Welcome to the real 1984

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Quote:

A Swedish court has sentenced Ake Green, a pastor belongiA Swedish court has sentenced Ake Green, a pastor belonging to the Pentecostal movement, to a month in prison, under a law against incitement, after he was found guilty of having offended homosexuals in a sermon, according to Ecumenical News International.



Green had described homosexuality as "abnormal, a horrible cancerous tumor in the body of society" in a 2003 sermon.



Soren Andersson, the president of the Swedish Federation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender rights, said on hearing Green's jail sentence that religious freedom could never be used as a reason to offend people.



I think it would have been more authentic if they had just called the jail a reeducation center.



So much for free speech in Sweden.



Nick
«1345

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 81
    kneelbeforezodkneelbeforezod Posts: 1,120member
    Free speech is protected in Sweden except in cases involving hate speech against groups because of race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, religious faith or sexual orientation. I'm not 100% certain, but the Swedes may have enacted this by constitutional amendment (there was some press about it last year).



    I guess if you don't like their laws you could always move to Sweden, take Swedish citizenship, run for public office and campaign for another constitutional amendment so bigots could hide behind God when they wanted to go fag bashing.
  • Reply 2 of 81
    You're actually standing up for someone's right to call homosexuality 'a cancerous tumour in the body of society'.



    How, um, progressive of you.
  • Reply 3 of 81
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Perpetual war (WOT)

    Police state with government observation of anything (USA Patriot Act)

    Doublespeak (Bush administration)

    Totalitarianism (Imprisonment without due process of anyone suspected of "terrorism"-- until recently)



    The adjective "real" gets a lot of unearned mileage in your posts.
  • Reply 4 of 81
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,454member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah

    You're actually standing up for someone's right to call homosexuality 'a cancerous tumour in the body of society'.



    How, um, progressive of you.




    Actually it is very progressive to believe that free speech should be given to all no matter what their view. It is also very conservative in terms of strictly reading the Constitution of the United States.



    If the government can't tell you how to live, whysuld they tell you what to think or say?



    Nick
  • Reply 5 of 81
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,454member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ShawnJ

    Perpetual war (WOT)

    Police state with government observation of anything (USA Patriot Act)

    Doublespeak (Bush administration)

    Totalitarianism (Imprisonment without due process of anyone suspected of "terrorism"-- until recently)



    The adjective "real" gets a lot of unearned mileage in your posts.




    Sadly, you don't seem to understand the difference between two different views about an act, and the speech related to it.



    We can debate if the U.S is a police state. We can argue phrases, intent and actions. However you don't utter the words "police state" and end up in jail for six months because of what you have said.



    Nick
  • Reply 6 of 81
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    If swedish law in this area is anywhere close to danish (and they usually are when it comes to stuff like this) this is the case.



    Freedom of speech is guranteed. Noone can prohibit you from saying what you want, even hatefilled speech.



    But if your speech is an invitation to do harm to specific groups or individuals then you can be charged subsequently for that. You can call people all kind of shit as long as there isn´t a direct threat in what you say.



    If the priest decided to make a interview with a newspaper while in jail noone could stop him from doing it and noone could stop the interview even if he continued to say what he was judged for. He could later on recieve another sentence like the first but noone could stop him from what he is saying.
  • Reply 7 of 81
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    Sadly, you don't seem to understand the difference between two different views about an act, and the speech related to it.





    See me grasping? I'm having a *really* hard time understanding your trumpspeak-- like how this is the *real* 1984 (presumably to the exclusion of "other" parallels to Orwell's book like the ones I listed). The Swedish constitutional amendment is a form of language control-- but not in the same spirit of the book.
  • Reply 8 of 81
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    oops
  • Reply 9 of 81
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,454member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ShawnJ

    See me grasping? I'm having a *really* hard time understanding your trumpspeak-- like how this is the *real* 1984 (presumably to the exclusion of "other" parallels to Orwell's book like the ones I listed). The Swedish constitutional amendment is a form of language control-- but not in the same spirit of the book.



    "Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane," O'Brien shrieked. "You must love Big Brother. It is not enough to obey him .... Room 101!"



    1984 is not about word play. It is about thought control. He was not imprisoned because of what he did. He was imprisoned because of what he thought. He wasn't jailed because he made a threat, but rather because offended someone.



    Regardless of what you think about the examples you cited. You have not been tossed into a cell for not loving Bush. You've not been tossed in a cell for criticizing Bush. Michael Moore is grossing millions off his movie about Bush with no fear of harm. Quite the opposite. He even has to make up bogey monsters to conjure up publicity.



    Nick
  • Reply 10 of 81
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    [

    1984 is not about word play. It is about thought control.



    Nick [/B]



    The thread is entitled "welcome to "the real 1984". The priest was jailed for what he SAID, publicly airing incitement to possible violence against fellow citizens. He was not jailed for what he thought.



  • Reply 11 of 81
    auroraaurora Posts: 1,142member
    Free Speech is just that, you either have it or you dont. Govt does want to control us , what we read, and what we think. Govt should get the hell out of our lives. this is a form of control any way you look at it.
  • Reply 12 of 81
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Right... those Swedes can read minds.
  • Reply 13 of 81
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,454member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sammi jo

    The thread is entitled "welcome to "the real 1984". The priest was jailed for what he SAID, publicly airing incitement to possible violence against fellow citizens. He was not jailed for what he thought.







    The quote and the article said it was for offending, not for threatening or inciting violence.



    If you have any information to the contrary, you are welcome to post it.



    Nick
  • Reply 14 of 81
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    Liberty of free speech is absolute in US, but limited in most countrie of europe, where hate speech is forbidden.



    this difference find it's roots in post WW2. Great minds and politicians of this time, tried to find way to avoid, fascism to come back in europe. That's why they created this laws.



    Trumptman : your comparison with 1984 is non sense. The swedish law deals with public speech, and not private one. It has nothing to do with reading thoughts.
  • Reply 15 of 81
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    The quote and the article said it was for offending, not for threatening or inciting violence.



    If you have any information to the contrary, you are welcome to post it.



    Nick




    Have you never heard of the popular sport called "gay bashing"? Most of the perps are microcephalic morons who get their "reasons and justifications" for their loutishness from the public airing of hatred from an authority figure. And yes, priests , even in the age of science and reason still have authority and influence people, in both a positive and negative way. If priests tell unquestioning believers that "God hates fags", and similar, then there will always be someone in the congregation that will take it upon himself to act upon "God's will", and violence is often the method of persuasion because morons aren't too skilled with words and reason.



    But...I have to add....I think it was inappropriate for Sweden to jail him on account of what he said....that is government intrusion on someone's freedom of expression, no matter how evil and irresponsible. And government should have business in religious expression too (but this is not the USA). The just punishment for this hateful man is for his church to fire him on the spot, or perhaps to take some basic lessons in the teachings of his "savior" Jesus Christ, who, as far as I know, was not someone who evangelized the spewing of hatred.
  • Reply 16 of 81
    kneelbeforezodkneelbeforezod Posts: 1,120member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    The quote and the article said it was for offending, not for threatening or inciting violence.





    Um, go back to your original post...



    Quote:

    Swedish court has sentenced Ake Green, a pastor belonging to the Pentecostal movement, to a month in prison, under a law against incitement [emphasis added]



    I can't find any additional information on the case, but there's probably more to it than three or four paragraphs.



    Maybe you are right. Maybe the court made a mistake. Maybe all he did was say that homosexualiy is, in his opinion and in his interpretation of what he believes to be God's opinion, a bad thing. Maybe he didn't intend for anyone listening to him to feel like performing criminal acts against homosexuals might be condoned or encouraged by God.



    Or maybe the court judged correctly. Maybe his statements actually were intended to incite criminal acts? If an assault or other violent act were to have been perpetrated as a result of his words and encouragement, should he be blameless?
  • Reply 17 of 81
    kneelbeforezodkneelbeforezod Posts: 1,120member
    Okay...found more info here:



    http://www.stefangeens.com/000407.html





    And there is a transcript (in Swedish...anyone care to provide a rough translation? Anders, how's your Swedish?) of the ruling here:



    http://dagen.se/pdf/Dom00.pdf





    Based on the interpretation of the case provided in the Blog entry at stefangeens.com, it would appear that Green was in fact sentanced for insulting / offending rather than for actually inciting / encouraging violence or criminal acts. If this interpretation is accurate, I would agree that this the case represents an instance where the court making an error in judgement.



    However, the court might not just be judging the case on whether Green actually said "go out and beat up a fag today". Some of the comments in the stefangeens.com Blog appear to indicate that the ruling found there to be a combative aspect to Green's polemic. The Swedish word from the ruling that is translated into English as 'insult' apparently has other meanings in other contexts. If the court felt that Green was trying to incite violence without actually saying "I want you to commit a crime" then the judgement would seem to be within the intent of the law.
  • Reply 18 of 81
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman



    So much for free speech in Sweden.



    Nick [/B]



    So much for free speech in America:



    http://www.wvgazette.com/section/News/2004070734?pt=10

    (registration required, so here's the article). This kind of stuff are everyday occurrences in George Oilwell's America:



    Quote:

    FEMA worker ordered home

    Woman, husband wore T-shirts with anti-Bush logo at July Fourth rally



    By Paul J. Nyden

    Staff Writer



    A worker with the Federal Emergency Management Agency who wore an anti-Bush T-shirt at the president?s July Fourth rally in Charleston has been sent home to Texas.



    Nicole Rank, who was working for FEMA in West Virginia, and her husband, Jeff, were removed from the Capitol grounds in handcuffs shortly before Bush?s speech. The pair wore T-shirts with the message ?Love America, Hate Bush.?



    The Ranks were ticketed for trespassing and released. They have been given summonses to appear in court, Charleston Police Lt. C.A. Vincent said Wednesday.



    FEMA spokesman Ross Fredenburg would not say Wednesday whether Nicole Rank had been fired.



    ?All we can say is that our federal coordinating officer, Lou Botta, sent Nicole home,? he said. ?We cannot comment further, to protect her privacy. Federal privacy laws prevent us from saying anything.?



    Rank was doing environmental work for FEMA, Fredenburg said. ?Nicole was deployed here after the Memorial Day flooding. I knew her personally ... We are reservists and work for intermittent periods of time.?



    Fredenburg said Jeff Rank did not work for FEMA. He would not say where in Texas the Ranks live.



    On Sunday, Charleston Police Sgt. R.E. Parsons said Nicole and Jeff Rank were in a no-trespassing area and refused to leave.



    The White House coordinated the president?s visit to the state Capitol. Organizers described it as a presidential visit, not a political rally. State and federal funds were used to pay for the presidential visit.



    Dozens of people who attended Sunday?s event wore pro-Bush T-shirts and Bush-Cheney campaign buttons, some of which were sold on the Capitol grounds outside the security screening stations.



    U.S. Secret Service officers coordinated security workers, including West Virginia State Police, state park officers and Capitol security officers.



    Those who attended Bush?s speech were required to have tickets that were distributed by various employers in the area and by the office of Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va.



    Those who applied for tickets were required to supply their names, addresses, birth dates, birthplaces and Social Security numbers.



    A two-page document given to ticket holders said they were prohibited from bringing certain items to the event, including: weapons, video-recording equipment, food, beverages, umbrellas, signs and banners. T-shirts, political buttons and lapel pins were not on the list of prohibited items.



    Robert Bastress, a West Virginia University law professor who specializes in civil liberties, questions whether people like the Ranks can be legally prohibited from wearing anti-Bush shirts or buttons.



    ?Obviously, you have a right to engage in nondisruptive protest,? he said. ?If you were legally there, you cannot be asked to leave because of whatever message is on a button or a T-shirt or a hat.?



    He said key questions are ?whether the [Bush speech] was a public forum, whether you were lawfully there and what was the manner in which you were engaging in your expression.?



    Event organizers could prohibit signs, designating a place where people could carry signs. ?But they can?t make those decisions based on what the content of any sign says.?



    Bastress also said it makes no difference whether Sunday?s event was an official presidential visit or a political rally.



    ?That area was open to anybody who had a ticket,? he said. ?Once you were lawfully in there, you were entitled to even-handed treatment.?



  • Reply 19 of 81
    trick falltrick fall Posts: 1,271member
    I gotta go with Trumptman on this one. That Reverend sounds like a jack ass, but he should still have the right to say what he wants. One thing you gotta love about America, no one in my opinion has a bill of rights that comes close to ours.
  • Reply 20 of 81
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Laws against "fighting words" that have the potential to result in violence, and even laws against hate speech (because they're a form of libel/defamation), are not prohibited by the First Amendment in the US. I don't think people are often convicted of such offenses, but the Supreme Court has said that those kinds of laws are not unconstitutional.
Sign In or Register to comment.