Stockholm, Sweden, Jul. 06 (LifesiteNews.com/CWN) - The Rev. Ake Green, the pastor of a Swedish Pentecostal church in Kalmar, Sweden, has been sentenced to one month in prison for inciting hatred against homosexuals. Green was prosecuted in January for "hate speech against homosexuals" for a sermon he preached last summer citing Biblical references to homosexuality.
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=30655
Same rule apparently applies to Canada.
Originally posted by pcaspianAre there any homosexuals in Sweden? How is that possible in the land of beautiful big buxom blonds?
Stockholm, Sweden, Jul. 06 (LifesiteNews.com/CWN) - The Rev. Ake Green, the pastor of a Swedish Pentecostal church in Kalmar, Sweden, has been sentenced to one month in prison for inciting hatred against homosexuals. Green was prosecuted in January for "hate speech against homosexuals" for a sermon he preached last summer citing Biblical references to hom ...[text shortened]... ://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=30655[/i]
Same rule apparently applies to Canada.
Originally posted by pcaspianIt appears that Sweden does not have the same degree
Stockholm, Sweden, Jul. 06 (LifesiteNews.com/CWN) - The Rev. Ake Green, the pastor of a Swedish Pentecostal church in Kalmar, Sweden, has been sentenced to one month in prison for inciting hatred against homosexuals. Green was prosecuted in January for "hate speech against homosexuals" for a sermon he preached last summer citing Biblical references to hom ...[text shortened]... ://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=30655[/i]
Same rule apparently applies to Canada.
of 'Free Speech' that Americans have; within the context
of the law of that country it appears that he broke it.
Are you questioning the validity of that law or the idea
that such a law should protect homosexuals in addition
to other identified groups of people?
Nemesio
Originally posted by nemesio
Are you questioning the validity of that law or the idea
that such a law should protect homosexuals in addition
to other identified groups of people?
It is a new law.
A law which prohibits preaching against the Biblical morality of homosexuality. Indeed that same freedom of speech, should it be applied to the UK (where this site is held) would imply that any negative criticisms of homosexual behaviour would become illegal.
Protection of a particular group of people from violence, or abuse is different from preaching against the morality of an action. As such I find such a law directly opposing the 'american' principle of freedom of speech. I see no reason why the Swedes do not insists on all criticisms of homosexuality in the Bible, to be removed. Perhaps they can join some socialist countries in even prohibiting the faith completely.
Originally posted by pcaspianI do not dispute that anyone should be permitted to
Originally posted by nemesio
[b]
Are you questioning the validity of that law or the idea
that such a law should protect homosexuals in addition
to other identified groups of people?
It is a new law.
A law which prohibits preaching against the Biblical morality of homosexuality. Indeed that same freedom of speech, should it be appl ...[text shortened]... ed. Perhaps they can join some socialist countries in even prohibiting the faith completely.
[/b]
criticize whatever they want. The question is does
that criticism 'incite' action?
Not knowing what was said, it is hard to judge this
case.
You didn't quite answer my question, though. Let's
take some 'Ayrian-Nation' churches, for example.
They preach that it is a sin to be black. Should this
be protected? What about if such churches incite
negative and discriminatory actions against such
people? Should it be illegal then?
Nemesio
Originally posted by pcaspianLocal Christian radio has been speaking out against this law, and warning that liberals might try to get the same legislation passed in this country. This is a case where I find myself agreeing with the Christian point of view. It is scary to see a government taking away the right to be critical. I get the feeling that the government of Sweden would take away the right to even think thoughts, if only they had the ability to do so.
... The Rev. Ake Green, the pastor of a Swedish Pentecostal church in Kalmar, Sweden, has been sentenced to one month in prison for inciting hatred against homosexuals...
Originally posted by nemesio
You didn't quite answer my question, though. Let's
take some 'Ayrian-Nation' churches, for example.
They preach that it is a sin to be black. Should this
be protected? What about if such churches incite
negative and discriminatory actions against such
people? Should it be illegal then?
Nemesio
Should a belief exist that people wearing yellow hats are sinners, this belief should not be prohibited. (Where the yellow hat people are not running the country). Should this person however suggest that physical harm be done to such individuals, yes then the law should be brought in.
A good example of Hate speach is 'One Settler, one bullet', a slogan chanted by the ANC at many an ANC rally. This is in reference to the murder of white farmers in S.Africa. The type of 'hate' speach seems to suggest that it is acceptable (even respected) to kill a white farmer. A substantial difference between e.g: Mohammed Ali's pseudo muslem view, that the white man is the devil, which albeit rather discriminating, a view which should not be moderated.
The preacher originally gave his "sermon" at his church to a disappointing crowd. At that point no one cared about what he said. The problem arose when he took out an ad in the newspaper and printed his vituperative, anti-homosexual sermon there. That is when he fell afoul of the Swedish law.
Swedish law prohibits hate speech against ethnic minorities. The law was recently expanded to include sexual orientation. So the question is not whether hate speech is illegal in Sweden, but whether the sermon, printed in a public newspaper, constitutes hate speech.
Sweden's national gay and lesbian organization in Stockholm, the RFSL, which supports Green's conviction, said, "Hatred and defamation is not to be accepted, just because it's based on religious beliefs or religious scriptures. You have some limits when it comes to the freedom of speech."
For a fuller account of the story (but still from a christian site), go to:
http://www.cbn.com/CBNNews/CWN/091004sweden.asp
Originally posted by pcaspianGee, I can't imagine why blacks in South Africa would ever engage in "hate speech" against wealthy, white farmers; I'm sure white people in SA never did anything to blacks!🙄
[b/]Originally posted by nemesio
You didn't quite answer my question, though. Let's
take some 'Ayrian-Nation' churches, for example.
They preach that it is a sin to be black. Should this
be protected? What about if suc ...[text shortened]... rather discriminating, a view which should not be moderated.
Originally posted by no1marauder
Gee, I can't imagine why blacks in South Africa would ever engage in "hate speech" against wealthy, white farmers; I'm sure white people in SA never did anything to blacks!🙄
Actually it started with a 300 year long war between 'the White settlers' (Cape Province), the Zulu nation (Natal), and the Banthu nation (Originally from the Borders of Cameroon/Nigeria), which eventually culminated into a war won by the settlers.
We know the Zulu nation, under Shaka Zulu killed all who refused to be under their rule or be their slaves. (I can see why, afterall when the queen died, they had all their bones broken and burried alive). We know the Banthu nation had a similar expansion policy whereby Banthu men could defeat and take woman of other tribes, but Banthu women were not allowed to take man from another tribes. The settlers met the Banthu 300KM's north of Cape Town on the settlers 'trek' north and the Banthu's explansion south.
Ofcourse this elementary history lesson is nothing to do with the discussion in hand (something we know no1 seldom adheres to), merely to give an overview of S.A history. Have to say I do know an 80 year old man that was executed at gunpoint infront of his wife (for no reason other than being a 'settler'😉, but ofcourse I really don't expect you to have much understanding regarding the matter. Perhaps the rape of a 6 month old baby will strike a more significant cord, but alas, perhaps you think this black folklore of curing HIV with virginal intercourse is all par for the course.
With you... I never know.
back to the topic at hand..
Swedish law prohibits hate speech against ethnic minorities. The law was recently expanded to include sexual orientation. So the question is not whether hate speech is illegal in Sweden, but whether the sermon, printed in a public newspaper, constitutes hate speech.
[/b]
Not quite, the evidence against Pastor Green was a recording from his service. As stated by the prosecution :
the prosecutor in the case, Kjell Yngvesson, justifies the arrest of Green: "One may have whatever religion one wishes, but this is an attack on all fronts against homosexuals. Collecting Bible citations on this topic as he (Green) does makes this hate speech."
According to the prosecution, the Bible itself is not an agent for Hate speach, but a collection of Biblical scriptures condemning homosexuality would be. That makes little sense and essentially prevents any sermon that condemns homosexuality.
I just typed out a long response to this issue, but before I could post it the anonymous proxy that I use to access this site went down and my message was lost. I'll summarize my main points here, and you can infer the incisive and vitriolic details of the original.
1. RWillis is a member of the Thought Police if he supports governmental obstruction of religion sharing its traditional views with the public at large, regardless of what those views are. Answer honestly, do you really think it should be illegal for Christians to hold anti-abortion rallies?
2. Economics are sufficient to correct this issue. If people don't want to read sermons about gays in their newspapers, they can simply stop buying papers that accept such advertising money and start buying papers that don't.
3. I agree with pcaspian (EDIT: sorry, it's Paul Dirac I agree with on this point. I though pcaspian said it.) insofar as he claims that governmental stifling of communication of ideas is tantamount to governmental stifling of having ideas, and in turn that itself is tantamount to the government prohibiting thinking. I would not want to live under a government that prohibits me from thinking.
In summary, I find that hate speech laws of any sort are bogus and indicative of an otherwise just government overstepping its boundaries. I think hate speech is unproductive and undesirable, but I think economical and societal pressures are sufficient to mitigate the problem. Not every societal malady should immediately be seen as being under a just government's jurisdiction.
Dr. S
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI think that you are mistaken with your analysis. The situation is analogous to the one where someone is prohibited from telling dirty jokes around female co-workers on the job. It is because they are creating a hostile environment. The female worker should be able to come to work and not be subjected to such a situation. But nobody has made dirty jokes illegal. They are merely restricting the avenues in which dirty jokes can be told.
I just typed out a long response to this issue, but before I could post it the anonymous proxy that I use to access this site went down and my message was lost. I'll summarize my main points here, and you can infer the incisive and vitriolic details of the original.
1. RWillis is a member of the Thought Police if he supports governmental obstru ...[text shortened]... tal malady should immediately be seen as being under a just government's jurisdiction.
Dr. S
The situation can be extrapolated to society at large. When a preacher puts a sermon in a general newspaper which calls gays a "cancer upon society" amongst other things, he is creating a hostile environment. Should the KKK be able to place an ad in the daily paper which says similar things about blacks? I would think not. Gays should expect to be able to live their daily lives free from such harassment and intimidation.
But the important point is that it should not be illegal for a preacher to give a sermon attacking gays in his own church, or print that sermon in his church newsletter. This is not creating a hostile environment because it can be reasonably expected that gays will not belong to a church which despises them. A gay person would not casually come into contact with such a sermon, but would have to go out of his way to find it. So a preacher is exercising his right to free speech in this manner. But when he prints his sermon in a general newspaper, or directs it toward avenues in which gays might be generally expected to participate, then he is creating a hostile environment. A gay person has a right not to be subjected to such harassment, which would put reasonable limitations upon the preacher's right to free speech.
It becomes a balancing act at that point between a preacher's right to give anti-gay sermons and a gay person's right to not be subjected to a hostile environment. The only reasonable question that I can see is not "if" you should draw that line, but rather "where" you should draw it.
I am surprised nobody yet raised the question that is realy at stake here: which "freedom" is valued higher in society, freedom of speech or freedom of religion?
Every western country has a constitution in which is stated that every individual is considered equal. This eaquality can only be achieved when the population is guarenteed a number of freedoms, examples are: freedom of speech, press, religion et cetera.
When somebody uses his/her freedom of speech to undermine sombody elses freedom of religion, that is considered illegal. Simply because one freedom is not of higher value then another.
If the Swedish priest undermined the equal position of homosexuals in Swedish society by his printed sermon he denied this part of society there equality. Freedom of speech or religion does not give one individual in any (western) society the right to denie another individual his or her right to be treated as equals. Denying another individuals rights and freedoms is called discrimination, which is by law illegal.
Originally posted by rwingettI'm not sure I believe that an editorial or advertisement of any sort can be said to necessarily create a hostile environment. That would require the cooperation of readers to act hostilely in response to reading that gays are a "cancer on society" by, for example, being inspired to throw eggs at their gay neighbor's house. But, there are already laws in place to deal with hostile actions.
The situation can be extrapolated to society at large. When a preacher puts a sermon in a general newspaper which calls gays a "cancer upon society" amongst other things, he is creating a hostile environment.
Now, the choice of language that this preacher used supports your case. If he had said "God commands you to kill homosexuals," I would say that this itself is a hostile action, encouraging people to commit crimes, and should be illegal just like throwing the eggs. Since he said "cancer," it's a not a stretch to argue that he meant a cancer to be eliminated. While it's a non-sequitur, one could argue that readers would interpret this as a physical elimination.
Question: you say newspapers should not print material that causes a hostile environment for a group of people. Would you extend this prohibition to publishing in general? Should bookstores not sell copies of the Bible, since people may buy them, read the passages condemning homosexuals, and then potentially act upon that inspiration? If you think Bibles should be allowed to be sold, but not newspapers with anti-gay messages, what distinguishes the two? I don't think your argument has addressed this yet.
And one clarification question. By hostile environment, is your primary concern that gays should not have to read the hate speech against them, or that non-gays will act on the hateful message? The reason for my confusion is that you say a preacher should be able preach to his congregation, which itself could result in a hostile environment outside of the church after services are over, if by hostile environment, you mean people acting under inspiration of the hate speech.
Dr. S