From gay culture blog QUEERTY:
A Swedish court convicted him under hate crime legislation but the ruling was appealed; Sweden’s Supreme Court has now utterly disgraced itself by overturning the conviction. Is it even imaginable that if a preacher had said the same words against Jews, he would not be punished by a civil, secular society? We fear, actually, that it is imaginable.
Someone over at QUEERTY appears genuinely disgusted the freedom of speech has been unanimously upheld by Sweeden’s Supreme Court. Am I reading this incorrectly? Feel free to read QUEERTY’s original post for yourself and email them. Please let me know if I’m getting upset over nothing because I really enjoy their site normally.
The Supreme Court of Sweden has now established that homophobia is the supreme Christian message. It is as if Fred Phelps were presented as the essential Christian message, which he probably is. This ultimately is a gift to those of us who are not Christians.
For those of us that can read swedish, the wording of the ruling is quite interesting.
It says, in essence, that he broke the hate speech law but since previous rulings in the European Court of Human Rights indicate that he will be freed in that instance they choose to free him (actually the case was dismissed) with a reference to the fact that he was preaching in his church. The concequence of this ruling is that if you claim that your hate speech is somehow related to religion, you are free to say whatever you wish.
Another interesting development is that just the other week an Imam at the local Stockholm mosque proclaimed that the muslims should kill all jews in various very “interesting” wordings. From my POV the law was clearly broken, but I can’t see how any court can convict him for it since Green was freed.
For the record, I oppose the existance of the swedish hate speech law, but since it does exist I think it should be enforced. Hiding behind the bible should not be an excuse.
Point of order. I don’t do Swedish, but I do do German. Germany has a law that seems to be substantially similar to the Swedish law. It is referred to as Volksverhetzung (which is basically an “incitement” law) These laws stem from the post-Nazi era.
Two points. One, the German Volksverhetzung law was actually used against an far-right wing party that was opposing the candidacy of the gay candidate for mayor of Berlin merely because he was gay. And their plackards made that clear. (German parties usually erect plackards in town and city centers; I have rarely seen that in the US)
Two, the guy was exhonorated by the Swedish courts, and it is widely speculated that he did this as a publicity stunt.
Let me first say that I think the Swedish law in question is absurd. I support the right of anyone to voice their opinion that gays are going to hell as much as I support others for saying that those same people are damned for saying it. Such laws truly are the first step on the proverbial (and sometimes overused) “slippery slope”, threatening to curtail fundamental freedoms that we depend on every day at XGW. You can’t legislate what people think and you can’t prevent people from then sharing that view with others. At no time in history has this ever been a beneficial practice.
Blippie said:
For the record, I oppose the existance of the swedish hate speech law, but since it does exist I think it should be enforced. Hiding behind the bible should not be an excuse.
Was this your opinion of the sodomy laws in the US before the recent Supreme Court decision? How about segregation, white and black water fountains, etc. Some laws beg to be broken for a greater good.
Raj said:
…the guy was exhonorated by the Swedish courts, and it is widely speculated that he did this as a publicity stunt.
It depends on how you look at it. It was widely believed that the infraction that led to the Lawrence vs. Texas decision was just such a “stunt”, designed to bring a challenge to what they considered an unjust law. The neighbor whose report of a “weapons disturbance” started everything was later convicted of filing a false police report. Assuming that either was a “publicity stunt” injects undue bias.
This decision doesn’t say anything about the Church necessarily, but rather the Swedish court used that as an out because they knew they could not enforce the law. Perhaps the next move over there will be to invalidate it altogether.
Dan said:
Please let me know if I’m getting upset over nothing because I really enjoy their site normally.
Since that site by it’s nature relies heavily on open and free speech, I’m not sure one aberrant post means much, though you might want to ask (although, is there no comment section?). In general though, I think we sometimes get so angry at what is being said against us that, in moments of weakness, we hold our noses and accept censorship as a new club with which to fight it. What’s ironic is that by silencing people like Fred Phelps, et al, we deprive the majority of the chance to see how depraved their ideas really are. By all means, get them out of the shadows and let them speak up.
David
Re: …by silencing people like Fred Phelps, et al, we deprive the majority of the chance to see how depraved their ideas really are”
Excellent point. I said earlier that we should be highlighting the Phelps’s of the world. If we conflate Phelps — who nearly everyone considers a nutcase (even those who oppose equal rights for GLBT’s) — with other anti-gay leaders, it can make the whole lot unpalatable, and throwing cold water on the lame “hate the sin, love the sinner” line.
I’m all for unfettered free speech, mostly because it’s the fools who use it the most.
ReasonAble at December 1, 2005 10:17 AM
Let me first say that I think the Swedish law in question is absurd.
Say whatever you want. We have discussed this on various fora. Americans apparently believe that their 1st amendment is applicable in other countries. It isn’t. Quite frankly, the American congress has quite often ignored the limitations under the 1st amendment, even shortly after the amendment’s ratification. I need only cite the Alien & Sedition acts of 1798. In addition, several people were convicted under the sedition acts passed during WWI. Do a Google search for US v. Schenck (speech) and US v. Frohwerk (press). NB: the US SupCt’s opinion in the Schenck case was the source of the idiotic “yelling fire in a crowded theater” quotation; the case had nothing to do with a crowded theater, or yelling “fire.”
It was widely believed that the infraction that led to the Lawrence vs. Texas decision was just such a “stunt”, designed to bring a challenge to what they considered an unjust law.
This is absurd. The search that led to the Lawrence case was instituted in response to a telephone tip to the police alleging that the apartment was being burglarized. The person who called in the tip (who was neither Lawrence nor Garner) was subsequently identified, arrested and convicted for filing a false report. It was only because the police were responding to a tip that they had received that the search that led to their arrest was not a violation of the 4th amendment.
You really should get your facts straight.
I doubt very seriously that the tipper submitted the tip to start a case in which TX’s law might be challenged; Lawrence and/or Garner could have done that themselves if that was the intention. Neither of them did. I suspect that the reason for the tip was either (i) the tipper didn’t like the fact that Lawrence & Garner were having inter-racial sex (Lawrence is white, and Garner is black), or (ii) the tipper is a “scorned lover”. Or maybe the tipper just doesn’t like gay people.
I’m with Raj here. Your main problem seems to be that you’re Americans. *ahem* (sorry)
In America, free speech is considered to be something holy, something that must be upheld even over other values like equality and basic respect for other human beings. I’m from Holland, and in the UK. Fred Phelps could not do what he does in either of those countries. That does not mean we do not have freedom of speech. It’s not an all or nothing thing.
I don’t know much about the Swedish case, but I’m not sure it’s a good thing either. I think the American idea of Free Speech Uber Alles is not the best way of doing things. It’s certainly not the only way.
There is no FREAKIN’ way you’re going to keep gay men…or anybody else…out of IKEA!!!
And by the by….IKEA’S television ads were the first in mainstream network tv to feature a gay couple.
Ake Greene is one…big mouthed pig. Let him open his mouth and insert his own ass.
He’ll be a turn off eventually and people won’t pay attention to him.
Your main problem seems to be that you’re Americans. *ahem*
Oh, honey, you don’t know the half of it! LOL.
What happens in Sweden has no bearing on what happens here. They have a state church, they have a different set of laws which they seem happy with, including a more restrictive set of free-speech laws.
American conservative leaders have long pointed to those “godless” Scandinavians to warn us about what can happen here. It can’t, and it’s silly to draw such conclusions. By the same token, for QWEERTY to get upset over the minister’s acquittal because it doesn’t conform to the way that group of Americans think Swedish law ought to be is just as silly.
Addendum…
However, I do subscribe to “Free Speech Uber Alles” (Is there a song that goes with it?) because I have no faith in who might define the potential alternative in this country. Given our history, I am quite positive I wouldn’t like the outcome.
Especially “with a war on” and all.
You really should get your facts straight.
ReasonAble said that people believe Lawrence v. Texas was a “stunt”, raj, not that it was a stunt or even that he thought it was. And so far as that goes, he is completely correct, as you well know from this post.
Americans apparently believe that their 1st amendment is applicable in other countries. It isn’t.
Really? Could you cite some evidence that shows this belief is representative of American thought? Just from the comments here I only see people announcing their opinions of what should be, rather than any opinion on any international jurisdiction of the American constitution.
Quite frankly, the American congress has quite often ignored the limitations under the 1st amendment, even shortly after the amendment’s ratification.
Yes, and America also “quite often” passed blatantly racist legislation. Does that make any American who believes in equality of the races hypocritical, too?
Raj: “…the guy was exhonorated by the Swedish courts, and it is widely speculated that he did this as a publicity stunt.”
David: “It was widely believed that the infraction that led to the Lawrence vs. Texas decision was just such a “stunt”, designed to bring a challenge to what they considered an unjust law.”
Raj: “This is absurd…You really should get your facts straight.”
Sorry, raj, on this one you need to get YOUR facts straight.
It has been speculated and is widely believed among conservative circles that the whole Lawrence v. Texas fact pattern was a set-up.
Although the details of the case are not well known (I’m not even completely clear myself what is true and what is myth), it has been claimed that the doors were unlocked and unnamed persons directed the police to the bedroom where the parties involved refuse to cease in their particular sex act. It is certainly true that Lawrence and Garner refused to allow the case to be dismissed so as bring it to the Supreme Court.
Some people (bigots) like having laws on the books that aren’t enforced but can be used to generally disparage gays and call them criminals. They were perfectly happy with the status quo and the “stunt” claims are just so much sour grapes on their part. Regardless of whether the arrest was planned (as the anti-gays claim) or a coincidental eventuality (as I believe), an unconstitutional law was on the books.
However, to address your admonition, the facts are that the circumstances are widely believed to have been a “stunt”.
Certainly there’s greater likelihood of Lawrence having been a “stunt” than there is of a penticostal preacher in Sweden preaching against gays having been a “stunt”. In general, pentecostal preachers the world over are not big fans of “the gays”.
Do I think he jumped on the chance to push his beliefs when he could? Certainly. But that hardly constitutes a “stunt”.
I defer to those above who have already well corroborated and/or contested my original post, to which I add:
Raj said:
Say whatever you want. We have discussed this on various fora. Americans apparently believe that their 1st amendment is applicable in other countries.
I consider certain things a right of all humanity, including the right of free speech. To the extent that my own country (US) has infringed on this, I say shame on them. However this is not an American ideal to me.
Consider the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 18
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
I realize this is not binding, but it is widely considered to represent the best result of any international effort to define such things. But no matter, freedom of speech and thought is not the domain of any single nation. No government can give us this right – it is our right – they can only recognize it or not. Yes, I consider this an “uber right”.
David
David said “I consider certain things a right of all humanity, including the right of free speech. To the extent that my own country (US) has infringed on this, I say shame on them. However this is not an American ideal to me.”
I’m flying with that one, David. And I feel the same way about the right to self determination. The rights of society and the rights of the individual must be balanced. I’ve been a bad girl and had more encounters with the law than I’d like. What upset me was that in the initial encounter my actions were assumed and characterized to be in the most negative light possible – an obvious distortion/lie to me. Ultimately the justice system always treated me fairly after eventually weighing all the evidence. One of the most important symbols to me is the “scales of justice”, the blindfolded lady holding the balance. I love that symbolism. I’d appreciate knowing what you think of that Raj.
There is a quote from a movie, “The American President”, which I like a lot and it seems appropriate to mention here. I wish a real president would have the guts to say as much.
Michael Douglas speaking as the fictional President Andrew Shepherd:
America isn’t easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, ’cause it’s gonna put up a fight. It’s gonna say “You want free speech? Let’s see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who’s standing center stage and advocating, at the top of his lungs, that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free, then the symbol of your country can’t just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest.” Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free.
It may be Hollywood, and it may be aimed primarily at US citizens, but I think it’s well said!
David
So, ‘freedom of speech is paramount’ wins.Generally, good — but before we’all risk vanishing up our own nether regions…The United States (nor Australia) does not have unlimited freedom of speech. Try testing thestrengthened Federal Communications Act (with pornography)the Patriot Act(BTW, George, “It is NOT unpatriotic to question the government about ANYTHING in a democracy”)As raj has pointed out: many countries have such laws. Although Green has become a cause célèbre among conservative Christians in the United States, nobody seems to give a stuff that the display of Nazis symbols are banned in Germany. (Actually, they are only banned if you are advocating for Nazism; but that alone is rather telling too). Nobody seems to give two hoots that prior to the Swedish law being altered to include sexual orientation only in 2002(?), the law on Public Order had covered “race, colour, national or ethnic origin or religious belief” since 1988. Apparently, only the protection of gay men and women is controversial.(The status of that entire law is now, of course, open.)I’m not even going to get into the laws against blasphemey that still apply in many countries…While I favour open speech (to encourage dialogue and thereby enable an informed public) there are several quirks to this case that are worth mentioning.Ake Green did not merely turn up at his piddly congregration in the middle of Sweden’s bible belt and give a religious sermon about the morality or godliness or whatever of homosexuality. Frankly, who would care if he had?No, he first attempted to get the media along. And when they showed no interest in reporting the “sermon”, he then made a public statement in the media via a letter. And his sermon deliberately went well outside anything that could be considered religious.And since when has a religious sermon included making utterly unfounded and slanderous statements about homosexuals being “a cancer”, “paedophiles”, etc etc? Those are NOT religious statements — they are medical and criminal claims, and utterly false, regardless of the fact a pastor made them. It’s not enough merely to say “God doesn’t like it, check out verse X”. No, a religious statement is apparently so weak that a pastor has got to instead rely on false and inflamatory claims well outside either his own expertise or common mecial and criminal knowledge.I know such conflation is all too common among conservative religists, but look at another way: People who eat pork are child molesters? If you don’t pray to Mecca five times a day, you are into bestiality? Any Jew is a cancer on society? No Hindu respects human life because they belive in reincarnation? (and that’s before I even start on race-based slander…).I think it’s also worth noting that the head of the Pentecostal Church in Sweden, Sten-Gunnar Hedin, has very publicly distanced himself — as has, largely, the church — from Green for that sermon. In interview:
That is the best way, in general, to deal with such numbnuts. Rebuke them. Heap every bit of abuse of them for those views and for the vile way they treat people they don’t like. The head of the Pentecostal Church did his bit. A strongly worded statement from both the Swedish Mistry of Justice and from the Swedish medical authorities should have also occured.Show Green up to be the ignorant, abusive person he is, and then leave it at that.BTW: Green has a web site. Oh, it seems he does not — it’s actually a front for some anti-gay Christian loons in … The United States.
Oh sorry, meant to add this. Just to have you all shake your heads.Two weeks ago this was mentioned over at Throckmorton’s blog. Here’s part of a post:–For those amused by all things hypocritical… you may already know that Green was defended by dear old Fred Phelps. Then Phelps slandered the Swedish Royal Family in his typically crude manner. (do not click here or here if you get the vapors over rude words).Green’s response?… outrage.Speaking to The Local, Green has told of his distress that the website is using his name in this way:
(emphasis mine)Did you get that? — Green wants the authorities to curtail the comments made by Phelps about the Swedish Royals… Yeah, a real icon for unlimited free speech.Hence, there may be some wisdom in a law that bans all such slander. I fear it would not be equally and evenly enforced, but Sweden would probably make as good an effort as is possible.And remind me again how free speech relates to the Federal obscenity laws?(Sweden also leaves both the U.S. and Australia for dead on freedom of the press.)–Now, Pastor Green, let’s just get this clear, if we may…Sweden shouldn’t have it’s own laws against slandering your fellow citizens, andThe United States should have laws against slandering the Swedish Royal family.Right, glad we’re clear on how free speech works…
Grantdale said:
Show Green up to be the ignorant, abusive person he is, and then leave it at that.
Exactly, this is how it should work.
Green said that he has contacted newspapers in the United States to distance himself from the comments on the website. He added that he is surprised that authorities in the United States have not intervened. “This harms Christianity,” he said.
Sorry bub, what’s good for the goose… That’s one of the great things about free speech – it’s and equal opportunity.
I’m aware of the attempts at censorship in the US and other countries. Again, shame on them. This is not a US against Sweden issue, it’s a humanity issue. In the end, we are more important than any of our nation states.
As for Germany, I don’t like that they censor but I give them a bit of slack. They were and are responding to their Nazi nightmare and the holocaust. I can’t blame them for trying to erase any chance of that happening again, no matter how misguided I may think that attempt is. Does anyone actually think “hate speech” laws would have silenced Hitler?
David
David said:
Actually, I’ll give a different take on that question (as always…)Hitler did not arise in a vacuum. “He” was only possible because of 2,000 years of anti-jewish opinion (more like 1500, or possibly dating from a deliberate expulsion of the Jews from 11-12thC, but you get my drift). Such anti-semitic views were commonplace — and I often remind people that, BBTGoG, there are many European countries that may well have found themselves with such a stain on their history. The intersection of militarism, defeat, economic collapse and a strongly polarised right-left politics made Germany a somewhat unique and fertile ground for what eventuated at that time… but BBTGoG.So, the question you had — no hate crime law covering anti-semticism would have stopped Hitler.For a hate crime law to be enacted the society must have already been primed to accept the law. That was not the case with Germany at that time (or, frankly, much elsewhere). Therefore, there was never going to be such a law in the first place.Has nobody ever noticed? — such laws are only ever enacted in those places that are already the most tolerant and open. Where such laws are needed most, they have a snowball’s hope in hell….
Skemono at December 1, 2005 01:46 PM
ReasonAble said that people believe Lawrence v. Texas was a “stunt”, raj, not that it was a stunt or even that he thought it was. And so far as that goes, he is completely correct, as you well know from this post.
If you notice, I commented there, too. I respect many of Ed Brayton’s posts. In this case he was citing a post from WorldNutDaily with which he disagreed. Kudos to Ed.
In response to this comment, I’ll merely point out that people (the number of whom is unknown) may “believe” that LvT was a “stunt,” intended to invalidate the TX statute against homosexual sodomy, but that doesn’t make it true. Any more than the fact that at least a few people believe that the Earth is flat (based on the supposed biblical reference to the four corners of the Earth, as I have read) means that that belief should be given any credence.
Filing a false police report, which is what initiated the search in the Lawrence case, is a criminal act. The person who filed the false police report was identified and convicted. I have seen nothing in the reports of that case to suggest that the fraudulent report was filed to get the TX statute overturned. Have you? If so, please let us know.
I’m going to use Occam’s razor, and I’ll give you an analogy. Recall the recent “outing” of Woodward&Bernstein’s “Deep Throat”? DT turned out to be the former Number Two in Hoover’s FBI, who was denied a promotion to Chief by the Nixon Administration. DT funneled info to W&B because he was a “maiden scorned.” I suspect, but cannot prove, that the tipper in the Lawrence case similarly was a “maiden scorned.” It really isn’t complicated. But, ask yourself: why would someone want to perform a criminal act (filing a false report) unless it is for purposes of revenge or unless he is stupid enough to believe that he would not get caught. Or both. I don’t know whether the false report was called into 911, but any idiot should know that all 911 calls are logged–so that the police can determine at least the location even if the caller can’t provide it to them.
I said: Americans apparently believe that their 1st amendment is applicable in other countries. It isn’t.
You said Really? Could you cite some evidence that shows this belief is representative of American thought?
Sorry, that derives from over a decade of reading various message boards and weblogs and commenting on them. Most of them are gone now. I haven’t done a poll to find out what most Americans believe, and, as far as I can tell, most Americans don’t care one way or another. But in those discussions most of the (apparent) Americans who complain about practices in other countries fall back on the supposed protections of the US constitution’s 1st amendment. Americans should realize that people in other countries oftentimes disagree with you.
And Americans should realize that the guarantee of “free speech” and “free press” by the US is oftentimes a fraud. And that is why the American military has been bombing al-Jazeerah.
I don’t know the details of what Ake Green said, and I doubt that you do, either. The fact is, though, that other countries have other practices. Canada certainly does. As does Germany, in response to their Nazi past. Germany has a relatively low tolerance for what in the US might be described as incitement (“Volksverhetzung”).
Andere Laender, andere Sitten.
Timothy at December 1, 2005 01:51 PM
However, to address your admonition, the facts are that the circumstances are widely believed to have been a “stunt”.
See above. I find it difficult to believe that a third party would risk criminal prosecution for filing a false police report (that the apartment was being burglarized) merely to instigate a case (to overturn TX’s homo-only sodomy law) in which it was unclear that they would win. If Lawrence or Garner had filed the false report, I might believe it. But not a 3d party.
ReasonAble at December 1, 2005 03:25 PM
Consider the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Why? The UDHR is not a treaty. I am quite familiar with the UDHR. It is a very nice piece of propaganda, as was the US’s Declaration of Independence. And, in this regard, I am not referring to “propaganda” in a negative sense, but as a means of persuasion. Both have been largely ignored.
The text of the UDHR, along with the ratification information, is available through the University of Minnesota’s International Human Rights Instruments
https://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/ainstls1.htm That site is well worth perusing.
Raj said;
I’ll merely point out that people (the number of whom is unknown) may “believe” that LvT was a “stunt,” intended to invalidate the TX statute against homosexual sodomy, but that doesn’t make it true.
By the same token, those that believe the Ake Green was the result of a “stunt” do not make it so. However in both cases it is irrelevant; both cases tested a law (by design or otherwise) that some hold to infringe on basic human rights.
Any more than the fact that at least a few people believe that the Earth is flat (based on the supposed biblical reference to the four corners of the Earth, as I have read) means that that belief should be given any credence.
Wow, that was a stretch. But I have noticed that you are partial to illustrating absurdities that you can connect in some way to the Bible. However just to clarify the point you raised, here is one of many links one can google for for some answers.
I’m going to use Occam’s razor…
Ironic, Occam was a monk I believe 😉 Although nature does seem to prefer simplicity, in human interaction, the phrase “truth is stranger than fiction” sometimes seems more applicable. In any event, assuming that the simplest explanation is the correct one is a great way to form a hypothesis (ie. if one has to pick among many, choose the simplest one), but it doesn’t mean the more complicated explanation won’t end up being the correct one.
I suspect, but cannot prove, that the tipper in the Lawrence case similarly was a “maiden scorned.”
Pure speculation without basis in fact has no place in such a reasoned argument. Shame on you Raj!
But, ask yourself: why would someone want to perform a criminal act (filing a false report) unless it is for purposes of revenge or unless he is stupid enough to believe that he would not get caught.
You are imparting to Mr. Nance (the tipper) a degree of intelligence which we can’t verify. I have no idea what he thought, or how smart he is. However, to provide a possible field of answers to your “why would someone want to perform a criminal act” question, this would hardly be the first time someone had committed such an act to bring a law perceived as unjust to the forefront. The civil rights movement in the US is full of such acts. You will also find instances in the history of the USSR and South Africa.
Americans should realize that people in other countries oftentimes disagree with you.
And we with them, so what? As I said earlier, there are some rights which are common to humanity and transcend any governments ability to violate them. You may not agree that free speech is one of those rights, but that is a different discussion.
And Americans should realize that the guarantee of “free speech” and “free press” by the US is oftentimes a fraud. And that is why the American military has been bombing al-Jazeerah.
That statement assumes facts not in evidence, and the use of the word “fraud” is misleading and inflammatory. As I said before, however, to the extent which my own country (the US) has abridged this freedom, shame on them. To the extent which we as citizens have allowed this, shame on us. This is not a strictly American issue.
I don’t know the details of what Ake Green said, and I doubt that you do, either.
If you mean the sermon, I’ve read it. I found most of it a bit boring, but it certainly didn’t sound unlike many sermons being preached every day in the US, and presumably around the world. For the record, it doesn’t say that gays are a cancerous tumor on society, rather it says “Sexual abnormalities are a deep cancerous tumor in the entire society.” This is a statement which many can agree with (consider pedophilia for example, certainly that is a “cancerous tumor on society”). To be sure he considers homosexuality a sexual abnormality, but there is a difference in his statement and the one commonly reported. The question becomes whether being gay is abnormal.
I disagree with his point of view. He uses his own experience answering a “crisis hotline” for reference, which reminds me of Stephen Benett referring to the “thousands of calls” to their ministry or whatever. In short, he expresses his opinion based on what is (to me) a flawed interpretation of the Bible and some anecdotal evidence. I disagree with his conclusions but there is no way I would say he can’t express them, any more than I should be prevented in expressing this opinion.
I would like to note that what Ake Green wrote was also no worse than some things I have personally read about Christians in gay blogs and the like.
Why? The UDHR is not a treaty.
You have to read more comprehensively Raj, I said: “I realize this is not binding, but it is widely considered to represent the best result of any international effort to define such things.”
Both have been largely ignored.
I don’t believe that to be a fact. What exactly would the world be like today if the US Declaration of Independence and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights had never been written? Certainly the latter has had less impact, but the fact that it was written at all in such an international context certainly means something. But to say that the former has not had a significant impact (ie. been largely ignored), I don’t think that is a valid statement.
This really boils down to whether or not one believes the freedom of thought and expression to be an absolute right for all humanity. The answer to that will render the rest of this as background noise.
David