Sweden criticises Ireland

RonMexico

A Swedish MP says he has lodged a complaint with the European Commission over Ireland's new blasphemy law.

Karl Sigfrid, a conservative member of the Swedish Parliament, says he is concerned that Swedish citizens travelling in Ireland 'could be punished for merely expressing a view on a religion or religious symbol'.

Mr Sigfrid said it was bad legislation that could spread to other EU member states.

Writing in the EU Observer, the Swedish MP said the new law was inconsistent with human rights laws under existing EU treaties.

He said that defining blasphemy as speech that offends a substantial number of religious followers gives the churches the power to gradually expand the application of the law.

Mr Sigfrid said: 'A not too far-fetched guess is that statements threatening the power of religious leaders will awaken the strongest reactions and therefore be considered the most offensive ones, resulting in punishment by the state.'

He also said the new law contravened the European Convention on Human Rights.


Hopefully the Swedes will help banish this ridiculous law, and I thought they were only good for the pron :pac:

_blank_

About god-damn time

phasers

Oh yeah?

well IKEA sucks

andrew

Sheesh, it's not as if they ever intend to enforce this law you know. The chances of anyone being prosecuted are slim to none, it's just some law they had to throw on the books as a legal formality.

Long Onion

Mohammad, Jesus and Buddha walk into a bar ....

AnonoBoy

Good for Sweden.

Next!

major bill

This law is a load of sh1t anyway talking about getting arrested for slagging someones invicible friend!!!!

Lux23

andrew wrote: »

Sheesh, it's not as if they ever intend to enforce this law you know. The chances of anyone being prosecuted are slim to none, it's just some law they had to throw on the books as a legal formality.

Then why waste money introducing it? Why does it need to be on the books as a legal formality?

Jumpy

Lux23 wrote: »

Then why waste money introducing it? Why does it need to be on the books as a legal formality?

So the mohammed cartoon issue doesnt happen over here. Its just to stop people getting Ireland into ****e with the Muslim hardcores. It prevents people doing it just to get a rise.

LadyJ

Lux23 wrote: »

Then why waste money introducing it? Why does it need to be on the books as a legal formality?

Isn't it illegal to tape stuff off the tv/radio? That's never really enforced either.

ShooterSF

Jumpy wrote: »

So the mohammed cartoon issue doesnt happen over here. Its just to stop people getting Ireland into ****e with the Muslim hardcores. It prevents people doing it just to get a rise.

Why shouldn't the mohammed cartoon thing happen? It's the fundamentalists that should be punished if anything happens.

RonMexico

I think we should invite Sweden to test the validity of this law by sending over two of their finest underwear models to cavort in front of the Holy Tree Stump in Rathkeale.

Riskymove

so one swedism MP criticised one law we are bringing in?...therefore "sweden criticises ireland"......do you work for the indo?

Jumpy

ShooterSF wrote: »

Why shouldn't the mohammed cartoon thing happen? It's the fundamentalists that should be punished if anything happens.

Back to the real world now... There are crazy people on the planet that take things more seriously than us. Its easier to prevent the antagonists than it is to stop the reaction.

ShooterSF

Jumpy wrote: »

Back to the real world now... There are crazy people on the planet that take things more seriously than us. Its easier to prevent the antagonists than it is to stop the reaction.

So if I threaten to stab anyone that looks at me should a law be brought in to stop people looking at me "in case"?

sbsquarepants

There's no such thing as a formality law. There's too much of this protecting peoples beliefs **** going on in the world today, if your religion is so shaky it can't withstand a few questions or disparaging remarks then quite obviously it is (like all religion in my humble opinion) a pile of ****e. However to bring this to it's logical conclusion, to speak (good or bad) about any religion is by definition blasphemous to someone elses, so maybe this law is a good thing after all. No more talk about religion? It's almost like an answered prayer!!:D

Mr.Obvious

hahaha.

He should look at his own country.

Sweden cares less about freedom than Ireland.

Manach

Considering we lack the basics of the US First amendment on Freedom of speech, it is a bit rich for critics of this law to carp when we live in such a PC society.

confused-dazed

RonMexico wrote: »

A Swedish MP says he has lodged a complaint with the European Commission over Ireland's new blasphemy law.

Karl Sigfrid, a conservative member of the Swedish Parliament, says he is concerned that Swedish citizens travelling in Ireland 'could be punished for merely expressing a view on a religion or religious symbol'.

Mr Sigfrid said it was bad legislation that could spread to other EU member states.

Writing in the EU Observer, the Swedish MP said the new law was inconsistent with human rights laws under existing EU treaties.

He said that defining blasphemy as speech that offends a substantial number of religious followers gives the churches the power to gradually expand the application of the law.

Mr Sigfrid said: 'A not too far-fetched guess is that statements threatening the power of religious leaders will awaken the strongest reactions and therefore be considered the most offensive ones, resulting in punishment by the state.'

He also said the new law contravened the European Convention on Human Rights.


Hopefully the Swedes will help banish this ridiculous law, and I thought they were only good for the pron :pac:

fair play to the swedes. why the **** should we change our laws to suit other religions. this is worse than the other ****e that was going around. the jist of it was that the muslims wanted the statue of mary taken down from the taxi rank in the middle of o'connell street because it offended their religious beliefs. bollox to that i say. you dont see the governments in the muslim world changing their laws to suit us. e.g. allowing kissing in public, holding hands with someone other than your partner ,wearing certain types of clothes. jasus if your caught doing any of the fore mentioned your locked up and proabably flogged. yet we're expected to change our laws to suit these.
to those that want these stupid changes in. **** off and get a life. i'm irish and proud of it.

Jumpy

ShooterSF wrote: »

So if I threaten to stab anyone that looks at me should a law be brought in to stop people looking at me "in case"?

If there was 100 million of you doing that, then yes.

Cookie_Monster

Writing in the EU Observer, the Swedish MP said the new law was inconsistent with human rights laws under existing EU treaties.

So because of this we'll probably get repeated fined by the EU for having a stupid law but the Gov will not remove it "because we need it"

Fair play to the guy too, none of the Opposition over here had the balls to do anything about it!

wes

confused-dazed wrote: »

fair play to the swedes. why the **** should we change our laws to suit other religions. this is worse than the other ****e that was going around. the jist of it was that the muslims wanted the statue of mary taken down from the taxi rank in the middle of o'connell street because it offended their religious beliefs. bollox to that i say. you dont see the governments in the muslim world changing their laws to suit us. e.g. allowing kissing in public, holding hands with someone other than your partner ,wearing certain types of clothes. jasus if your caught doing any of the fore mentioned your locked up and proabably flogged. yet we're expected to change our laws to suit these.
to those that want these stupid changes in. **** off and get a life. i'm irish and proud of it.

Any proof tha that the law was changed for the sake of Muslims? I am personally aware of no such reasoning. I take it you have some evidence to back up you assertion, right? You aren't just making stuff up, to excuse our piss poor government coming up with a silly law and have just decided to blame someone else instead? Can't possibly be that!

sbsquarepants

Jumpy wrote: »

If there was 100 million of you doing that, then yes.

Eh, NO! That's just stupid

Long Onion

I worked in a venue in Dublin and we had a band called Cradle of Filth playing there for a couple of nights. On the merchandising stand they had T-Shirts with a crucified Nun on the front and, in bold letters, the immortal words "Jesus is a cnut"

How does it leave them?

On an aside, the sound engineers cadged two and wore them the following week at a born again christian fundraiser:D

Also, we went down to the dressing room after the gig to see if Cradle of filth had trashed the place - It was immaculate, filled with Pantene products and mineral water - ROCK N ROLL!!!!

Nate--IRL--

Have any of you read the law? The blasphmey part of it was a Red-herring. The Law was brought in to get sedition on the statute books.

Nate

sbsquarepants

Let's call a spade a spade, there's not much you can do or say that doesn't offend certain religious groups, so instead of repeatedly bending over ackward to appease them, surely the time has come to say "f*ck this, you're too easily offended, now get your head out of your arse and your mindset out of the 13th century and see the world for what it is today" I for one am sick to the back teeth of these idiots and even more sick of the spineless politicians who haven't got the bottle to tell them to put up and shut up or f*ck off back to where they're more comfortable, but this is how we live and we intend to stay this way, with or without you.

bleg

Title should read: "Swedish MP criticises Irish blasphemy law."

Euro_Kraut

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Fair play to the guy too, none of the Opposition over here had the balls to do anything about it!

True. Its sad that it takes a Swedish politican to stand up to this nonsense on our behalf.

MikeC101

bleg wrote: »

Title should read: "Swedish MP criticises Irish blasphemy law."

I'd prefer something like "Northlanders leader to Ireland: We will destroy your puny laws!"

Or something equally balanced

Dr. Baltar

Personally I would welcome our new Swedish overlords.

donmeister

Sweden seems so much cooler than Ireland






The weather,that is..........

Biggins

Jumpy wrote: »

Back to the real world now... There are crazy people on the planet that take things more seriously than us. Its easier to prevent the antagonists than it is to stop the reaction.

Apparently its easier too to bring in a law that can effect all instead of just selecting an individual who has broken the law already and using already established laws on the books!

While I can understand preventative measures in the form of legal statues, it seems we are now too quick to pander to someone we might "offend" so lets make a law so that its wrong!

Next thing you know, we will be going the Italy route.
(See:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/8197639.stm)

I've had enough! Personally, I say "Thank you Sweden".
People will be afraid to open their gobs soon at this rate. Maybe thats really what 'they' want!

professore

The law was not brought in, it already was there, it requires a constitutional change to change it which requires a referendum.

confused-dazed

wes wrote: »

Any proof tha that the law was changed for the sake of Muslims? I am personally aware of no such reasoning. I take it you have some evidence to back up you assertion, right? You aren't just making stuff up, to excuse our piss poor government coming up with a silly law and have just decided to blame someone else instead? Can't possibly be that!

what i'm saying here is that if you go to any muslim country you abide by their laws. they dont change their laws to suit other religions so why should we change ours to suit them and that goes for any law in any country. if i go to dubai i'm not governend by irish law even though i'm an irish citizen i'm goverend by their laws some of which i have already stated .the statue thing did arise amongst the foreign taxi drivers but got nowhere.

Biggins

professore wrote: »

...it requires a constitutional change to change it which requires a referendum.

I look forwards to voting "No" then.
(IF we get that chance and IF they don't ignore that vote too!)
I'm sadly growing accustomed to voting "No" against this government.
It's not the way I want it to be but they leave me no choice again and again.

SoWatchaWant

professore wrote: »

The law was not brought in, it already was there, it requires a constitutional change to change it which requires a referendum.

THANK YOU.

All this ado about nothing really. We just haven't turfed out the law yet. But everyone goes mad, thinking we just brought it in now in a giant backwards leap.

astrofool

Government: Should Ireland reject the Lisbon treaty?
Biggins: "No"
Government: Should Ireland keep blasphemy as a crime on the Irish constitution?
Biggins: "No"
Government: Should Biggins be allowed to spout sh*te on forums?
Biggins: "No"

MikeC101

SoWatchaWant wrote: »

THANK YOU.

All this ado about nothing really. We just haven't turfed out the law yet. But everyone goes mad, thinking we just brought it in now in a giant backwards leap.

I don't believe the law was "already there". There was never a law on the books in regards to blasphemy.

My understanding was that it was provided for in the constitution - Article 40 “The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent material is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.”

But there has never been a law on the books under which it could be punished. Didn't the Supreme Court decide blasphemy couldn't be punished as it wasn't well enough defined?

The Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution said that we should amend Article 40 and remove all references to sedition and blasphemy, and redraft it along the lines of article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which deals with freedom of expression.

So Dermot Ahern ignored the recommendation and brought in this law, that nobody appears to want, under the guise that we "need one" under the constitution. Though we've survived without one until now.

Biggins

astrofool wrote: »

Government: Should Ireland reject the Lisbon treaty?
Biggins: "No"
Government: Should Ireland keep blasphemy as a crime on the Irish constitution?
Biggins: "No"
Government: Should Biggins be allowed to spout sh*te on forums?
Biggins: "No"

Your out of luck then!

By the way, I've no present objection to the Lisbon Treaty as it might be soon.
However I voted "No" the last time partly due to the fact that the Gov' screwed the whole process up and didn't do it right the first time around!

orourkeda

donmeister wrote: »

Sweden seems so much cooler than Ireland






The weather,that is..........

In more ways than one.

Euro_Kraut

Biggins wrote: »

However I voted "No" the last time partly due to the fact that the Gov' screwed the whole process up and didn't do it right the first time around!

That'll teach FG and Labour and the 26 other states of Europe!!

Cookie_Monster

professore wrote: »

The law was not brought in, it already was there, it requires a constitutional change to change it which requires a referendum.

No it wasn't, a similar but different law was in place. The new criminal justice act did not contain a replacememnt yet made the old one redundant. So a new one was created to replace it.

Long Onion

Look, if the damn DeValera guide to dancin' at the cross roads says we need the law - fine. Just make sure that you prescribe an equally pointless and silly punishment - like shaving fish.

Pete4779

Long Onion wrote: »

I worked in a venue in Dublin and we had a band called Cradle of Filth playing there for a couple of nights. On the merchandising stand they had T-Shirts with a crucified Nun on the front and, in bold letters, the immortal words "Jesus is a cnut"

How does it leave them?

They have only offended christians so it's no problem.

Sulmac

Why not criticise the other European countries that have blasphemy laws as well?

I'm completely against the law, but why does he have to single out Ireland when countries like Austria, Germany, the Netherlands and, closer to home (for him), Denmark and Finland have similar laws? Ireland doesn't enforce the law, but Finland sent someone to prison in May just past for blasphemy against Islam! :eek:

Criticism where it's due, please.

Long Onion

Sulmac wrote: »

Criticism where it's jew, please.

Racist

Biggins

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

That'll teach FG and Labour and the 26 other states of Europe!!

FG and Labour are states? :eek:



Back on topic: Why has THIS law come up for revision anyway to be honest?
Surely there is more laws out there that need to be revised, that are more important and probably more needed on a daily basis than another additional farce action and subsequent law by our government?

I mean jeasus, for simple example: fathers rights and the laws pertaining to them needed to be updated a long time ago - but no!
We wasted good legal time, committees and elected representative time on something that supposedly (according to some) might never be used in the first place!
...AND THEN the government crys over money being wasted!!!

They are a fcuking joke!

wes

confused-dazed wrote: »

what i'm saying here is that if you go to any muslim country you abide by their laws. they dont change their laws to suit other religions so why should we change ours to suit them and that goes for any law in any country. if i go to dubai i'm not governend by irish law even though i'm an irish citizen i'm goverend by their laws some of which i have already stated .the statue thing did arise amongst the foreign taxi drivers but got nowhere.

Who said the laws were changed for Muslims in the first place? Seriously, you seem to be complaining about something that didn't happen. You just assume that the law was done on behalf of Muslims. Is there a shred of proof of this or anything?

As for the Taxi thing (assuming its true), if these guys are citizen's they have the right to bitch and moan about things like everyone else. One of the benefits of living in democratic societies is that we get to complain about laws, like for instance the blasphemy one.

Also, why aren't you complaing about the Swedish MP? He is a foreigner complaining about a Irish law, a foreigner who doesn't even live here as well. Seems to me a bit of a double standard . Shouldn't Swedish people have to adhere to our laws and not demands changes to them as well?

Cookie_Monster

Muslin's are generally the only ones who get uppity about that kind of thing anyway. Well them and the Scientologists but thankfully they aren't recognised as a religion here so don't count

Long Onion

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Muslin's are generally the only ones who get uppity about that kind of thing anyway.

Damn them and their clothy ways to hell I say

Riskymove

ShooterSF wrote: »

So if I threaten to stab anyone that looks at me should a law be brought in to stop people looking at me "in case"?

er..no..you make a law to stop you threatening in the first place...

and anyway...aren't all laws there "in case" somehting happens?