Swedish MP criticises Irish blasphemy law

[Hazlitt]

Swedish MP Karl Sigfrid has lodged a complaint with the EU Commission over Ireland's proposed blasphemy law. Sigfrid is worried that Swedish tourists could be arrested simply for making comments or wearing religious symbols. Seriously, how modern and "progressive" does this bill make our country look...

Sigfrid voiced his fear that this type of legislation could spread over Europe (although I can't see any other country being stupid enough to introduce a similar law).

He also voiced concerns (like many Irish citizens have expressed) that once a law is introduced defining blasphemy as speech that "offends" religious followers, the Church will soon "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.

Source: RTÉ News

[Twin Towers]

Another foreigner shaking the big EU stick in our face.

[Mr.De-Regulation]

Isnt it the council of Europe he'll shake at us? Tell Sweden to feck off.

[Hazlitt]

Agreed, I don't particularly like the idea of one of our laws being overruled or invalidated by Brussels, but the points made by the MP (leaving his complaint to the EU aside) are certainly valid from a few different aspects:

- firstly tourists will most certainly be more than a little worried by this law (f*ck that you may say, but they trade with us, visit us, etc and are important to us)

- secondly from a free media point of view (especially considering the current (and justified) cases being brought against clergy in the Catholic church) there will be a "blurred line" over which free people will not know if they are crossing when making statements on religious followers.

- Thirdly it affords a special place in law to religions that many (myself included) do not feel should be afforded. Logically if you supported this bill you could be criticised for not supporting a bill banning people from calling someone "offensive names" (big nose etc) for fear of offending them - where will the nonsense end!!

[imokyrok]

Theres a thread on this already - a few days back.

http://www.politics.ie/europe/94757-...phemy-law.html

Perhaps merge?

[Glennshane]

Seriously, how modern and "progressive" does this bill make our country look...

Why do you think it matters what foreigners think of Eire?

[Glennshane]

[QUOTE=Hazlitt;1978603]

"I don't particularly like the idea of one of our laws being overruled or invalidated by Brussels,"

I did not know that the EU had any control over criminal law.

"- firstly tourists will most certainly be more than a little worried by this law (f*ck that you may say, but they trade with us, visit us, etc and are important to us)"

Tourists could mind their manners.

"- secondly from a free media point of view (especially considering the current (and justified) cases being brought against clergy in the Catholic church) there will be a "blurred line" over which free people will not know if they are crossing when making statements on religious followers."

If racist abuse is a crime, why should sectarian abuse not also be a crime?

"Thirdly it affords a special place in law to religions that many (myself included) do not feel should be afforded."

Where did you get the idea that the law of the land should pander to your prejudices? Catholics have a right to live without having to endure screams of hatred or taunts from aggressive anti-Catholics.

"Logically if you supported this bill you could be criticised for not supporting a bill banning people from calling someone "offensive names" (big nose etc) for fear of offending them - "

Is calling people offensive names not already a criminal offense?

[Mercurial]

...wow.

[flamez911]

someone who actually supports the concept of a blasphemy law

Go back to the 1970s- why should religion be protected from free speech just because it would offend people? Popular speech never has needed to be protected- it's unpopular speech, often by racists, extremists and other marginal groups that needs protection most.

Also, it wouldn't be the EU who would likely overturn this, it would be the ECHR (of the Council of Europe)

[Electro]

Go back to the 1970s- why should religion be protected from free speech just because it would offend people? Popular speech never has needed to be protected- it's unpopular speech, often by racists, extremists and other marginal groups that needs protection most.

Also, it wouldn't be the EU who would likely overturn this, it would be the ECHR (of the Council of Europe)

What's your opinion on so-called "holocaust denial" laws?

I think that's the acid test in hypocrisy for any these people complaining about anti-religious offense laws.