Last summer, on an island off the coast of Sweden’s bible belt, Pentecostal pastor Åke Green said some very nasty things about homosexuals in a sermon (in Swedish) entitled “Is homosexuality a inborn urge or a game evil powers play with Man?” You can guess what the answer was. He quoted liberally from the old testament to show homosexuality is a temptation of the devil, blamed the spread of AIDS on the legalization of homosexual sex, said homosexuality arises from wet dreams, excessive fantasizing, the porn industry, a positive image in the media, and that it is a gateway activity to pedophilia and bestiality, both of which are practiced predominantly by homosexuals. Basically, the kind of thing you get to hear on an average day in a Pentecostal church in backwater Louisiana or Mississippi.
He delivered his Sunday sermon to some 50 parishioners in fuming anticipation of a “gay day” on the island, invited the media to attend (none came), and then sent the transcript around to papers, one of which printed bits of it. For spreading his message thus, he was charged under a Swedish law originally intended to prohibit agitation against ethnic groups (hets mot folkgrupper), but which was expanded in 2003 to include homosexuals as a group. This was the first such use of the law, and Tuesday’s ruling by a local court was thus a test for its scopeThe motivation for extending the law’s scope was the fact that Nazi sympathisers have in the past incited violence against gays through speech at demonstrations, and there was found to be no explicit legal proscription against such speech. The original law was intended to protect Jews from skinhead malfeasance. Regardless of the quality of the law, I have no qualms with treating ethnic groups on a par with gays in this respect..
In the ruling, the court decided Green was guilty, sentenced him to a month in prison and fined him around $3,600. I’ve now read the ruling [Swedish, PDF; page 13 is missing in the PDF, but that part is covered here], and join David Weman over at Fistful of Euros in thinking that this decision is deeply flawed. At its core, it states that strident public speech making claims about ethnic groups or gays that can be construed as insulting is illegal, even if the speaker believes those claims to be true, and even if the grounds for such beliefs are religiousGudmundson has the press links..
This criteria for prohibited speech is far broader than one which prohibits speech which intends to incite violence. Here is the ruling’s nut sentence:
Den rättighet homosexuella som grupp har att inte utsättas för kränkningar måste, enligt tingsättens mening, vara mer skyddsvärd än Åke Greens rätt att få göra dessa kränkande uttalanden i religionens namn.The right of homosexuals as a group not to be exposed to insults must, in the opinion of this court, be more worthy of protection than Åke Green’s right to make these insulting statements in the name of religion.
Gasp. I have no problem with prohibiting speech that intends to incite violence. I do have a problem with a law, or an interpretation of a law — I’m still not sure which it is — that prohibits insulting speech. Such speech is certainly reprehensible, and it should be condemned as uncivil and boorish, but it should not be illegal. Despite the findings of this ruling, there is plenty of room for such speech in a vibrant, confident democratic society. I’d even say that the unfettered presence of such speech is essential, because it forces a society to continually assess what constitutes civil behaviour; it is only through such debates that a modern society can inoculate itself against the emergence of more virulent strains of bigotry. Legislation against such speech does away with this process.
Before we examine how this ruling came to regard insulting speech as “agitation” against defined groups, let’s immediately get one thing out of the way: Åke Green’s parishioners, God-fearing Pentecostalists that they are, did not attack gays after his sermon, and his sermon contained nothing that can be construed as condoning physical harm against homosexuals. There was no incitement to violence.
What then defines “agitation” against an ethnic group or gays (def: hets mot folkgrupper)? My own preferred criteria would set the bar at incidents wherein an agitator attempts to get others to commit violence against a group through speech. Clearly, this court saw different.
In the ruling, the law’s purpose for criminalizing agitation is cited as not intending to threaten scientific inquiry, free debate, religious freedom and minority opinions. However, the citation continues“Den innebär däremot ett fullt godtagbart krav på att även andra människors rättigheter och den grundläggande demokratiska principen om alla människors lika värde skall respekteras vid utövandet av dessa fri- och rättigheter.”, “it does involve a wholly reasonable demand that other people’s rights and the fundamental democratic principle that all people are created equal be respected when exercising these freedoms and rights.”
From this passage, the court infers that a courteous (“saklig“) discussion in which homosexuality is criticized would have been perfectly acceptable under the lawDoes this mean then that it wasn’t the content of pastor Green’s sermon but the strident manner in which he delivered it that violated the rights of gays? That’s not clear either. I can hardly imagine that making the same points as the pastor but with flowery language, a mellifluous voice and an apologetic smile is going to make a difference to anyone why cares to listen.. The court then says that “the law is clear in stating that speech which can be construed as insulting for homosexuals is forbidden according to Swedish legislation.”
That was easy! All that is left to do now is to weigh the fundamental rights to freedom of religion and speech against this fundamental right not to be insulted. The solution, according to the court, is to use the principle of proportionality. One should try to avoid, as much as possible, insulting others when expressing your opinions — freely, of course. How did Åke Green do in this regard?
To find out, the ruling spends some time dissecting various parts of Green’s sermon. Another court previously decided, in January 2003, that merely citing and interpreting passages from the Bible or other religious texts cannot ever be considered criminal, even if the isolated passages in question can be construed as agitation against gays. Fortunately for the court, it finds plenty of bits in the pastor’s sermon that were not directly gleaned from scripture — it lists, for example, his assertion that bestiality and pedophilia is predominantly a gay thing, and that homosexuality is a cancer tumor in society.
It’s on account of these statements that the pastor is found guilty.
I’ve already explained why pastor Green should be allowed to call homosexuality a tumor if he wants to: It brings such opinions out into the open, so that he can be reprimanded in no uncertain terms by the court of public opinion, and so that society itself is moved to restate its values from first principles periodically, through debate. But there are other reasons why this law is atrocious. For example, which of the following scenarios are now also illegal?
- A non-Muslim speaker at a feminist gathering rails angrily at Muslim men, accusing them of being predominantly misogynistic, as evinced by her personal experience from working at battered women’s homes.
- At Friday prayers at Stockholm’s mosque, a preacher asserts the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are real.
- A drunken Brit tells a lot of Irish jokes at an Irish pub in Stockholm. A lot. And they’re not funny. But quite mean.
- A group of rather patriotic Turkish immigrants publishes a pamphlet in Sweden denying the Armenian genocide.
- Some annoyed Stockholmers insult a group of Dutch tourists after a football match that Sweden loses, hurling all manner of vile stereotypes their way. A random Belgian eggs them on.
Yes, this is a Pandora’s box that’s been opened.
PS: I also think there should have been more concern for context in the ruling. For example, for a speaker at a Nazi-sympathizers’ rally to call homosexuals a tumor is, to my mind, worse than for a Pentecostal preacher to say the exact same thing. Why? Because Nazis have a history of trying to exterminate gays, while Pentecostalists do not. Walk into a Nazi rally wearing a yarmulke or rainbow colors and you should fear for your lifeBack in 2002, Matthew and I had a related discussion about KKK cross-burnings as an incitement to violence, and how they compared to Nazi rallies.. But walk into a Pentecostal church and you will get a verbal dressing down, at worst. Clearly, context determines what constitutes an incitement to violence. This was not, as far as I can tell, considered by the court.
I disagree with you. You deliberately translated “hets” to “insults”. This is not at all what it’s about. If he would only have insulted you in his speech, or even a whole group that would be perfectly legal. That alone makes your artice, both header and content, skewed.
“Hets” is more like “agitation against”. It is used in the law as meaning “hate speech”. I believe this is valid. He is allowed to hate gays as much as anyone else. He is perfectly allowed, in the name of free speech, to talk with other people about how disguisting he finds them.
But he is _not_ allowed to print posters all over town portraying gays as having sex with animals, being dirty or just generally evil. Also he is not allowed to base public political speeches on this. Now, the law makes it clear that this applies to religious speech as well. There are limits to free speech. Slander is one (which I believe we are relatively tolerant of in Sweden) and hate speech another. It’s a your-freedom-to-swing-your-fist-ends-where-my-nose-begins thing.
I don’t want to live in a society where hate speech against a whole group, of people can be spread as propaganda, agitated whether in churchs or street corners, anything like that. It does not matter if the target is foreigners, women, or gays. I believe the ruling is right.
Jonas B., I do not translate hets to insults anywhere in my post; I point out that the ruling does. The law itself is against “hets mot folkgrupper” (click on the link to the translation I provide in the text). The ruling, however, decides that the test for whether such hets occurred is whether insults (kränkningar) occurred. The words kränkningar and missaktning (disrespect) ar used repeatedly throughout the ruling. You should read it. I do think Green insutled gays, but I do not think he incited violence against them, which is my preferred interpretation of what constitutes agitation (hets mot folkgrupper).
You did say that the law “[…}prohibits insulting speech”, which I think is stretching the truth.
I see that Lexin says “kränkningar” means “insults” but I think (as my opinion would matter, but anyway) it is more like “violations”. When kränkning is used in a sexual context it means rape and in a military context it means invasion or declaration of war. I don’t think it means anything less in a hate speech context. The word “förolämpning” means “insult” which is much less strong.
Hate speech is not necessarily violent in nature. Political posters depicting jews as dirty rats would be classified as hate speech without having directly to do with violence.
Jonas, I wrote “I do have a problem with a law, or an interpretation of a law — I’m still not sure which it is — that prohibits insulting speech.” And that’s not stretching the truth.
You are right, there is an element of translation involved. Other words that I considered using instead of “insult” were “smear” and “defame,” but there are more accurate words for them in Swedish (förtala, smutskastar) which the ruling chooses not to use. And to translate “kränkning” to “violation” in English implies the question, a violation of what?
Also, in the case of Salman Rushie and his Satanic verses, it was his ostensible “kränkning” of Islam that caused the furore among Muslims, as reported in the Swedish press. I think the word “insult” is the best we’ve got therefore.
I can definitely think of hate speech that is not an incitement to violence. Pastor Green’s sermon is one example. Muslims railing against atheists such as myself, spelling out in great detail what awaits me in the afterlife, is another. I think such speech should be protected.
As for your posters, let’s take an example that is even clearer: A billboard is bought containing your message (to avoid confusing the issue with one of defacing public property). I would prefer that a court decides whether, in context, the purchaser of the billboard intended to incite violence against Jews in addition to merely being insulting. I think that in your example, a court could well decide it was an incitement.
One more example of the Pandora’s box, come to think of it:
Salman Rushdie comes to Sweden to collect his Nobel Prize in Literature. A Muslim group demands he be tried under this law for insulting Islam with his book The Satanic Verses. Shall we try him? Should we let a court pore over the text of the book to see whether his writing “can be construed as an insult” (the wording of the ruling)?
I still think it is a bad translation. I have checked my paper dictionary and it agrees. As for Rushdie, how do Sweden normally react when wanted people seeks asylum here, when their accusations aren’t criminal here? Women having had premarital sex where it is a capital offense, for example. It is not a problem. Insulting isn’t illegal in Sweden.
As if on cue, here is an article outlining how the British court system dealt with a very similar case, as reported today.
I think all speech should be legal, even the most virulent and hateful,
even nazi propaganda. Now why do I think that? Do I think it’s harmless,
do I think it’s easily contained? No, on the contrary I believe
in such speech lies the origin of many wrongful deaths.
So why be opposed to such controls? Sometimes I wonder if it might not
really be a good idea.
On the other hand if we make such speech illegal it doesn’t really
disappear, it just goes underground. In some ways, hidden and practiced
deniably I wonder if it isn’t really harder to fight such speech. Most of
the evidence we have of how bad certain kinds of thinking are comes
from people so confident of themselves that they are open about it.
And on the third hand if we give the state the power to control speech that
control can be turned any direction. It can quickly become Conformity
101 where any thought, other than one the state approves, becomes wrong.
It can in fact be quickly and easily turned against those who are fighting
such virulent thinking. (Didn’t the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and
Communist China all control speech and make certain sentences illegal?
Didn’t all these states do this almost automatically and from the very
beginning?) And how do we define what is wrong? Isn’t this definition of
what is ‘wrong’ something about which people consistently disagree?
My hunch is that the most promising way to attack speech control
would be to show that even when it is practiced in the most optimal
circumstances (and we’ll take that to be Sweden), false and malicious
words none the less flourish and thrive within the Conformity 101
zone.
Now inherently that’s a difficult task because any commonly uttered
set of ideas is likely to be taken as legitimate and not malicious
to those that commonly hear it.
Even worse since I neither read nor speak Swedish it would be particularly
difficult for me to pursue such a line of argument. Or so I was
thinking when I first read Stefan Geens’ post several hours ago. But
as I was randomly walking the internet I ran into something that
in a small way makes the point.
It’s from an article that alleges plagiarism of a certain Swedish
journalist — Peter Borgstöm — and less directly of the newspaper,
Dagens Nyheter, that employs him.
See http://www.spectator.se/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=24&Itemid=
Michael Moynihan makes a good case that Borgstom has repeatedly
plagiarized, but along the way something else is uncovered:
[quote]
A political “reality show” developed by the FX network met resistance
from “assorted right-wing” pressure groups and, thus, was dropped by
the “Bush-friendly Murdoch empire,” according to Borgström. The Spectator
could find no group, right or left, that opposed the program in question.
According to all parties involved, FX dropped the production due to
budgetary concerns, ultimately selling the concept to Showtime,
a subscription-based cable network owned by CBS. The supposed opposition
to the show was cited as evidence of suppressed debate in America. This
‘controversy’ seems to be raging only in the hyperactive imagination of
Peter Borgström.[12]
A photography exhibit addressing the thorny issue of American race relations
was applauded by Borgström, who pithily noted that the philistines at
“the conservative New York Post dismissed the exhibit as communist
propaganda.” The reviewer, Post chief art critic James Gardner, said no
such thing.[13]
A dispatch from a debate hosted by Manhattan’s PEN chapter (largely
‘borrowed’ from the New York Times) refers to left-wing firebrand Tariq
Ali as a “BBC journalist.” He has, like many public intellectuals, been
a guest on the BBC, but is not (and has never been) in their employ as
a journalist. Media Watch also discovered that of the six panelists in
attendance, Borgström only quotes four: Messrs. Ali, Peter Schneider,
Charles Torner and Ms. Jane Kramer. The two slightly right-of-center
debaters — French intellectual Bernard Henri-Levi (who, according to
the Times account, emerged as the “star” of the show) and Dutch-born
historian Ian Buruma — are neither quoted nor mentioned by Borgström.
A story documenting an alarming, post 9-11 trend of emigration from
New York strongly suggests that America has forfeited its reputation
as the “home of the free.” According to Borgström, thousands of legal
immigrants from Pakistan have abandoned the United States in favor of
Canada under pressure from the freedom-crushing Justice Department
(under the tutelage of its dissent-crushing chief, John Ashcroft).
Law-abiding Arab-Americans, responding to the draconian Patriot Act,
are abandoning their adopted homeland in droves. “According to the
Pakistani embassy,” Borgström writes, “15,000 of those that fled were
legal immigrants.” But either Borgström misread his source story (which
is unlikely) or is supplying false information to support a dubious
premise. In fact, the article Borgström relies on (but doesn’t cite)
makes clear that the immigrants that fled were in fact illegal,
undermining the theory that anti-Arab histrionics are responsible for
the supposed ‘exodus’. The New York Times reported that the “Pakistani
Embassy in Washington said that since Sept. 11, more than 15,000
Pakistanis in this country illegally are believed to have left for
Canada, Europe and Pakistan” (emphasis added). Portions of Borgström’s
account were plagiarized from a similar report in the Washington Post.
It is documented in part two of our series.
[end-quote]
So Peter Borgstrom more than just a plagiarist is a hate propagandist
who beyond simply expressing his opinions invents ‘facts’ to support
them. Perhaps I’m mistaken but I don’t imagine there’s a Swedish
court that will fine him or send him to prison or censor the newspaper
that supports him.
Which circumstance, in some small way, makes the point I’m trying
to make.
When the AIDS epidemic was just beginning to be recognized the United States government planned to use ‘contact tracing’ to combat it. Gay rights groups blocked the legislation, and the epidemic was allowed to spread. Hundreds of thousands of people became infected, who would not have been infected had the legislation passed. For this homosexual-rights activists deserve to be hated, not for their sexuality but for their political behavior.
Which makes your comment entirely off-topic.
What’s particularly troubling about this is that any insulting or agitating comments about or against this pastor, or Pentecostals in general, would never be prosecuted.
Stefan: I don’t know if it’s still relevant to this, but I mailed the company behind the word list used at Lexin. Their language research person agreed with me and the translation will be changed at the next upgrade.
(The comparision with DN I won’t even comment on.)
Page four of the judgment, towards the bottom of the page, maintains that the law regarding hets mot folkgrupp when applied to the homosexual community is allowed under European Law though cannot be as far reaching as to threaten the right to an ‘objective discussion or critique of homosexuality’. Interestingly on the following page this can be found: ‘For a statement to be considered punishable in law it must have been disseminated [spread(literal)]’.
Surely it’s on this point that the pastor was found to be in breach of law. He made every attempt to contact the media, even going so far as to send out copies of his sermon when invited media declined to attend. Whether a case would have been brought if Öhlandsbladet hadn’t published extracts is debatable. It’s at this point that arguments with regard to the right to free speech or the right to influence others with the purpose changing their faith are no longer applicable.
It’s a slippery subject to say the least. What should be taken into account in such cases is the influence the individual’s opinions have on society as a whole. The pastor deliberately attempted to take his ‘case’ to as wide a public as possible in an attempt to influence their opinion. Admittedly he may well have been preaching to the converted, but the fact of it’s ‘acceptance’ as a legitimate philosophy with regard to a section of society, having been given a forum and remaining unpunished, directly supports a culture of acceptance for violent actions against homosexuals. Hets. He may not personally advocate physical (though what of mental and emotional) violence but his beliefs regarding homosexuals are most certainly an incitement against said group. They and there choices are not to be respected in his philosophy, and that lack of respect for the choices of another member of society works directly against the right of the individual to express themselves freely
I think the judgement was weak, though weak in the sense that the pastor received rather lenient sentencing in the circumstances.
Regarding Rob’s comments they are antithetical to free speech. How can speech be free if it is only permissable to mutter your views in a corner to those who already agree with you? The purpose of free speech in a free society is the freedom to disseminate it to others who disagree with you in the hope that they will change their minds as a result.
Of course, this applies a fortiori to Christian preaching. For Christians who believe they have truths which are universally relevant, they are under an obligation from God to share these truths with others who are not Christians in the hope that their minds will be changed. One of those truths is that sin is a cancer from which sinners need the cure of Christ.
It’s not really a question of being antithetical to free speech. That’s the law as it stands in Sweden at present.
‘The purpose of free speech in a free society is the freedom to disseminate it to others who disagree with you in the hope that they will change their minds as a result.’
Freedom of speech as a right is and has been (and in all likelihood will be ) associated with limitations of that freedom. The most common and basic limitation of that freedom is when it poses a “clear and present danger” to the public interest. The tension between individual rights and public interest can be seen most obviously with regard to this question.
That those with religious convictions feel bound to proselytize is hardly a defense against the imposition of that belief system and the repression of the rights of others who do not share their worldview.
Where do we draw the line between individual freedoms and the well being of society?
Antithetical to free speech is a tad overwrought, but let’s say that the freedom of speech is the freedom to express any opinion or belief regardless of consequence, isn’t that an arrogation of the right of others to resist oppression?
All this ends in a round of individual circular arguments and it comes down to the individual’s own conscience, which ultimately cannot be legislated, to defend what too deep an intrusion by the state.
I seriously can’t believe we’re having this discussion. James and Mark, have you stopped fucking goats yet? It’s illegal in Sweden, you know. I may have to write some stories for the media about your habits. Please don’t be angry with me if this inhibits your future ability to get a job, I’m only exercising my free speech rights.
Jonas,
Yes, I do get it. I’m already well aware of the problem.
There of real examples of what you’re speaking of going on
in the world all the time.
To spell it out in more detail, if a person makes up a malicious
story about another person or a group of people, then for some
people, all they have to do is hear it or read it to believe it.
If someone is already hostile to the person or group being
attacked then the malicious message is amazingly likely to be
believed.
If the story or message is in some way remarkable so that it
is repeated, now we are in a whole new plane of contagion. The
people repeating the story want to believe but don’t actually
know it to be false (and won’t check either). Never the less
they may personally have an authenticity that the original
creator of the malicious story will often lack.
Also some people measure ‘truth’ by how often they hear a
statement. As they hear it again and again they come to be
sure it’s true. Some people are more vulnerable to this
sort of thinking than others but everyone is more vulnerable
than they think. A quick check for anyone reading this: ask
yourself how many times you’ve believed an ugly story about
some other group without doing research to see if it’s true.
I’d hate to be the victim of such a campaign and know that
in reality, unlike the movies, there’d be little I could do
about it.
None the less I stand by my assertion that we shouldn’t
criminalize speech. For one thing as I said before, this
sort of hate speech flourishes in every society, speech
code or not. There’s always some group it’s okay to lie
and spread lies about. I know that two wrongs do not make
a right, but my suspicion is that speech codes actually
channel hate in very specific directions. That many of the
genocides of the last century occurred in societies where
‘hate speech’ was illegal.
Also I’m wondering if there is some kind of immunization
effect here. I’m sure everyone gets taken in by this sort
of thing at some point in their life, but I’m wondering if
they get as older at least some of the people start to develop
a kind of resistance. One path to developing resistance might
be becoming the victim of it. Another, might be being
exposed to malicious and stupid speech.
It strikes me that practically speaking the kind of speech
that is likely to be prosecuted is precisely that that is
both malicious and stupid.
Dear Rob,
thank you for your courteous and intelligent response on what is an important issue lying at the heart of Western society.
Now, it might indeed be that the law in Sweden is opposed to free speech. The question is, who decides what free speech is and where its limits are? Is it possible for the state to transgress fundamental human rights in wrongly criminalising certain types of speech?
I don’t think any of us are defending speech which is slanderous about a person. Indeed at least one post on this blog descends to that level. Neither are we defending rhetoric that intends to stir up violence to others.
As I have understood the situation, Ake Green’s comments were neither slanderous towards an individual nor was there any intent on his part to cause violence to homosexuals.
You raise the spectre of “clear and present danger against publich interest”. (Wasn’t that phrase used over phantom WMDs? 🙂 )
But who defines public interest here? Does the state always get it right or are our western societies defending what is harmful and harming what is helpful to them? Of course, this is not merely a philosophical question but practically political and depends on the worldview of the person you ask! Since worldviews are involved this question is inescapably theological which explains why Christians cannot accept limits such as those under Swedish law as I explained, and as you appreciated, from my first post.
It should be clarified that when we are discussing “proselytism” it should be understood as non-coercive. It is not a term I like because it carries negative overtones in our society and is often used as a pretext to attack religious groups around the world. “Evangelism” and “witness” are much less emotive and more accurately reflect the intent of Christians, at least.
I would be interested to know how you would find the line between individual freedoms and the well being of society? You will be aware that tyrants all over the world have happily used this as a pretext for all sorts of abuses. How then, can a state like Sweden avoid falling into the same trap if it really puts itself on a collision course with the individual consciences of its citizens? You say this cannot be legislated, but this is precisely what Sweden has done.
I guess I should end by thanking Mr Geens for providing the most helpful and intelligent discussion of this matter I have found on the web.
Regards,
James Horgan.
Schenk v. US in 1919 – Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. coined the much abused phrase about ‘clear and present danger’ in a landmark case about freedom of speech.
I don’t believe Sweden is legislating negatively with regards to freedom of speech, it seems to be trying to support just that freedom by penalising those that would seek to hinder free expression by a particular group of individuals.
You ask if a state can transgress, absolutely and on a daily basis in even the most lenient of democracies (freedom is another question). Again, I dont feel Swedish law can be accused of that in this instance.
It intrigues me that slander of an individual is an arena where the limiting of freedom of speech is acceptable but that the ‘slander’ of an entire group is not. We also have to be careful to characterize the pastor’s sermon as comments, such a description minimises the arena he was attempting to create for his views. Views that the pastor himself felt the need to justify as being non-violent and not specifically aimed at an individual, in an attempt presumably to defuse the impact they may have on persons who may ‘misconstrue’ his well intentioned proselytisation. Or being a tad cynical, an dismal attempt to defuse any possible future prosecution.
Freedom of speech and public interest is a dynamic that is modified through the political process in democracies. Flawed but little more is available to us. I have no answers as to where a balance between the individual’s right to freedom of speech and public interest can be found.
Mark, I am somewhat relieved you do understand my point. But I think you are describing a theoretical exercise. In practice it is of no comfort to anyone being hurt that the ones who abuse them may themselves be abused some day. There’s no evidence that being hated is a good remedy against hating other people. So it should be every citizen’s right to be protected from all forms of violence.
James, how are we supposed to discuss this if you keep using the mistranslations all the time? No one has denied anybody the right to free speech, only the right to create a public event promoting the idea that a group of people spread disease and fucks animals, inviting all media to it. Just saying the stuff is (probably) legal.
Free speech is important but it must not be abused as an incitement to violence.
Jonas can•t even get his slander right.
Goat-fucking is not illegal in Sweden. That is, if you manage to do it without inflicting pain on the poor animal.
So you can stop worrying now!
Dear Rob,
you state that Swedish law “seems to be trying to support just that freedom by penalising those that would seek to hinder free expression by a particular group of individuals.”
But the law has penalised the free expression of Pentecostals of their sincerely held, non-violent religious views!
The difficulty I have with the concept of slandering group is that the comments may be true of some in the group but not others. It therefore differs in kind from slander of a person which either is or is not true.
I wonder whether there is any chance of pentecostals suing Swedish lesbigay groups if they slander evangelicals? You may find this recent article in the Daily Telegraph interesting.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/09/ncleric109.xml
And here’s an amusing response.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/07/10/dt1008.xml
Jonas,
Stefan was on the ball from the start by considering whether the comments ever put anyone in any danger. He concluded, and I think rightly, the answer was no.
We should recognise that no country allows absolutely “free” speech. All societies place restrictions on it. The issue we are discussing is where those limits lie.
Regards,
James.
Gudmundson, thank you. Now I can finally come out with that. (Seriously, it’s not important — the slander/free speech was something I wanted to *avoid* discussion.)
James, I do understand that and I clearly disagree. These people have enough problems with violence already. There is a clear connection how this puts them in greater danger.
Obviously the court saw that connection too. If you want to argue with that, you would have to actually explain why you think this is wrong. Not just typing lots of text about free speech and insults.
Dear James,
“But the law has penalised the free expression of Pentecostals of their sincerely held, non-violent religious views!”
No. An individual was penalised for attempting to disseminate his views to a wider audience via the involvement of the media, which is, in the judgement, clearly the point on which he was found guilty. It’s the dissemination of the views that is the issue that has been dealt with by the courts, according to both Swedish and EU law.
Discussion of whether that was counter to free speech is another issue. In law he was guilty, whether the law is an ass in this case is what’s under discussion.
I find it a little disturbing that there seems to be a tacit class distinction where certain forms of verbal ‘gay bashing’ are deemed acceptable because they are held by persons or groups that are considered to have greater moral authority because they’re motivated by relgious concerns. A person’s motviation for their will to change/save/opress is irrelevant. They have no right to impose their will, surely?
Again, we come to the point, was it right for the courts to find the pastor guilty in law? Yes.
Is the specific law in question an infringement of the right to freedom of speech? Yes.
Is that infringement acceptable for the wider interests of society and the interests of a minority in particular? Yes. At this moment in time I feel that such a limitation on certain forms of expression and the attempt to disseminate them is acceptable. However, it is up to us as individuals to see to it that those laws are not abused in the service of repression. Is Åke Greens case one of these? I don’t think so. Yourself and Stefan and others do and none of us would consider disabusing the other of their beliefs, because that would be wrong and precisely what Åke Green wishes to do.
Dear Rob,
indeed we do disagree here on whether the law is an ass!
I think you will find there is plenty of evangelical “bashing” in the media in the West so I have no problem accepting that what is sauce for the goose should also be sauce for the gander. Homosexuals are not in a class of their own here.
Motivation (mens rea) is always an issue in criminal law. It lies at the heart of whether one is guilty or innocent of acts.
And how were Pentecostals trying to “impose their will”? Not by any violent acts but strenuous argument. I understand that is the distinction Stefan and I see as crucial.
As for whether Stefan and I wish to disabuse you of your beliefs, and whether you and Jonas wish to disabuse us of ours, isn’t that precisely the reason we are discussing this matter? If not, why are we bothering? I think you are wrong on a matter of fundamental importance to society. I sincerely wish to disabuse your of your error and I am disseminating that for all to read on the WWW!
Regards,
James.
This is a borderline case and the preacher was asking for trouble by taking his message outside his church, but the law really needs to be clarified in several areas.
Mr. Green’s message shows the worst of ignorance shared by conservative Christian preachers about homosexuality (I am a Christian, I’m not gay, and I don’t believe that homosexuality is a gateway to pedophilia or bestiality [including with goats]), but the essence of slander is, is someone likely to believe the slanderous accusation? Did anyone? If I wish to call you a mangy dog, you could easily prove that since you’re not a canine with a skin disorder, I am technically guilty of slander since my reference to you isn’t true, but if I did so insult you, I don’t think anyone would believe it: they’d just know I was only hurling an insult.
My gay friends aren’t always happy to hear this, but some people really do believe as a matter of conscience that homosexual activity isn’t a good idea at all. And a lot of those, I remind them, don’t hate you, they just read the Bible that way. So within a church, the right to such expression should be absolute. Out in public, a different standard would apply. If Mr. Green had carried his message into a gay bar, where it obviously would not be well recieved, an even more restrictive standard would apply since he would then be on their turf. This needs to be established, in each instance.
If we must fear the law to punish us when we engage in behavior that it proscribes, we should also be able to rely upon it to guide us in the behavior that the law asks of us . . .
Mike, making the legality of speech depend on the location of where it is uttered is an interesting idea but I don’t think that’s how the law should operate (and it doesn’t in the US or Sweden).
First off, let’s say that location is a valid context for deciding the legality of speech. In that case, I would argue that Green preaching to the choir (figuratively as well as literally) is more likely to incite violence towards gays than if hewere to go into a gay bar and preach his sermon there, where the only person likely to get a bloody nose would be he himself. Same would go for a strindent extreme right-winger: He is quite unlikely to find willing co-conspirators against Jews if he chooses to speechify in a synagogue.
But I don’t think the location of speech should matter — relgious speech should be as protected as any other speech, not just confined to Churches. What if a religion has no churches? How to decide when a religion is a legitimate religion? What about out-door masses? The freedom to proselytize? Internet broadcasts? Location-based legality is a bizarre place to draw the line, in my opinion.
I would be interested to find any doctor who thinks homosexual sex is a good idea!
In any event there is a line between telling you that what you are doing wrong and telling you that I hate you. The Christian way is hate the sin but love the sinner.
I dropped by to post this link which people might find interesting
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/jul/04072803.html
Regards,
James.
Sorry, James, but I must nominate your comment as one of the silliest of the season. Really now, why would a doctor have anything normative to say about sex acts between two men or two women?
My guess is that you are implying that sodomy is risky in a time of AIDS. I believe that is only in the case of unprotected sex, in which case I believe your doctors would be counseling safe sex practices. Lets also not forget that sodomy and oral sex are popular practices regardless of sexual preference.
Dear Stefan,
I was a bit surprised by your uncharacteristically unreflective response. There are many other health risks associated with sodomy than AIDS. Although a doctor might suggest ways to ameliorate the physical harm it can cause my point was that a doctor would have no reason based on physical health to recommend such practices.
What is normative to a doctor is health and such practices are antithetical to this. I was responding to Mike’s comment that “some people really do believe as a matter of conscience that homosexual activity isn’t a good idea at all” to indicate that there may be reasons other than religion to consider that sodomy is not a good idea!
Regards,
James.
James.
Define them. Define the possible inimical impact on helath that engaging in sodomy would bring about. You allude but do not specify. Specify.
What are the risks of sodomy when the parties involved are in a position where standard safe sex practices are not needed, ie. when both parties have no need of protection having been, lets say, found to be disease free. What ‘physical harm’, as you say, arises from the act.
You wrote:
“I would be interested to find any doctor who thinks homosexual sex is a good idea!”
Try asking a homosexual doctor.
Dear Rob,
even for your extreme case the omens are not good. Try here http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01B1
See, for instance, comments on Gay Bowel Syndrome and Anal Cancer.
I’m not terribly interested in pursuing this aspect of the discussion further. I merely wish to provide a prima facie rebuttal to Stefan’s allegation of silliness. That I have done.
A homosexual doctor may like and promote gay sex. It still isn’t medically healthy and such a doctor would be disingenuous to promote it on that basis.
James.
You’re citing the Family Research Council? You’re kidding right?
Would you be able to cite a source that has less of a vested interest.
Let’s travel down to the end of the page and see some book plugs:
Order: The Bible, The Church, and Homosexuality
Getting It Straight
2003 State Model Legislation: Policy that Strengthens the Family
Dark Obsession: The Tragedy and Threat of the Homosexual Lifestyle
I feel relatively secure in thinking that your source is hardly to be relied upon to supply a fair and unbiased opinion with regard to the question.
Who said I was unbiased? Are you? Are homosexual doctors? Are sites promoting gay sex unbiased?
The issue isn’t whether someone has a bias: we all do. Biases do not necessarily get in the way of truth. If one is biased to agree with something that is true no unfairness results.
The issue is whether homosexual sex is a good idea. The citations provided were neither from the Bible nor the Church. If you wish to try to ignore them by an ad hominem argument, that’s up to you. Others can read this and make their own minds up.
James.
James.
When questioning the article you refer to I was attempting to highlight that the bias leads to a skewed focus on the risks of anal intercourse as particular to homosexuals.
Anal intercourse is not specific to homosexual partners, heterosexuals also engage in anal intercourse. The risks associated with anal intercourse apply equally to both groups. So the question ‘Is homosexual sex safe’ is simply rhetorical and the evidence later given can be questioned as to it’s credibility; strictly speaking I’m not sure that can be seen as ad hominem.
You say potato…
As to bias, I would hope that any bias involved would be a rational one.
Dear Rob,
the question was whether homosexual sex “is a good idea”. If it is not safe then the answer from that perspective is no.
I agree the criticisms of anal intercourse apply regardless of the gender of the participants.
Regards,
James.
But surely James, if both groups practice anal intercourse then differentiating between them is pointless, homosexual sex is as good or bad an idea as heterosexual sex if the risks involved are the same.
If one then removes the differentiation between the two groups and poses the question: is sex a good idea…well you see my point. Perhaps one should be more specific: is sex a good idea considering the risks involved…or even: is anal sex a good idea considering the risks involved…further:is unprotected anal sex a good idea considering the risks involved? Surely that’s a decision that you, I or anyone else should make for themselves without interference by other parties in our right to self-determination.
Dear Rob,
I do not doubt that anal sex is, medically speaking, a bad idea for both homosexuals and heterosexuals! It’s just not what one normally means when referring to heterosexual sex and when discussing homosexual sex heterosexual intercourse is not an option.
I greatly appreciate the advice of those who know more than I do when making decisions. The advice of a doctor on the medical health risks of anal sex is no more “interference” than the advice of an accountant on how to fill in my tax form.
If I go against the “interference” of those advising against jumping off high cliffs this merely shows the folly of my insistence on “self-determination”.
Regards,
James.
Take your God’s kingdom
Where oh where is my utopia? Not the US, where stating the obvious — that Christian religious ceremonies have no place at the inauguration of a head of state — earns you ridicule. Not in Sweden, where hate speech far…
Green’s lawyer pointed to the contradiction between religious freedom
and freedom of speech on the one hand, and the rights of homosexuals
to be protected against discrimination on the other. A verdict of
guilty would violate the pastor’s right to preach about his beliefs,
the lawyer said. Soren Andersson, president of a Swedish federation
for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights, said religious
freedom is never a reason to offend people. “Therefore,” he told
journalists, “I cannot regard the sentence as an act of interference
with freedom of religion.”
Here, attorney Andersson is attempting to confuse a fundamental truth
proclaimed in Scripture; that the Gospel message by it’s nature will “offend”
those who reject it’s standards. Jesus Himself stated: “…and because of my
Word, they are offended.” (Matthew 13:21) The prosecution of Pastor Green
for “hate” crimes is actually a thinly veiled prosecution of the Bible. Pastor
Green never advocated any type of retribution against homosexuals. His agenda
as a Pentecostal preacher is one of salvation — not hatred. He only illustrated that society is in peril when immorality as defined in the Scripture is allowed to flourish. That is his duty — and his calling — as a Christian minister.
The prosecutor contends that Pastor Green reserves no right to “offend” people
with Scriptural references thereby judging the Bible as unfit for public use, be it
preaching, Bible study classes, seminary, etc. Furthermore, if the homosexual references
“offend” people, what of the numerous other references to social behaviors that the
the Bible describes as sin such as: “Do not be deceived brethren, for neither fornicators,
nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards,
nor revilers, nor extortionists, nor liars shall inherit the kingdom of God.” (Galatians 6:9,10) It would appear that the Prosecutor, by itemizing the above “offences” could
secure for himself a career representing those “offended.”
R Scott, you missed the point entirely. The only part of your and Åke Green’s message that is remotely of relevance to society is: Does it incite violence? It clearly doesn’t, even if it is spectacularly silly.
You should be welcome to express your ignorance to all comers-by, without fear of retribution, so that the rest of us have a better understanding of the range of opinions out there, and perhaps even engage you in a conversation that disabuses you of your prejudices.
Relevance is subjective. Please try to squeeze out of the restrictive parameters you have imposed upon yourself and others. As for the Scripture being “silly” – of course it is. “for the gospel is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” (1 Corinthians 1:18)
Do you also have a quote for those who think scripturalists are overly self-referential?
The irony of course is that we both agree the Åke Green verdict is a disgrace.
Actually, I do. How about “thinking themselves wise, they became fools.” Then there is the more edgy “in the last days there will be mockers.” My intent was not to come thumping my way into your site, but it was unavoidable. The Ake case can be mulled over by the best thinkers, but their inability to understand his world view reduces them to intellectual autism. “For the natural man (secular reasoning) is not able to understand the things of God, for they are spiritually discerned.”
Pastor Green’s clash with European culture was inevitable, and is merely a tiny blip on the radar, a warning of sorts of the invasion into Christian “air space” that is to soon follow. Hyperbole you say? The culture war that is fast brewing worldwide will culminate in the last great epic struggle of mankind. Since the first printing of the Humanist Manifesto (1933) the secularists agenda has become more organized and devious, chewing at the periphery of Biblical Christianity, ever sniffing and prodding, anxious to find a way to consume the core. This of course, is scripturally (there’s that word again) impossible. The apostate carrion of liberalized “Christianity” will be consumed by the secularists, but the healthy body of Christ will flourish — albeit with persecution of the type that Pastor Green is feeling, and far worse. Why do you suppose the Europeans exude such contempt for President Bush? The war? Because he’s a “cowboy?” I think not. It is because in the Presidential debate, when he was asked, “what philosopher had the most impact on his life” he answered without hesitation “Jesus Christ — because He changed my life.” You could almost hear the global gnashing of teeth, most notably from Europe where the new “enlightenment” is shrugging off the last vestiges of it’s Biblical past. Author David Limbaugh, in his book “persecution” chronicles thousands of incidents of harassment of Christians by organized well-funded groups whose attorneys will not rest until Christ is expunged from society. The weapon of choice has become the newly enacted hate-crime legislations. Finally, the humanists are able to breach the core; clubbing Church leaders themselves with their own Bibles, Bibles that delusional humanists contend are filled with “intolerance” and “hatred.” Pastor Green is hardly an anomaly. He is a sober preview of coming attractions.
I followed this case from England after learning of a Swedish Pastor who received death threats from within the Swedish Lutheran Church when he “came-out” as homosexual. It has been argued here that context matters: that Nazis sought to exterminate homosexuals but Pentecostalists have not sought to do this. It should be borne in mind however that Germany was a Christian country before, during and after the brief Nazi rule, and it is well documented that Christians denounced homosexuals resulting in their deportation to concentration camps (KZ). Interestingly, whilst paedophiles sent to the KZ were usually eventually released, homosexuals never were, unless they were judged “cured” when they would be sent to an almost certain death on the Eastern Front. Indeed, what we know about the treatment of homosexuals (by SS who themselves received a Christian moral education as children) in the KZ strongly suggests that is intrinsic to them and not chosen. German Christians did not seek to change this situation, although it was hardly a secret. There is also a problem where Christians talk about homosexuality as evil and their desire to eradicate evil. If you believe that homosexuality constitutes a lifestyle choice, such a desire may be discursively benign, but not if it is non-elective, where the meaning implies a desire to exterminate homosexuals, though this is not stated explicitly, though of course here, I conceed, context is relevant. Åke Green’s sermon could also indirectly incite hatred and hate crime against gays by stereotyping gays as paedophiles. In countries like Britain, anyone associated with paedophilia risks being assaulted, having their home fire-bombed, or even killed, though the latter is treated as murder. Of course, Swedes may be different. The problem we have is that, like the anti-Semitic Blood Libel, beliefs have a habit of evolving into hatred and justifying discrimination or an eliminationist agenda, such as sterilizing gypsies or the mentally handicapped, all of which went on until fairly recently in Sweden. This arose, I believe, because of false beliefs about these groups. Connoting homosexuals with disease can also lead to medical discrimination, such as refusal to test someone for cancer or treat a homosexual patient, as has already arisen in the English National Health Service.
Finally it should be pointed out, that on appeal, Åke Green had the case against him dismissed.
Regards,
Steve.
haha turned out that James was a nutter after all, thought it was quiet interesting up to his christian doctors-has-to-say-no crap. There might be some tiny crumbles of truth to what you’re saing, much like a doctor would have to say no to ever eating as single crisp on acount of it being to fatty.
The interesting part is why you bring it up such a horribly unimportant point and I know you’re gonna say that you’re only answering some previous post but you and I both know that its your “christian values” that made you wright that crap.
My God (haha) wont it be good when all the Ake Green’s of this country die out (of natural causes!) making this country go from the least religous country on earth to the first to throw religion out the door.