they went back to German flags.
Oh, if you explain it like that, it might just be that...gee, I don't know...they wanted to survive the war?

As I said, actual collaborators got what they deserved in the form of lynchmob justice.

Who do you appeased Hitler when he wanted to take over Austria and Prusia? Britian (before Churchill) and the French government decides to appeased him.
And appeasement was a bad policy?
You seem to think that not doing it might have changed something, but judging from the way the Allies "helped" Poland, I have my doubts whether they would have done anything at all, even if they had declared war.

France also did some deals with Saddam in the Oil for Food program upon other things.
No, some French people did some deals. By your logic, Australia is guilty too.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4695750.stm

Oh, if you explain it like that, it might just be that...gee, I don't know...they wanted to survive the war?

As I said, actual collaborators got what they deserved in the form of lynchmob justice.

and I praise those lynch mobs, and the "they're just trying to survive" argument kinda falls flat after the nazi have been driven out of that area.


And appeasement was a bad policy?
You seem to think that not doing it might have changed something, but judging from the way the Allies "helped" Poland, I have my doubts whether they would have done anything at all, even if they had declared war.


If History has taught us anything, it's that appeasement NEVER WORKS in the long run. It may work in the short run but not in the long run.


No, some French people did some deals. By your logic, Australia is guilty too.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4695750.stm

I don't have any respect for anyone who does business with the people like Saddam.

I don't have any respect for anyone who does business with the people like Saddam.

Can I be absolutely honest? I'd rather do business with Saddam (who I hear was rather secular when he was in power) than with a regime like iran.

They should make criticising France illegal. :D
all I know is, that if this law was passed in the US, man, nothing would deter anyone from posting about how the US is now trying to controll thought. yet, since it's about Norway...

the main argument here is about the French... :rolleyes:


NEVER DOUBT THE COURAGE OF THE FRENCH. AFTER ALL, THEY WERE THE ONES WHO DISCOVERED THAT SNAILS WERE EDIBLE. :D

Norway Criminalizes Blasphemy (http://islamonline.net/English/News/2006-02/15/article04.shtml)

Absolutely pathetic.

I've checked the Times website, the Daily Mail website and the BBC website and I can't find a mention of this story on any of them.

Could you provide a more reliable source please.

Can I be absolutely honest? I'd rather do business with Saddam (who I hear was rather secular when he was in power) than with a regime like iran.

I would rather find a new business than do business with both of them. With people like Saddam, and the nutjob in Iran, there is no lesser evil.

and I praise those lynch mobs, and the "they're just trying to survive" argument kinda falls flat after the nazi have been driven out of that area.
And how are a bunch of French townfolk supposed to know that? War zones are not generally known for being very orderly places, and at the speeds things were happening in France, they could never be certain.
Germans did the same thing in Germany. They wanted to show US Flags, but anyone caught with one would get shot (and the same went for white flags, the sauerkraut-eating surrender monkeys). So it was a constant cat and mouse game to try and not get punished by either side for showing the wrong flag.
You personal political or national sympathies mattered little.

If History has taught us anything, it's that appeasement NEVER WORKS in the long run. It may work in the short run but not in the long run.
This may be true (I don't think you can make that generalised a statement for something as complex as politics), but the Allies could not have known that.
They had the choice of storming to war against someone who they didn't know was a maniac (indeed, even Churchill had some good words for him in the Thirties), or to go down the road of diplomacy, not knowing that Hitler didn't care for treaties much.

I don't have any respect for anyone who does business with the people like Saddam.
*insert obligatory comment about US support of Saddam pre-Kuwait*

Nah, grandpa pretty much made it cleared what happened. He went into the village to scout it out. They were flying German flags. His troops marched through, they were flying American Flags. For the hell of it he decided to back track, they went back to German flags.
Wow. So let's get this straight. Your grandpa saw one village show support of the US troops then switch back to Nazi flags as soon as they left. Based on this ONE instance from ONE small village that occurred 60 years ago, you feel you can smugly make a huge sweeping generalisation about all French people, even up to and including today.
Man, I wish I had your obvious amazing ability to discern and distill a country's psyche. It's a rare gift you have there.



Ever occur to you that maybe the villagers were just doing whatever possible to ensure their own survival. Imagine what could have happened to them if they had kept the US flags out and the Nazis had marched back in?
Just in case you can't think that laterally (and it appears to me you can't), let me tell you:
They would have been rounded up and slaughtered. And their village burnt to the ground.

If you had those options, what would you do?

*sits back and watches Thread about Norway's new Law get hijacked into a "Who has the right to critisise France/America Suxs" thread*

If the OP didnt want that to happen, he shouldnt have mentioned France in the first post and made several accusations about its military history himself.

The France remarks? Flame-baiting. Please, do not feed the trolls.

Anyways, back on topic: That law is hard to enforce since there are so many blasphemous things that can happen with all the religions in the world as it is. Can I spit or do I offend the "seventh-day advent hoppists"? I see the law as a way to keep the social order and to build better relations with the muslim community.

I'm curious to see how it will be enforced.

And how are a bunch of French townfolk supposed to know that? War zones are not generally known for being very orderly places, and at the speeds things were happening in France, they could never be certain.
Germans did the same thing in Germany. They wanted to show US Flags, but anyone caught with one would get shot (and the same went for white flags, the sauerkraut-eating surrender monkeys). So it was a constant cat and mouse game to try and not get punished by either side for showing the wrong flag.
You personal political or national sympathies mattered little.

Eh I'll give you that one.


This may be true (I don't think you can make that generalised a statement for something as complex as politics), but the Allies could not have known that.
They had the choice of storming to war against someone who they didn't know was a maniac (indeed, even Churchill had some good words for him in the Thirties), or to go down the road of diplomacy, not knowing that Hitler didn't care for treaties much.

You'd think they would start putting 2 and 2 together when he decided he wanted ALL of Poland, and that he wanted the rest of Prussia, not just the German speaking part.


*insert obligatory comment about US support of Saddam pre-Kuwait*

Eh I'll give you that one too.

If the OP didnt want that to happen, he shouldnt have mentioned France in the first post and made several accusations about its military history himself.

It was a fucking joke man. If people can't see a joke, take it as just that, and then move on, they're a little bit troubled.

yet, since it's about Norway...

the main argument here is about the French... :rolleyes:
Note though that all I did was roll my eyes. Someone else had to pick up on it, and I am not one to tolerate ignorant comments being made about the French, as you might know.

As for the law, I haven't found any links other than this one either. I suspect that it may be true (I did find links to Muslim representatives calling for such a law), but generally, I think it's a bad idea. Much will depend though on the details.

Sorry, I do hate to interupt the France bashing here, but can anyone find a link other than the Muslim site originally given to back up the "Norway brings in Blasphemy laws" story? I've been looking (none too hard, I admit), but all I can find is a lot of stories about Norweigan Muslims calling for stricter laws ( http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/?feed=TopNews&article=UPI-1-20060201-18505300-bc-norway-blasphemylaw.xml ) and a site which said says that Norway has, like most countries, loose laws prohibiting Blasphemy which are never inforced ( http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1894686,00.html )
Any ideas?

Ps. The French resistance is one of the best known in World War 2. French saboteurs were one of the reasons why D-Day was a success, as they supplied information on German defenses, blew up German ammuntion dumps, attacked garrisons, and derailed trains carrying German reinforcments.

Okay, let's put France aside, and stick to the Norwegian law.

Well enough with the Cheese eating surrendering monkeys (thank you for that Groundskeeper Willie), lets go back to the law. I can't believe that people are actually willing to give up freedom of speech for something as stupid as "social harmony". I mean Norway might as well become a nanny state. Blah, I hate nanny states, I hate it when government tries to make everyone "get along" and "play nice" with stupid rules and legislation. I have more respect for people who has the guts to speak his mind than someone who is too afraid to do so because he's afraid of "offending" people. We need to take off the boxing gloves when it comes to freedom of speech! Let's have raw, hard core speeches!

Sorry, I do hate to interupt the France bashing here, but can anyone find a link other than the Muslim site originally given to back up the "Norway brings in Blasphemy laws" story? I've been looking (none too hard, I admit), but all I can find is a lot of stories about Norweigan Muslims calling for stricter laws ( http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/?feed=TopNews&article=UPI-1-20060201-18505300-bc-norway-blasphemylaw.xml ) and a site which said says that Norway has, like most countries, loose laws prohibiting Blasphemy which are never inforced ( http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1894686,00.html )
Any ideas?

I've already asked the OP to find another website running the story but he hasn't responded yet.

Well enough with the Cheese eating surrendering monkeys (thank you for that Groundskeeper Willie), lets go back to the law. I can't believe that people are actually willing to give up freedom of speech for something as stupid as "social harmony". I mean Norway might as well become a nanny state. Blah, I hate nanny states, I hate it when government tries to make everyone "get along" and "play nice" with stupid rules and legislation. I have more respect for people who has the guts to speak his mind than someone who is too afraid to do so because he's afraid of "offending" people. We need to take off the boxing gloves when it comes to freedom of speech! Let's have raw, hard core speeches!

Before you continue your rant can you please find another news outlet which is running the story. I'm not the only one on the thread who's tried and failed to find it anywhere else.

If the OP didnt want that to happen, he shouldnt have mentioned France in the first post and made several accusations about its military history himself.
Riiiight...

funny tho. a law that basically censors it's people and posters here ignore that but go after a snide remark, that usually happens after the main point was talked about... not before.

I've already asked the OP to find another website running the story but he hasn't responded yet.
nothing on Google.... so far.

anyone knows of any Danish news sites? I can't even remember the name of the paper that ran the cartoons. :D

1. A law on intended blasphemy is not worse than the law on Holocaust denial and Nazi symbolism in Germany.
2. I'm fucking tired of the same mindblock libertarianism=democracy (especially since, as I have already posted, it's hypocritical).
3. To object to France's surrender in World War II is truly nonsensical. Why don't you also object to the British retreat? Surrendering is a common occurence - it happened to Germany itself. For a counter-example, lookey at World War I and at what the French did then. Even for prejudice, yours is a completely redneck one.

I love France; I love Norway; but they are acting like timid idiots. Danmark has every right to publish those cartoonse and I fully support them in their actions.

The English website of a norweign newspaper.
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/

No mention of any laws, just one article on Muslims calling for them. I think the OP might owe Norway an apology? :p

So...do these laws actually exist, or have they been made up?

Okay, so to clarify:

Reuters has no details on this amendment

CNN has no reports

BBC doesn't have any

AP doesn't seem to either

Heck, I even checked Fox.

No news. I call fake or made up.

There are a lot of referances to Norway's muslims wanting to tighten blasphemy laws but no mention of the government doing so.maybe this is what the op was about
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_9_119/ai_86046820

The English website of a norweign newspaper.
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/onlyinnorway/

No mention of any laws, just one article on Muslims calling for them. I think the OP might owe Norway an apology? :p
huh? sorry, reading the article about the Moose that's chasing people...

"A fully grown moose was spotted surfing down a rain-swollen river in Norway early this week, riding on a large chunk of ice."

Dude...Norway rocks!

Half the articles there are about Moose.

I agree - Norway rocks xD

"A fully grown moose was spotted surfing down a rain-swollen river in Norway early this week, riding on a large chunk of ice."

Dude...Norway rocks!

ROFL! I want to hang out with that moose! Am I the only one finding all of the moose stories on this website funny? I mean I am reading the story on the Moose chasing joggers, and I'm just laughing. It must be the mental pictures.

Found it ... but it dates from 1930
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1894686,00.html

Riiiight...

funny tho. a law that basically censors it's people and posters here ignore that but go after a snide remark, that usually happens after the main point was talked about... not before.
I don't think you read the same general forum as we do... ;)

I love France; I love Norway; but they are acting like timid idiots. Danmark has every right to publish those cartoonse and I fully support them in their actions.
How is france acting like a timid idiot nowadays?

ROFL! I want to hang out with that moose! Am I the only one finding all of the moose stories on this website funny? I mean I am reading the story on the Moose chasing joggers, and I'm just laughing. It must be the mental pictures.
a moose bit my sister once...

huh? sorry, reading the article about the Moose that's chasing people...

Apologies, I accidently linked to the "oddly enough" page. It should link to the main page now. Mind you, the moose story was funny :D

Dude, that's fucking hilarious. I can picture it mentally. When he's watching, American flags. Back turned, German flags. American, German, American, German, American, German...

I'd have attempted a Danish accent. Just to see what they would do.

a moose bit my sister once...

can't tell if your kidding or not. I want to say something but until I know whether it's a joke or not, I'll keep it to myself.

Okay, update:

CBC Canada has no news on this

ABC - US - Has no reports

ABC - Australia - No reports

I'm beginning to see a pattern here. This didn't happen - it would have been reported now, considering that A) It supposedly happened yesterday and B) It's a huge thing with the whole Muslim situation right now.

can't tell if your kidding or not. I want to say something but until I know whether it's a joke or not, I'll keep it to myself.
It's the beginning of a joke found on the generic of Monty Python and the Holy Grail. It's followed with:

No realli! She was Karving her initials on the møøse
with the sharpened end of an interspace tøøthbrush given
her by Svenge - her brother-in-law - an Oslo dentist and
star of many Norwegian møvies: "The Høt Hands of an Oslo
Dentist", "Fillings of Passion", "The Huge Mølars of Horst
Nordfink".

Okay, update:

CBC Canada has no news on this

ABC - US - Has no reports

ABC - Australia - No reports

I'm beginning to see a pattern here. This didn't happen - it would have been reported now, considering that A) It supposedly happened yesterday and B) It's a huge thing with the whole Muslim situation right now.
Here a link but its hardly new news.The picture of jesus surfing is kinda cool.
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1894686,00.html

Apologies, I accidently linked to the "oddly enough" page. It should link to the main page now. Mind you, the moose story was funny :D
I was wondering why when I tried to go back to the story (Boss Alert) I had to click around to find it... :D

Moose attacks statue: It remains unclear whether the moose felt threatened by the statue, or whether they were simply irritable, since it's the middle of the annual moose hunting season in Norway. :D :D

It's the beginning of a joke found on the generic of Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

ah well, I'll say it then. "I swear if you tell me she got bitten on her fanny, I'm just going to die laughing."

Here a link but its hardly new news.The picture of jesus surfing is kinda cool.
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1894686,00.html

If the Christian community really wants to show kids that he's down with the homies, they should have him jumping over a shark.

ah well, I'll say it then. "I swear if you tell me she got bitten on her fanny, I'm just going to die laughing."
:D :D :D

In defense of France - their newspapers reprinted the cartoons in support of free speech. At the time the US had not reprinted the cartoons yet.

Here a link but its hardly new news.The picture of jesus surfing is kinda cool.
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1894686,00.html
Neat that he's surfing without any waves... tho it does look like he flashing someone.

Neat that he's surfing without any waves... tho it does look like he flashing someone.

Not only have I got God's Power, but I also got a few other equally amazing things from God!

If the Christian community really wants to show kids that he's down with the homies, they should have him jumping over a shark.
The strange thing is that people have protested against this artist.BTW does any one remember the who-ha when Sinead O Connor tore up a picture of the Pope,

Neat that he's surfing without any waves... tho it does look like he flashing someone.

OMG Controversy!

The strange thing is that people have protested against this artist.BTW does any one remember the who-ha when Sinead O Connor tore up a picture of the Pope,

I sent her a box of crap when she did that. I'm not kidding.

OMG Controversy!
Check this out.Im goint to burn in hell for this;)

http://www.ueberreuter.at/daslebendesjesus/

I sent her a box of crap when she did that. I'm not kidding.
So, what is your point? That the only good blasphemy is against Muslim beliefs?!

Interesting link in the OP. Not only is there such a law in Norway, but there isn't a Deputy Archbishop Oliva Howika of Norway either (at least I'm unable to find anything about him in the net - no matter what combination of search words I use).

Meh, shouldn't be surprised really... One of the top wind-up merchants of NS posts a link to a site that says "Our goal is for this site to be worthy of your trust", and simultaneously has a committee to ensure that nothing on the site violates the Shar'ia law. A dead giveaway right there...

Not only have I got God's Power, but I also got a few other equally amazing things from God!
"I was Truely Blessed!"

So, what is your point? That the only good blasphemy is against Muslim beliefs?!http://www.ueberreuter.at/daslebendesjesus/images/popupabendmahl.jpg
All blasphemy is fun

Interesting link in the OP. Not only is there such a law in Norway, but there isn't a Deputy Archbishop Oliva Howika of Norway either (at least I'm unable to find anything about him in the net - no matter what combination of search words I use).

Meh, shouldn't be surprised really... One of the top wind-up merchants of NS posts a link to a site that says "Our goal is for this site to be worthy of your trust", and simultaneously has a committee to ensure that nothing on the site violates the Shar'ia law. A dead giveaway right there...

Agreed. Fellow posters, this cannot be true. No other news site has this news story, and since it would be quite a large event it would be worthy of attention, especially since it supposedly occured yesterday. Coupled with the fact that the newssite is dodgy at best and refers to possibly fictional or mis-named persons, I can only conclude this is false.

The strange thing is that people have protested against this artist.BTW does any one remember the who-ha when Sinead O Connor tore up a picture of the Pope,
ah... but the difference here is this. the people held her responsible. especially when they found out that SNL and the Broadcasting station knew nothing of what she was planning to do.

and did you see the results of her actions. Her singing career tanked, She was boo'd off of the stage... And I can't remember if she apologized for what she did or not.

So, what is your point? That the only good blasphemy is against Muslim beliefs?!

No, like I said, I strongly believe in freedom of speech, and that was just how I chose to express myself. Connor had the right to tear up the Pope's picture, I support her right to do that, but I also have a right to protest that and that's how I did it. If it makes you feel better, I did attach a letter explaining in detail why she recieved my gift.

http://www.ueberreuter.at/daslebendesjesus/images/popupabendmahl.jpg
All blasphemy is fun
Perhaps you did not notice what I was answering to.

Perhaps you did not notice what I was answering to.
sorry my mistake

I wasn't even referring to modern France. I was referring to France's infamous capitulation in WWII...


tell you what if I were to drive thousands of tanks across half the continental US inside 6 weeks and threaten to burn down every town and city if you didn't surrender I think you may well consider it.

Okay I hope this will not eventually turn Norway into an islamic state.

I think he is mentioned here
http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2006-02/15/article04.shtml

...

Thats the same site the original report came from old boy...

No, like I said, I strongly believe in freedom of speech, and that was just how I chose to express myself. Connor had the right to tear up the Pope's picture, I support her right to do that, but I also have a right to protest that and that's how I did it. If it makes you feel better, I did attach a letter explaining in detail why she recieved my gift.
And people have a right to rally in countries that you have never been to and break embassy windows (especially since they consider that they have reasons). Wtf is the problem?
And: you ignored my post about Germany having a law that forbids the display of any Nazi symbol. That law is not just of the same spirit as one proposed (or even, in place) against intended blasphemy in an open context (which ammounts to libel), it is also way harder to enforce. Campaign against it, and we'll talk about laws on blasphemy when you'd have repealled it.

Okay I hope this will not eventually turn Norway into an islamic state.

Psst

We think the report is fake.

Coupled with the fact that the newssite is dodgy at best and refers to possibly fictional or mis-named persons, I can only conclude this is false.
Well, I can't say anything about the dodgyness of the site cos this is the first time I've heard of it. They got all the other names right though... why not this 'Deputy Archbishop's' who is telling about this law 150-A in the first place..? I think I don't have to say what happens when you try to find this 'law 150-a', do I?

So it seems there are three courses of action for the OP:

1. Produce another source.
2. Admit to being wrong and apologise to Norway.
3. Vanish without a trace and keep very quiet.

I'm betting on three.

Well, I can't say anything about the dodgyness of the site cos this is the first time I've heard of it. They got all the other names right though... why not this 'Deputy Archbishop's' who is telling about this law 150-A in the first place..? I think I don't have to say what happens when you try to find this 'law 150-a', do I?

I googled '150-A'. It's a US cybercrimes law apparently. Also something to do with michigan...

Psst

We think the report is fake.
Well, I hope it is but if its not I will protest by publishing things similar to this. (http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f39/faceless39/jesussaves1of.gif)

While on the subject, you may be interested to know that the Kingdom of the Netherlands (you know, the country festering with narcotics, around Amsterdam) still has a law against blasphemy. Although only seven people have been convicted so far (the law has been in effect since 1889), many more have been prosecuted voor crimes under this law.

When our country went through a difficult time after the death of filmmaker Theo van Gogh, this law served as a soothing for (religious) indignation on various sides. If Norway chooses to adopt a similar position, I can only commend them for it.

Norway Criminalizes Blasphemy (http://islamonline.net/English/News/2006-02/15/article04.shtml)

Absolutely pathetic.
That's extremely pitiful! Shame on them! :mad:

There shouldn't be *any* anti-blasphemy laws at all! :mad:

Well, I hope it is but if its not I will protest by publishing things similar to this. (http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f39/faceless39/jesussaves1of.gif)

Well, given that no-one can find any other news report about this event, which would be quite a story in of itself, and the one news-site that quotes it gets the name of one of its sources wrong - I figure its false. I hereby challange the OP to find another newsreport about - a credible one.

Well, given that no-one can find any other news report about this event, which would be quite a story in of itself, and the one news-site that quotes it gets the name of one of its sources wrong - I figure its false. I hereby challange the OP to find another newsreport about - a credible one.
I think so as well.

And people have a right to rally in countries that you have never been to and break embassy windows (especially since they consider that they have reasons). Wtf is the problem?
And: you ignored my post about Germany having a law that forbids the display of any Nazi symbol. That law is not just of the same spirit as one proposed (or even, in place) against intended blasphemy in an open context (which ammounts to libel), it is also way harder to enforce. Campaign against it, and we'll talk about laws on blasphemy when you'd have repealled it.
I'm posting this again, adding that in my country you go to jail for denying the Holocaust.

I'm posting this again, adding that in my country you go to jail for denying the Holocaust.
And were are you from?

Okay, so to clarify:

Reuters has no details on this amendment

CNN has no reports

BBC doesn't have any

AP doesn't seem to either

Heck, I even checked Fox.

No news. I call fake or made up.I found this (http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2006/02/16/458025.html)

Norge har forbudt blasfemi, og endret straffeloven, i etterkant av striden om Muhammed-tegningene, skriver det islamske nettstedet Islamonline.
- Den nye loven vil føre til at blasfemi straffes enten med bot eller fengsel, sier domprost Olav Dag Hauge, ifølge nettstedet.

Dette avkreftet Hauge overfor Dagbladet.no.

- Det har jeg ikke sagt. Det som er sagt er at jeg har vist til straffeloven paragraf 135, som går på diskriminering. Denne loven omhandler tro og religion, og kan brukes i saker som denne, sier Hauge til Dagbladet.no.

Han understreker at han ikke har nevnt blasfemi-pararafen, som han sier fortsatt ligger død. Straffeloven, som Hauge snakket om, blir omtalt som rasismeparagrafen.

Hauge er i Midtøsten som en del av den norske delegasjonen, sammen med leder for Islamsk råd, Mohammed Hamdan, og Zulqarnain Sakander. Delegasjonen er i Midtøsten for å forsøke og roe ned tilstandene og gi et riktig og dekkende bilde av situasjoen i Norge.

- Stemmer ikke

Leder av Stortingets justiskomité, Anne Marit Bjørnflaten (Ap) sa i går til NTB, at en endring av straffeloven ikke stemmer.

- Det har ikke skjedd noe i Stortinget i forbindelse med striden om karrikaturtegningene. Jeg ser heller ikke for med at det vil skje noe i denne sammenhengen, sier Bjørnflaten.Basically the site in the OP made the claim on its own.

What amounts to the supreme judge of Norway, Anne Marit Bjørnflaten, denies that there have been any legal changes to Norway's blasphemy laws. They've remained unchanged since 1931, apparently.

I found this (http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2006/02/16/458025.html)

Basically the site in the OP made the claim on its own.

What amounts to the supreme judge of Norway, Anne Marit Bjørnflaten, denies that there have been any legal changes to Norway's blasphemy laws. They've remained unchanged since 1931, apparently.

Excellent work. Gentlemen, it's all a fake. Now then, onto serious business...

Sausages or Bacon?

It was a fucking joke man. If people can't see a joke, take it as just that, and then move on, they're a little bit troubled.

It wasnt funny, it sounded serious, a lot of people say things about the French with real venom and I was meant to think that was a joke? o....k then

Excellent work. Gentlemen, it's all a fake. Now then, onto serious business...

Sausages or Bacon?
Luncheon Meat. Baked... with a hint of Brown sugar and pinapple sause.


but if I can't do write in's... then bacon.

Excellent work. Gentlemen, it's all a fake. Now then, onto serious business...

Sausages or Bacon?
r u sure?

r u sure?

I would think the highest judge in Norway would know rather more about the matter than us as mentioned in the source, so unless you've got another more credible source.....

I would think the highest judge in Norway would know rather more about the matter than us as mentioned in the source, so unless you've got another more credible source.....
Actuall, I was asking him why he "sausages or bacon" was really a serious topic. thats what I meant by r u sure.

Caricature publisher reported to police
The Muslim Al-Jinnah Foundation will charge the editor of the Christian weekly Magazinet, the journal that published the controversial caricatures of the prophet Mohammed in Norway, with endangering Norwegian lives.
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1218975.ece
This is a little nuts!!:rolleyes:

Actuall, I was asking him why he "sausages or bacon" was really a serious topic.

Meh, I was joking.

So...Chuck Norris?

Meh, I was joking.

So...Chuck Norris?
I hyate chuck norris.

So it seems that Kievan-Prussia has lost even more credibility, I didn't think that was even possible after he called the Australian race riots a fight for freedom...

does this mean then, that taking the Christian Lord's Name in Vain is now punnishable?

or any profane word that is also a religious figure also count?

That is the most obsurd law I've heard of yet.. since a non muslim can apparently commit blasphemy by drawing a picture of mohamad, then is it aslo blasphemy for non muslims or non jews to eat pork ? or cow? Is it blasphemy to say God does not exist (:eek: ) Is it still blasphemy to suggest Jesus was not the son of God ?

Atheists might not like this. Blasphemy is in the ey of the beholder. Talk about nonoffensive government. Norwegan legislators are making a bad situation worse, at the same time as slaping a key freedom of democracy in the face.

For once, NationStates picks up news quickly. This article has been posted on Fark in the last few minutes. I don't know if it's true yet (I'll wait until I hear from sources I've actually heard of, but here is one site that has unquestioningly accepted islamonline.net's article: (click) (http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=26014)

Tellingly, that is the top find in google news, so it's not looking convincing.

No good sources, but we all love google, don't we?
So:
Your search - "Oliva Howika" - did not match any documents.
"Olav Dag Hauge" results in 508 hits, among them a wikipedia entry (in norwegian) (http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olav_Dag_Hauge)

Another point, however: (OH! TRIVIA!!! :D )
What amounts to the supreme judge of Norway, Anne Marit Bjørnflaten, denies that there have been any legal changes to Norway's blasphemy laws. They've remained unchanged since 1931, apparently.

Anne Marit Bjørnflaten is not a supreme judge, she is the chairman of the Standing Committee on Justice in the Norwegian Storting (the Norwegian National Assembly, the legislative branch of the Norwegian government) - but yes, she should know ;)

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stortinget
http://www.stortinget.no/english/Committeemembers.html#juk
http://www.stortinget.no/english/biography/ANMB.shtml

Edit: As for the story of the OP, well it's not correct as far as I can tell.

That is the most obsurd law I've heard of yet.. since a non muslim can apparently commit blasphemy by drawing a picture of mohamad, then is it aslo blasphemy for non muslims or non jews to eat pork ? or cow? Is it blasphemy to say God does not exist (:eek: ) Is it still blasphemy to suggest Jesus was not the son of God ?

Atheists might not like this. Blasphemy is in the ey of the beholder. Talk about nonoffensive government. Norwegan legislators are making a bad situation worse, at the same time as slaping a key freedom of democracy in the face.
IF the subject of the article were real?

Yes... anything can be considered blasphemy.

But since it's not... :rolleyes:

That is the most obsurd law I've heard of yet.. since a non muslim can apparently commit blasphemy by drawing a picture of mohamad, then is it aslo blasphemy for non muslims to eat pork ? or cow? Is it blasphemy to say God does not exist (:eek: ) Atheists might not like this. Blasphemy is in the ey of the beholder. Talk about nonoffensive government. Norwegan legislators are making a bad situation worse, at the same time as slaping a key freedom of democracy in the face.

THE STORY IS A FAKE AND THIS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT ANY NUMBER OF TIMES!!! PLEASE READ THE THREAD BEFORE POSTING!!!

*pants* ok, I'm done ranting.

I wasn't even referring to modern France. I was referring to France's infamous capitulation in WWII...

Don't be silly. France's surrender to superior German force by semi-sympathic generals (after covering a full British retreat to the nearest beaches) in order to prevent a re-run of the genocidal conflict of WW1 and this piece of legislative cowardice are not in the same legue. French (partial) surender is no more or less offensive than that of the Czeks, Austrians, Dutch, Poles or Belgians. In fact, no doubt had either America or Britain had land boarders with the Riech they too would hav capitulated.

THE STORY IS A FAKE AND THIS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT ANY NUMBER OF TIMES!!! PLEASE READ THE THREAD BEFORE POSTING!!!

*pants* ok, I'm done ranting.

There, there... It will all be better soon. Just relax and go to your happy place. :p

For once, NationStates picks up news quickly. This article has been posted on Fark in the last few minutes. I don't know if it's true yet (I'll wait until I hear from sources I've actually heard of, but here is one site that has unquestioningly accepted islamonline.net's article: (click) (http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=26014)

Tellingly, that is the top find in google news, so it's not looking convincing.
and that it is word for word this article...
Norway Criminalizes Blasphemy (http://islamonline.net/English/News/2006-02/15/article04.shtml)

THE STORY IS A FAKE AND THIS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT ANY NUMBER OF TIMES!!! PLEASE READ THE THREAD BEFORE POSTING!!!

*pants* ok, I'm done ranting.
Quoted on the first page. :D

There, there... It will all be better soon. Just relax and go to your happy place. :p

It was knocked down and turned into a car park, why do you think I'm so stressed.:(

Yes... anything can be considered blasphemy.

Sophistry. They weren't "pictures of Muhammad" (which many Muslims have drawn in some form), they are caricatures. And, as I have mentioned on another thread, many of the drawings were not of Muhammad, but of the scandal caricatures of Muhammad would cause...

Caricature publisher reported to police
The Muslim Al-Jinnah Foundation will charge the editor of the Christian weekly Magazinet, the journal that published the controversial caricatures of the prophet Mohammed in Norway, with endangering Norwegian lives.
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1218975.ece
This is a little nuts!!:rolleyes:

The Muslim Al-Jinnah Foundation is a Norwegian governmental or law enforcment organization ? Who are they to charge someone with endangering lives... if they are a law or governmental organziation.. then all of this makes sense. Norway must then be some kind of islamic state, to be so under the thumb of fundamentalists.

The Muslim Al-Jinnah Foundation is a Norwegian governmental or law enforcment organization ? Who are they to charge someone with endangering lives... if they are a law or governmental organziation.. then all of this makes sense. Norway must then be some kind of islamic state, to be so under the thumb of fundamentalists.
My friend, I'm sure that, since they can sue, the law does allow for citizens to use such grounds in civil procedures.

The Muslim Al-Jinnah Foundation is a Norwegian governmental or law enforcment organization ? Who are they to charge someone with endangering lives... if they are a law or governmental organziation.. then all of this makes sense. Norway must then be some kind of islamic state, to be so under the thumb of fundamentalists.
I think they are trying to have the DPP/DA/CPS press the charges.What cheek though.

Quoted on the first page. :D

:p

I'm guessing somebody will post without reading it within the next half hour regardless but at least we tried.:)

Sophistry. They weren't "pictures of Muhammad" (which many Muslims have drawn in some form), they are caricatures. And, as I have mentioned on another thread, many of the drawings were not of Muhammad, but of the scandal caricatures of Muhammad would cause...
that was in reference to another query That is the most obsurd law I've heard of yet.. since a non muslim can apparently commit blasphemy by drawing a picture of mohamad, then is it aslo blasphemy for non muslims or non jews to eat pork ? or cow? Is it blasphemy to say God does not exist ( ) Is it still blasphemy to suggest Jesus was not the son of God ?

Atheists might not like this. Blasphemy is in the eye of the beholder. Talk about nonoffensive government. Norwegan legislators are making a bad situation worse, at the same time as slaping a key freedom of democracy in the face.
where, IF the Law was Real (and so far, facts point to NOT) then anything any religion can consider Blasphamy would be subject to this law.

:p

I'm guessing somebody will post without reading it within the next half hour regardless but at least we tried.:):( yeah, since my first post was number 5 or so...

Excellent work. Gentlemen, it's all a fake. Now then, onto serious business...

Sausages or Bacon?Thanks, but no thanks. I'm vegan.

Caricature publisher reported to police
The Muslim Al-Jinnah Foundation will charge the editor of the Christian weekly Magazinet, the journal that published the controversial caricatures of the prophet Mohammed in Norway, with endangering Norwegian lives.
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/lo...cle1218975.ece
This is a little nuts!! JP, the source of the drawings, was also reported to the police & a suit was filed against them.

After (I think) about a month, the police dropped the investigation. It didn't take quite that long for a spokesman of the Danish courts to reject the lawsuit.

The Muslim organisation behind both are now under investigation by the police, for slander & defamation.

It's a fucking farce...

The UK had blasphemy laws until very recently, the EU human rights thing got rid of them - well they just don't enforce them.

Back in the 80s when the troglodytes were holding book burnings outside their council houses and talking about beheadings (it's not new), the mullahs also wanted the blasphemy laws to be reactivated.

I though this was a capital idea, because blasphemy laws generally only apply to one religion, in this case C. of. E. The upshot would have been the UK could have closed all the mosques, burnt all the korans, and thrown anyone who made a public declaration of commitment to islam into prison. I daresay had this happened in the aftermath of "BOOK BURNING I", there wouldn't be all these problems now.

The 'fake norway' is funny. There are calls in the norway to enact a blasphemy law, so it's not beyond the realm of possibility, I imagine if it did happen though, there would be widespread muslim bashing. People don't want blasphemy laws anymore. (And are getting sick of their government's pandering all the time).

Oh yah, about the france thing. People should really look at the totality of millitary history. Germany is the one with the bad record at war. Also, much as people like to point the finger at the french for collaborting, our word Quisling doesn't come from the french. (Heh, irony, considering all this "norway is the new france garabage").

Yeah, that's why they banned all religious symbols in schools despite protests from the Muslim community.

Yes, yes, we know you hate France because they refuse to do whatever the US says it should do and they are a very secular and intellectual society whilst the US is a very religious and anti-intellectual society, but at least look at the evidence before accusing them of something when they did the exact opposite.

No. No. No. It is because they ARE France. Besides, Polish jokes have gotten old, I figure give em a break. They have been screwed for the better part of a century. Why not pick on the French with thier little never-shot-before rifles and the like. :D

The UK had blasphemy laws until very recently, the EU human rights thing got rid of them - well they just don't enforce them.

Back in the 80s when the troglodytes were holding book burnings outside their council houses and talking about beheadings (it's not new), the mullahs also wanted the blasphemy laws to be reactivated.

I though this was a capital idea, because blasphemy laws generally only apply to one religion, in this case C. of. E. The upshot would have been the UK could have closed all the mosques, burnt all the korans, and thrown anyone who made a public declaration of commitment to islam into prison. I daresay had this happened in the aftermath of "BOOK BURNING I", there wouldn't be all these problems now.

The 'fake norway' is funny. There are calls in the norway to enact a blasphemy law, so it's not beyond the realm of possibility, I imagine if it did happen though, there would be widespread muslim bashing. People don't want blasphemy laws anymore. (And are getting sick of their government's pandering all the time).

Oh yah, about the france thing. People should really look at the totality of millitary history. Germany is the one with the bad record at war. Also, much as people like to point the finger at the french for collaborting, our word Quisling doesn't come from the french. (Heh, irony, considering all this "norway is the new france garabage").

So true about the Quisling issue. I honestly thought it was French until a few years ago...

Well. I guess I'm too late to startingly reveal that this article is utter bollocks, but at least I want to add my voice to the choir screaming "Fake!".

Norway does, in fact, have blasphemy laws, but they haven't been used at all since the 1930s. The main reason for this is a famous (in Norway, anyway,) trial against an author named Arnulf Øverland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnulf_Øverland), who had published a book called "Christianity - The tenth plague". This caused a whole lot of hullabaloo among the fire-and-brimstone-type clergy, who demanded that he be punished. He was aquitted, and as far as I know, noone has been tried for blasphemy after that.

It is interesting to note that the Norwegian editor who published the Mohammad cartoons, Vebjørn Selbekk, earlier has been shouting "blasphemy" about parodies on christianity, referring to these very blasphemy laws.

Anyway, there has been a similar story circulating in the Norwegian media for the last few days, about how the Pakistani prime minister claims the Norwegian prime minister apologized to him on behalf of Norway that these caricatures were allowed to be printed. This too has turned out to be false.

Oliva Howika is not a Norwegian name. In fact, I suspect it's not a name at all. I have no idea who the deputy arch bishop of Norway is (or even if we have one.) If we do, then I'm sure that's nice for the arch bishop, whoever that may be. Probably takes eases the arch bishop's workload. Though I do not know if we have arch bishops or not in Norway, I do know that they do not make laws around here.

Finally, I would like to say that my city, Tromsø, is called (at least by its own inhabitants,) "Nordens Paris", or "the Paris of the North." Though as far as I know, noone has yet claimed that Norway is the France of the North.

EDIT: To prove that in Norway, blasphemy is still allowed, I offer the following:

Priest & Rabbi Car Accident

A rabbi and a priest get into a car accident and it's a bad one. Both cars are totally demolished, but, amazingly, neither of the clerics is hurt.

After they crawl out of their cars, the rabbi sees the priest's collar and says, "So you're a priest. I'm a rabbi. Just look at our cars. There's nothing left, but we are unhurt. This must be a sign from God. God must have meant that we should meet and be friends and live together in peace the rest of our days."

The priest replies, "I agree with you completely. This must be a sign from God."

The rabbi continues, "And look at this. Here's another miracle. My car is completely demolished but this bottle of Mogen David wine didn't break. Surely God wants us to drink this wine and celebrate our good fortune." Then he hands the bottle to the priest.

The priest agrees, takes a few big swigs, and hands the bottle back to the rabbi. The rabbi takes the bottle, immediately puts the cap on, and hands it back to the priest.

The priest asks, "Aren't you having any?" The rabbi replies, "No...I think I'll wait for the police."

Finally, I would like to say that my city, Tromsø, is called (at least by its own inhabitants,) "Nordens Paris", or "the Paris of the North." Though as far as I know, noone has yet claimed that Norway is the France of the North.

That's funny. People in Edinburgh call it the 'Athens of the north.' It's not.

France bend over for the muslium, and now Norway is doing the same thing.

That's bollocks.

France is too in love with it's own rigorous, overly-conformist 'républicain' doctrine.

:( yeah, since my first post was number 5 or so...

Well more than an hour has passed and I am pleasantly surprised to note that I was wrong. It seems your edit did the trick.:fluffle:

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/kenya.php

Well more than an hour has passed and I am pleasantly surprised to note that I was wrong. It seems your edit did the trick.:fluffle:
Eutrusca posted something during the half hour but deleted it after reading further comments.

So he was right but the edit did the trick too. How 'bout that, everybody wins!

Eutrusca posted something during the half hour but deleted it after reading further comments.

So he was right but the edit did the trick too. How 'bout that, everybody wins!

*dances happily*

So you are only protected under the law if you are religious? It doesn't really seem fair that people are allowed to go against my beliefs that there is no God by preaching that there is, but I would be breaking the law if
I voice MY opinion that there is,in fact, NO GOD.

What a hypocritical pile of steaming shit. Fuck the Christian God, fuck the Muslim God, fuck the Jewish god, fuck all the other religions gods. As far as I'm concerned, they are figments of the imaginations of people who wish to gain power over people through guilt.

I have heard , from just about every religion, that I'm a heathen who's going to hell, and it sometimes bothers me that so many people can't just look at me for the person I am. So if someone is bothered by a cartoon I draw, or words I say, then they, along with their "god", can go take a flying fucking leap.


Yet another reason I'm glad I'm an American. I have the right to be who I am, say what I think, and offend who I wish. Just like everyone else!




EDIT (Please see post #153 for more detail)

So you are only protected under the law if you are religious? It doesn't really seem fair that people are allowed to go against my beliefs that there is no God by preaching that there is, but I would be breaking the law if
I voice MY opinion that there is,in fact, NO GOD.

What a hypocritical pile of steaming shit. Fuck the Christian God, fuck the Muslim God, fuck the Jewish god, fuck all the other religions gods. As far as I'm concerned, they are figments of the imaginations of people who wish to gain power over people through guilt.

I have heard , from just about every religion, that I'm a heathen who's going to hell, and it sometimes bothers me that so many people can't just look at me for the person I am. So if someone is bothered by a cartoon I draw, or words I say, then they, along with their "god", can go take a flying fucking leap.


Yet another reason I'm glad I'm an American. I have the right to be who I am, say what I think, and offend who I wish. Just like everyone else!

It seems we celebrated too soon... :(

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/kenya.php
Da is one Ebil, EBIL song mon. :cool:

So you are only protected under the law if you are religious? It doesn't really seem fair that people are allowed to go against my beliefs that there is no God by preaching that there is, but I would be breaking the law if
I voice MY opinion that there is,in fact, NO GOD.

What a hypocritical pile of steaming shit. Fuck the Christian God, fuck the Muslim God, fuck the Jewish god, fuck all the other religions gods. As far as I'm concerned, they are figments of the imaginations of people who wish to gain power over people through guilt.

I have heard , from just about every religion, that I'm a heathen who's going to hell, and it sometimes bothers me that so many people can't just look at me for the person I am. So if someone is bothered by a cartoon I draw, or words I say, then they, along with their "god", can go take a flying fucking leap.


Yet another reason I'm glad I'm an American. I have the right to be who I am, say what I think, and offend who I wish. Just like everyone else!


Did you read any of the posts?

The OPs Post was Fake!

It seems we celebrated too soon... :(
I'm good at crashing a party! ;)

Did you read any of the posts?

The OPs Post was Fake!
Yes I did, the article is a fake. I'm referring more to the way things seem to be headed in the minds of people who would rather just stop the violence, instead of looking at what is wrong or right.

I fear, looking back, that I didn't quite write my post in a manner which would explain my understanding of the illegitimacy of the article.

I'm good at crashing a party! ;)

I take it you've now seen the error of your ways?:cool:

I'm good at crashing a party! ;)
well.. this is playing on the stereo.
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/kenya.php

Sorry if this stuff has been said earlier (it prolly has), but I think that it needs to be pointed out yet again. This is the Norwegian blasphemy paragraph:

§ 142. Den som i ord eller handling offentlig forhåner eller på en krenkende eller sårende måte viser ringeakt for nogen trosbekjennelse hvis utøvelse her i riket er tillatt eller noget lovlig her bestående religionssamfunds troslærdommer eller gudsdyrkelse, eller som medvirker hertil, straffes med bøter eller med hefte eller fengsel inntil 6 måneder.

Påtale finner bare sted når allmenne hensyn krever det.

§ 142. He who in word or action publicly mocks or in a insulting or hurtful manner shows contempt for any religious belief which is allowed in the Realm or anything legal, including religious beliefs and learnings or worship of that religion, or anyone who participates in this, are punished with fines or prison for a timeperiod of up to 6 months.

Procecution will only take place when public concerns requires procecution.

It's been used once since it was established, and that was against a poet who mocked Christianity in the 1930s, and he was aquitted. This is the Norwegian blasphemy paragraph, as it has been since 1973 when they last amended it. The claims on that islamist propaganda website are false. I should know. I'm a Norwegian, I'm studying law and I know the Punishment Act (poor translation, but meh). It takes a hell of a lot more than the Government to say so for the law to be changed.

If you want a little hint as to the current feelings about the paragraph in Norway, the vast majority of the population want § 142 abolished, not strengthened. Islam Online, check your facts the next time, you bloody wankers.

Da is one Ebil, EBIL song mon. :cool:

Hey, forget Norway. =P Lol

Finally, I would like to say that my city, Tromsø, is called (at least by its own inhabitants,) "Nordens Paris", or "the Paris of the North." Though as far as I know, noone has yet claimed that Norway is the France of the North.

Facts: Tromsø was built as an exact replica of Paris, at 1:10 scale. The likeness between Tromsø and Paris has given rise to Paris's nickname "The Tromsø of the south".
Tromsø is known in the rest of Norway as being "bloody far away".

The English website of a norweign newspaper.
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/

No mention of any laws, just one article on Muslims calling for them. I think the OP might owe Norway an apology? :p

Not my fault if someone gives bad info. I don't make it, just report it.

So it seems that Kievan-Prussia has lost even more credibility, I didn't think that was even possible after he called the Australian race riots a fight for freedom...

I might have said that then, I think I'm bipolar. Right now, I feel that even if the riots got outta control, you could see them coming. It wasn't just "LET'S GO BASH MUSLIMS!" They had a good reason, even if they didn't take the right action.

Oh yah, about the france thing. People should really look at the totality of millitary history. Germany is the one with the bad record at war.

A bit unfair, considering Germany is only 135 years old (there's actually a giant tortoise older than Germany) and has been involved in only 3 wars. World War I (lost), World War II (lost), and the Balkans Conflict (superficial victory).

A bit unfair, considering Germany is only 135 years old (there's actually a giant tortoise older than Germany) and has been involved in only 3 wars. World War I (lost), World War II (lost), and the Balkans Conflict (superficial victory).
Either you only count the current German government (in which case the record is pretty much 100%), or you count them all. And then you can't discount the Holy Roman Empire and so on.

But overall, I think France probably has had a better record, seeing as to how they ruled Europe for long stretches at a time.

A bit unfair, considering Germany is only 135 years old (there's actually a giant tortoise older than Germany) and has been involved in only 3 wars. World War I (lost), World War II (lost), and the Balkans Conflict (superficial victory).

Yes, and the german states before they unified were regularly used as a playground for the countries with real millitary ability. Hell, there probably is only a germany anyway, because of the external threat of france.

To be fair they won the franco-prussian war. But france was off its feed that day.

Either you only count the current German government (in which case the record is pretty much 100%), or you count them all. And then you can't discount the Holy Roman Empire and so on.

I count the nation known as "Germany." In reality, the HRE, while usually ruled by ethnic Germans, contained many ethnic groups, and was more of a confederation than an empire. Voltaire described it as "neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire," and I think that sums it up.

But overall, I think France probably has had a better record, seeing as to how they ruled Europe for long stretches at a time.

Perhaps. The best France ever did militarily was under Napoleon, but they can't claim to have won that war because... they lost. Because Napoleon got greedy.

To be fair they won the franco-prussian war. But france was off its feed that day.

Prussia was the most powerful nation in Western Europe, at the time. At least, that's what I think. They didn't beat Denmark, Austria and France successively by coincidence.

Perhaps. The best France ever did militarily was under Napoleon, but they can't claim to have won that war because... they lost. Because Napoleon got greedy.

Just stop. This is getting silly.

I count the nation known as "Germany." In reality, the HRE, while usually ruled by ethnic Germans, contained many ethnic groups, and was more of a confederation than an empire. Voltaire described it as "neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire," and I think that sums it up.
No Germany has ever been an ethnically pure country. People often don't know this, but Bismarck's German Empire was actually full of Polish, Jewish, Eastern European and all sorts of other people.
Not that "German" is really an ethnic group anyway. If anything, it's a linguistic term.

Perhaps. The best France ever did militarily was under Napoleon, but they can't claim to have won that war because... they lost. Because Napoleon got greedy.
Louis XIV comes to mind. France does have a history of playing around with the other continental powers and pretty much being the hegemon of its time, only rivalled at times by the British.
And just a few years before Napoleon, the revolutionaries kicked the arse of an entire alliance of European superpowers.

Prussia was the most powerful nation in Western Europe, at the time. At least, that's what I think. They didn't beat Denmark, Austria and France successively by coincidence.

Dude, it was more than just prussia in the franco prussian war.

Anyway, had it not been for a slightly mad russian, prussia may not even have made it into the 19th century as we know it.

Just stop. This is getting silly.

WTF? That's pretty much what happened. Napoleon got greedy. Did he HAVE to invade Russia? Wasn't he content with ruling all of Continental Europe? If he HAD to invade Russia, couldn't he wait for the season turn?

Either you only count the current German government (in which case the record is pretty much 100%), or you count them all. And then you can't discount the Holy Roman Empire and so on.


I thought you guys had promised never to start an aggressive war again. Isn't it part of the Basic Law or somesuch.

:rolleyes:


Ahem, may I remind you?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3619988.stm

Wow, kind of went a step in the wrong direction IMO. Muslim students should be allowed to where their scarves if they want just as Christian studesnts should be allowed to wear a gold cross if they want, just so long as the teachers are preaching their religion to the class it is not a problem. Even then, I had religious teachers, all christian but some Catholic and some Lutheran, we talked openly about their religions and I don't think it changed the beliefs of anyone in that class, it was just nice to hear the views of another person once in a while. I would do the same if I had a jewish or muslim teacher.

I should take this time to mention I am also pro-wearing of baseball caps in schools, pro-pop in the classroom, pro-sugar based candy in the school store and pro-have the school board remove their titties from our mouthes and let us grow up a little. How will it make us more resonsible for our own actions if schools keep limiting out choice more and more?

Dude, it was more than just prussia in the franco prussian war.

Anyway, had it not been for a slightly mad russian, prussia may not even have made it into the 19th century as we know it.

What, a handful of small German states? Although Austria was in tow for the Second War of Schlewig.

And yes, we know Peter was nuts. But between then and 1871, they built up well and got themselves a brilliant leader.

Louis XIV comes to mind. France does have a history of playing around with the other continental powers and pretty much being the hegemon of its time, only rivalled at times by the British.
And just a few years before Napoleon, the revolutionaries kicked the arse of an entire alliance of European superpowers.

Not to mention driving the angevins off the continent. That was pretty balsy. Or the battle of Tours.

I thought you guys had promised never to start an aggressive war again. Isn't it part of the Basic Law or somesuch.

It's not an aggressive war if the purpose is to punish the Austrian government which has been committing acts of mass murder against its German speaking citizens. Oh the irony.

Not to mention driving the angevins off the continent. That was pretty balsy. Or the battle of Tours.

Tours was Frankish. The Franks and the French are tons different. I don't think that France can claim that win for themselves.

I thought you guys had promised never to start an aggressive war again. Isn't it part of the Basic Law or somesuch.

Germany pledges to fight only in defence. But they can get around that by saying they're defending Germany but attacking foreign targets (like America attacked Iraq to defend themselves against WMDs >_>).

WTF? That's pretty much what happened. Napoleon got greedy. Did he HAVE to invade Russia? Wasn't he content with ruling all of Continental Europe? If he HAD to invade Russia, couldn't he wait for the season turn?

No, the idea that Napolean is the only time the french have had any millitary success. As NL pointed out, they won lots of wars before him, and for long stretches were virtual hegemons of western Europe. In fact, I'd even disagree with NLs statement that they were rivaled by the british. After the loss of Calais, and until WWI, the british though influential in tipping the balance sometimes, were never really a continental power. On the seas it was a different matter, of course. (And even then the dutch had their moments).

It's so....stereotypical.

I thought you guys had promised never to start an aggressive war again. Isn't it part of the Basic Law or somesuch.
Yeah, and there was a long discussion. In the end, Germany did what NATO asked of them, but at the same time sorta stuck to its guns by only doing SEAD missions, and not actually "attacking" anyone. I'll be damned if I understood.

And these days, with Afghanistan, the official line is that we are still there in self-defence, but that "sometimes it is necessary to defend Germany at the Hindukush". So now there are heaps of peacekeepers there and apparently special forces are taking out drug dealers and the like.

Here's the whole basic law by the way, if you're interested.
http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/eurodocs/germ/ggeng.html

Wow, kind of went a step in the wrong direction IMO. Muslim students should be allowed to where their scarves if they want just as Christian studesnts should be allowed to wear a gold cross if they want, just so long as the teachers are preaching their religion to the class it is not a problem...
It's very complicated and very French. Maybe this move can best be described as "forced equality". I can't say that I agree with it, but maybe it'll work - we'll see that in a few decades.

Let's just settle this by saying that France was a continental power and Britain was a world power, deal?

No, the idea that Napolean is the only time the french have had any millitary success. As NL pointed out, they won lots of wars before him, and for long stretches were virtual hegemons of western Europe. In fact, I'd even disagree with NLs statement that they were rivaled by the british. After the loss of Calais, and until WWI, the british though influential in tipping the balance sometimes, were never really a continental power. On the seas it was a different matter, of course. (And even then the dutch had their moments).

It's so....stereotypical.

Yeah, ok, fair enough. But I still think that France wasn't a really hegemon, at least not until Napoleon.

No, the idea that Napolean is the only time the french have had any millitary success. As NL pointed out, they won lots of wars before him, and for long stretches were virtual hegemons of western Europe. In fact, I'd even disagree with NLs statement that they were rivaled by the british. After the loss of Calais, and until WWI, the british though influential in tipping the balance sometimes, were never really a continental power. On the seas it was a different matter, of course. (And even then the dutch had their moments).

It's so....stereotypical.

Why did Napolean invade Russia? Was he like Alexander in that he was never content and always wanted more? Was he maybe trying to emulate Alexander and comquer the known world? In history we were always did that Napolean did invade, we were just never told why he invaded.

What, a handful of small German states? Although Austria was in tow for the Second War of Schlewig.

Basically the german empire, but whatever.

And yes, we know Peter was nuts. But between then and 1871, they built up well and got themselves a brilliant leader.

Well the napoleon thing was rough also. Do you want to talk about prussian bravery in belgium in 1815?

In any case, had it not been for a crazy russian, prussia might have gotten the poland treatment.

Why did Napolean invade Russia?
Russia was the last power left that was capable of opposing him. At times him and Alexander actually made peace agreements, but neither trusted the other, and when the Russians made an alliance with the defeated countries of Prussia and Austria, Napoleon declared war.

Why did Napolean invade Russia? Was he like Alexander in that he was never content and always wanted more? Was he maybe trying to emulate Alexander and comquer the known world? In history we were always did that Napolean did invade, we were just never told why he invaded.

No, it was because the russians dropped out of his continental system and began to trade with britian. So he decided to punish them.

He underestimated the difficulties of such a project.

lol, the Continental System, it looked good in principle, blockade England and force the continent to become self sufficent, the only problem was that England had a more powerful navy and was able to first break the French blockade and then blockade the continent, right?

I hate how history is, or more appropriately, is not taught in America. We only have three hundred years of history we will just claim that to be unimportant and instead study our version of english. My history teacher junior year graduated with a jock degree and was the girls basketball coach. Major in P.E. with a minor in Coaching. One word (acronym) WTF!?

BTW, grats to me for 1,000 posts!

lol, the Continental System, it looked good in principle, blockade England and force the continent to become self sufficent, the only problem was that England had a more powerful navy and was able to first break the French blockade and then blockade the continent, right?
Well, I'd say the continent was self-sufficient anyway (certainly moreso than Britain). But Napoleon's system was sort of like a proto-EU in that the trade restrictions between continental nations were dropped, but here everything was organised to profit Napoleon's empire. Part of that was an embargo against Britain.
So I'm not sure that any French attempts to blockade Britain had anything to do with the Continental Economy as much as with winning the war and starving Britain into submission. And in turn, the British could blockade French ports, but more importantly, they could land their troops anywhere in Europe.

Here's the whole basic law by the way, if you're interested.
http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/eurodocs/germ/ggeng.html


Thanks.

Well, I'd say the continent was self-sufficient anyway (certainly moreso than Britain). But Napoleon's system was sort of like a proto-EU in that the trade restrictions between continental nations were dropped, but here everything was organised to profit Napoleon's empire. Part of that was an embargo against Britain.
So I'm not sure that any French attempts to blockade Britain had anything to do with the Continental Economy as much as with winning the war and starving Britain into submission. And in turn, the British could blockade French ports, but more importantly, they could land their troops anywhere in Europe.

It really was his downfall. It precipitated the pennisula war, which became france's bleeding ulser, and disproportionately burdened Russia which hungered for Britian's industrial goods.

He basically made the mistake of giving an order which would never be obeyed, and it ended up destroying his authority.

Well enough with the Cheese eating surrendering monkeys (thank you for that Groundskeeper Willie),
Couldn't help myself:
bonjourrrrrrrr (http://members.aol.com/ecsull2/private/audio/bonjour.wav)

So the original point of this thread turned out to be a pile of crap so it turned into a crappy French bashing one? Great, and kind of logical in a way.

So the original point of this thread turned out to be a pile of crap so it turned into a crappy French bashing one? Great, and kind of logical in a way.
imagine my surprise also...

truely this thread deserves to die.