New crimes: from discrimination to blasphemy

[Skybird]

Is this really the 21st century?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8437460.stm

I know that the EU and european nations implement laws that make criticism of relgion in general and islam in special a punishable crime over alleged complaints that being critical of relgion is a hate crime that is discriminatory to the poor religion.

but that there is a nation, Ireland, that marks blasphemy as a special object of law, making blasphemy a punishable crime in itself - that is new to me.

Forward into the past! Medieval is calling.

The EU, the parties, and the religious institutions really try their best to turn reasonable, moderate persons into people tolerating radicals and acts of extremism, because they cannot stand anymore the disgust they feel, and do not see other ways anymore to bring all this stupidity to a full stop.

Blasphemy a punishable crime - not in an Islamic but an alleged Christian country. I must have woken up in the wrong century this morning. It is the year 1010, no doubt.

[Letum]

Much of Ireland is intensely religious as a result of it being Catholic, having
a history of religious violence, having a relativity poor GDP and lower
national IQ than the rest of Northern Europe.

Given the, still intense, religious tensions there, the continuation of
blasphemy law may be a positive, much needed calming influence.

Countries that have already overcome such hurdles, but still have
blasphemy laws, (i.e. Germany) however, have no excuse. :nope:

[Tribesman]

:har::har::har::har::har:
Ever since the amended law was announced people have been lining up to show how it doesn't work.


Much of Ireland is intensely religious as a result of it being Catholic
What century are you in?
having
a history of religious violence
Name a european country that doesn't.
having a relativity poor GDP
Compared to where?
lower
national IQ than the rest of Northern Europe.

IQ as a relevant measure??????
Where does Ireland score across the boards in academic achievement worldwide and across europe, take any field, from literature though to science .
Ireland ranks 8th in the world for universities and proportionally has more people getting better degrees from better universities than just about anywhere in the EU.

So Really Letum , you have taken a country that must be one of the easiest in europe to rip apart and take the piss out of and made a complete mess of it.
Honestly, given the simplicity in ridiculing the banana republic how on earth did you manage to make such a ballsup of it?

But back to topic.
When Skybird writes......
making blasphemy a punishable crime in itself
....he is wrong, just about as wrong as he could possibly be.
The law at issue does no such thing and can never work in that manner.
Though he is even funnier in that Germany already has blasphemy laws , as does the Netherlands, Finland, Britain, Denmark.....
So when he writes.....
that is new to me.

.....one must remember that "ignorance of the law is no defence".

[Castout]

There are religion haters who are bent on offending religious people without reason and making them their object of hatred, insult and offend. They are hell bent on offending religious people. And it's my belief that many of these people in a forum I frequent from this certain country are paid to do it and to target specific individuals taking advantage of lack of moderators. . . It's no longer cute. It's foul play.

On the negative side if a society was matured enough and had intellect and common sense to respect other people belief there would be no need of this law. I for one would hate that I would question myself that whether I was being tolerable and respectful towards others due to my genuine tolerance or due to fear of the law.

However we do not live in a perfect harmonious world thus I welcome such laws though I genuinely feels that ideally it's not necessary.
Anyway thumbs up for EU! It's a relief to know that at least some parts of the world are trying to be civic.

[Letum]

Much of Ireland is intensely religious as a result of it being Catholic
What century are you in?

Ireland had in 2005 62% church attendance compared to 6.3% (2006
stats) for England. North of Italy, only Poland has lower prevalence of
atheism.
I am very much in this century.

[Ireland has] a history of religious violence Name a european country that doesn't.Most, if not all, European countries do not have anywhere near the
length and intensity of religio-political conflict that Ireland has had.


having a relativity poor GDP Compared to where?Northern Europe.
Ireland's economy before the boom of the late 90s/2000s was in a
terrible state and lead to one of the largest and longest period of
economic emigration in the west in recent times.

[Skybird]

The blasphemy law is no Eu thing, but an Irish thing, Castout. ;) The EU made it a punishable crime to ask questions on religion that it does not want to answer, or cannot answer.

In any way, giving such an absolute position to an idea, an ideology, a party, a great Führer, wehre the simple fact that you ask question on it/them can bring you to court, and where your disobedience for demands from a religious ideology because you are no member of it, nevertheless can bring you to court, is a very bad idea. For fanatic believers, being an atheist already is a blasphemy that challenges their belief. Maybe I should think twice before feeling attracted to visit Ireland, then....

Reglions have to seek legitimisation and acceptance, and thus they have to be available for criticism and independent thinling baout them - else oyu have installed a new tyranny and legalised it by law. You could as well have a law fobidding to oppose a given political party, or making certain political opinions mandatory. then you have a political tyranny.

Read the article, Letum: it says that this law is not to calm the daily bullying between catholics and Protestants, but because so far only christians enjoyed protection of their belief from "blasphemic" questioning (maybe that is why it is still so strong in Ireland...), and that this new law now is needed to make this discrimination of other religions a thing of the past. Obviously something like the blasphemy law now already has been in place since 1937 - and now it just gets widened to cover other cults and remove them from availability for critical opinion as well.


"This new law is both silly and dangerous," he said. "It is silly because medieval religious laws have no place in a modern secular republic, where the criminal law should protect people and not ideas."

A. The German state conspirates with the church in raising mandatory church taxes, it is the state collecting them for the church, together with social taxes etc. Ireland opens door and gate for supressing any criticism of any religion over "blasphemy". the EU does the same by equalling criticism with offence.

At the same time, there is an ongoing row over sexual abuse of children by Christian priests. It is no small drama only, we learned over the past years, but quite a systematic, wide spread plague. And the church still does not act with determinationa gainst those many "priests" who are nothing else but paedophiles and sadists in church uniforms. Still the church delays and tries to buy time.

B. The past years have seen tremendous pressure from Muslim nations and lobby groups both on european and UN level to cut freedom of speech and freedom of publication for the sake of supressing criticism of Islam, and making it unavailable for critical reflection.

The Guardian has an essay pointing to justice minister Dermot Ahern who has explicitly referred to immigration as the primary drive behind this new law. He surely was not primarily thinking about Buddhist, Taoist, Hinduist immigration, right?

C. A pro-Islamic EU lobby, rallying around Turkish EU membership but going beyond that, wants to enforce a strong Islam in Europe and a strong Islamic migration to Europe. Opposing opinions on Islam being compatible with the Western value order and questioning it's tolerance for other cultures are highly unwelcomed amongst these people. It could not be what should not be.

Add 1 and 1 and 1 together, and do not be surprised that the result is 3.

So much for secularism in Europe, and the strict separation of state and religion.

[Skybird]

Some of the 25 quotes that I like best:


4. Mark Twain, describing the Christian Bible in Letters from the Earth, 1909: “Also it has another name – The Word of God. For the Christian thinks every word of it was dictated by God. It is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies… But you notice that when the Lord God of Heaven and Earth, adored Father of Man, goes to war, there is no limit. He is totally without mercy – he, who is called the Fountain of Mercy. He slays, slays, slays! All the men, all the beasts, all the boys, all the babies; also all the women and all the girls, except those that have not been deflowered. He makes no distinction between innocent and guilty… What the insane Father required was blood and misery; he was indifferent as to who furnished it.” Twain’s book was published posthumously in 1939. His daughter, Clara Clemens, at first objected to it being published, but later changed her mind in 1960 when she believed that public opinion had grown more tolerant of the expression of such ideas. That was half a century before Fianna Fail and the Green Party imposed a new blasphemy law on the people of Ireland.

11. Frank Zappa, 1989: “If you want to get together in any exclusive situation and have people love you, fine – but to hang all this desperate sociology on the idea of The Cloud-Guy who has The Big Book, who knows if you’ve been bad or good – and cares about any of it – to hang it all on that, folks, is the chimpanzee part of the brain working.”

12. Salman Rushdie, 1990: “The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas – uncertainty, progress, change – into crimes.”

19. Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion, 2006: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” In 2007 Turkish publisher Erol Karaaslan was charged with the crime of insulting believers for publishing a Turkish translation of The God Delusion. He was acquitted in 2008, but another charge was brought in 2009. Karaaslan told the court that “it is a right to criticise religions and beliefs as part of the freedom of thought and expression.”

23. Ian O’Doherty, 2009: “(If defamation of religion was illegal) it would be a crime for me to say that the notion of transubstantiation is so ridiculous that even a small child should be able to see the insanity and utter physical impossibility of a piece of bread and some wine somehow taking on corporeal form. It would be a crime for me to say that Islam is a backward desert superstition that has no place in modern, enlightened Europe and it would be a crime to point out that Jewish settlers in Israel who believe they have a God given right to take the land are, frankly, mad. All the above assertions will, no doubt, offend someone or other.”

24. Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, 2009: “Whether a person is atheist or any other, there is in fact in my view something not totally human if they leave out the transcendent… we call it God… I think that if you leave that out you are not fully human.” Because atheism is not a religion, the Irish blasphemy law does not protect atheists from abusive and insulting statements about their fundamental beliefs. While atheists are not seeking such protection, we include the statement here to point out that it is discriminatory that this law does not hold all citizens equal.


and finally these two slightly different:


25. Dermot Ahern, Irish Minister for Justice, introducing his blasphemy law at an Oireachtas Justice Committee meeting, 2009, and referring to comments made about him personally: “They are blasphemous.” Deputy Pat Rabbitte replied: “Given the Minister’s self-image, it could very well be that we are blaspheming,” and Minister Ahern replied: “Deputy Rabbitte says that I am close to the baby Jesus, I am so pure.” So here we have an Irish Justice Minister joking about himself being blasphemed, at a parliamentary Justice Committee discussing his own blasphemy law, that could make his own jokes illegal.

Finally, as a bonus, Micheal Martin, Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs, opposing attempts by Islamic States to make defamation of religion a crime at UN level, 2009: “We believe that the concept of defamation of religion is not consistent with the promotion and protection of human rights. It can be used to justify arbitrary limitations on, or the denial of, freedom of expression. Indeed, Ireland considers that freedom of expression is a key and inherent element in the manifestation of freedom of thought and conscience and as such is complementary to freedom of religion or belief.” Just months after Minister Martin made this comment, his colleague Dermot Ahern introduced Ireland’s new blasphemy law.

And here is the 35 paged Defamation Act.
http://www.attorneygeneral.ie/eAct/2009/a3109.pdf

[OneToughHerring]

We have blasphemy laws in Finland too, people have even been thrown to jail for blasphemy against the christian church.

[Letum]

The English Blasphemy Law was abolished in 2008. Unlike SB and
OTHerring, I am free to say that God has three nipples, Mohammed stuck
beans up his nose and Vishnu smells like a goat.

One day the rest of the world will catch up. It's a matter of time.

Ed: not that one can be complacent about such things.

[Skybird]

Great Britain is object to EU anti discrimination laws. Thus you can be brought to court for saying something of wich soembody claims he feels offended in his precious religious feelings, Letum.

But not that it stops there. This totally idiotic law can be used to sue people for almost everything, over arbitrary claims. It opens opportunities for the most absurd charges you can think of. the argument that it will not be absued for that, does not count. It opens the legal door for it - and at court that is what counts.

Bleasphemy Laws abolished in 2008 yes or not - it does not matter, Letum. You're in the big one happy EU-family crowd type of boat now. The Blasphemy Law can't catch you. but the Anti-Discrimination Law can be used for the same effect. :yeah: The EU has compelled Britain twice in the past two or three years to take back attempts to include exemptions from the EU set of A-D-laws that the EU found to be violating the law.

"The Eu loves you nevertheless - even if you hate it."

[NeonSamurai]

I am looking forward to when the religions start charging each other under the blasphemy laws. :woot:

[Letum]

SB: I am curious as to which bit of the EU's extensive anti-discrimination laws you think prevent me from blaspheming.

[Fish]

:har::har::har::har::har:
Though he is even funnier in that Germany already has blasphemy laws , as does the Netherlands, Finland, Britain, Denmark.....
So when he writes.....

.....one must remember that "ignorance of the law is no defence".


Blasphemy law is dropped in Netherlands
Sunday, 9th November 2008. 8:15am

By: George Conger.

Blasphemy will no longer be a crime in the Netherlands, the Dutch government announced last week. On Nov 1 Justice Minister Ernst Hirsch Ballin said the country’s coalition government would repeal a 1930s blasphemy law in favor of strengthening the current anti-discrimination legislation.

[Respenus]

SB: I am curious as to which bit of the EU's extensive anti-discrimination laws you think prevent me from blaspheming.

The ECJ has taken an open interpretation of EU treaties, regulations and directives. Non-discrimination in the workplace (economy related) is enshrined in the founding treaties. About non-discrimination in general, I would need to take a closer look at exactly which EU directive is limited freedom of speech, although I think the ECHR would be a more appropriate place to be "afraid" of.

Now, I'm not saying every ECJ decision is a bad one, far from it. It's rulings have ensured the right of privileges of many an individual. The only problem is when one "false" decision destroys any sort of legitimacy and respect it might had earned before.

[Skybird]

SB: I am curious as to which bit of the EU's extensive anti-discrimination laws you think prevent me from blaspheming.

None, you can do whatever you want. You can also commit murder, if you want. The laws do not prevent you from doing it - but by the law you can be held legally responsible for it. Same is true with the anti-discrimination laws of the EU. they do not prevent you from voicing criticism that some believer claims to be blasphemic to his beliefs - but they allow that you will be charged for it. In the EU's understanding, if a believer claims to feel offended by your questions aboiut his faith, that already is discrimination.

It does not matter what your intention is, Letum, or whether you consider your deed or comment blasphemic or not. that the other claims it is blasphemy, or is offending, or is discrimination, is the criterion. Criticism of the EU time and again mentions that examples like this, the anti discrimination directive, reverse the burden of evidence, and that accusation now is valid proof of your guilt as long as you cannot prove that you are innocent.

In other words: it is censorship, plain and simple.

To be precise, though, what usually is called EU anti discrimination law is a legally binding directive that all member nations of the EU have to transform into national laws. It overrides existing national laws. To obey such EU directives is mandatory, which is one of the many problems with the EU, because obeying such directives leaves parliaments no choice - they have to wave it through, no matter national constitutions or concerns or not. From the perspective of the EU, EU directives are as good as direct, legally binding laws. EU directives translate into national law making.

In Germany, more than 80% of all national laws are enforced by EU directiuves, and Eu regulations. That number I learned for 2007, two years ago. with the dictate of Lisbon implemented now, it will become worse.

[Letum]

None, you can do whatever you want.

No, as a law-abiding citizen I can not do what ever I want any more than
someone who obeys the rules of chess can get a checkmate in one move.

Again, would you care to point out which part of European law or directive
you think forbids blasphemy? ...or where you just taking a wild stab in the dark?

[Skybird]

There is only one EU directive on anti-discrimination, Letum, and I am damn sure you know that and just play one of hairsplitter games again. It is the “directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation,” that has been passed by the eu parliament in April last year, and which defines “harassement” as “a conduct with the purpose or effect of violating the dignity of a person and of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment”, which is nothing else but a description of the term “discrimination”. For the definition of that “offensive envrionment”, the claim of the person charging you for commenting about his/her religion, for example, is enough. the burden of evidence is not with the one sueing you, but is with you: you have to prove your "innocence", and if you can'T do that, then you get sacked.

I have to admit, though, that this directive has passed the commissiona nd the EU parliament, but still needs to be agree to by all 27 member states. However, public awareness and polical interest for the issue, is extremely low.

Several EU nations already have implemented according laws, in some cases (Germany for example) even going beyond the EU demands. For example, ma family has several flats for rent. We could be sued by any interested person for not giving the flat to him. If there are several interested candidates, now this is really a dilemma! I must talk and behave in a way that at a court I can trust in the witnesses's reports to describe my behavior as not indicating that my rejection of somebody has been caused by anything different than pure random decision. I have no right anymore to refuse a candidate due to his social appearance, low income, behavior, my trust or lack of trust into him, and of course i also have no right to refuse somebody just because I do not like him. If there are five candidates, I decide for one - the other four can go to the court ansd sue me for discirmination and harassement.

The EU directive can cause even mor absurd constellation, critics say, becasue the definition of legal key terms are so very wide. For example if you organise a conference on letÄ'S say Christian relgion, you must co-arrange conference and opportuntiies at the samne time for Jews, Muslims, buddhists, etc etc, else they can sue you for discrimination.

the excuse that it is "unreasonable" to sue sombody over such claims , is invalid,l becasue a law should not depend on the good will of all parties, but shoild be tight and cover eventualities. Because people trying to push their agendas, will use such holes in the law. And lawyers - are specialists in doing right this: finding and abusing exploits, where possible.

[Skybird]

No, as a law-abiding citizen I can not do what ever I want any more than
someone who obeys the rules of chess can get a checkmate in one move.


Wrong. The law does not prevent you from braking it. The law only authorises others to take sanctions against you. Even this is worth nothing - if those sanctions cannot be enforced with the needed strength, even against the will of the person agaisnt whom they are directed.

The law needs a sheriff. And the sherrif needs a big loaded gun. without sheriff and gun, the law is no law, but just an appeal to your voluntary cooperation.

If you accept the risk of legal sanctions enforced against you, you are free to do and to carry out whatever you want. You can voluntarily obey moral self-restrictions - but you must not. that is the difference. So go and rob that bank, if you want. but you have to accept that the police will hunt you, and that you will land in prison if they catch you. If that is okay for you, go ahead.

[Letum]

Having now read the paper you mentioned I can confidently say that no
part of that directive prevents anyone from publishing or saying any blasphemies.

You are wrong when you said "Great Britain is object to EU anti
discrimination laws. Thus you can be brought to court for saying something
of wich soembody claims he feels offended in his precious religious
feelings, Letum."

The directive only ensures that I can't create an offensive environment for
you when providing you with social/welfare services, education and
the professional/commercial provision of goods/services, including
housing.

There is no anti-discrimination law in the UK (even from Europe) that
prevents me, here and now, telling you that Vishnu smells like a goat.

[Letum]

Wrong. The law does not prevent you from braking it. The law only authorises others to take sanctions against you.

In that case, the rules of chess do not prevent me from checkmating you on
my first move. The rules only authorises you to ignore my victory.

Our next game might be interesting. ;)

And you accuse me of splitting hairs!

[Skybird]

In that case, the rules of chess do not prevent me from checkmating you on
my first move. The rules only authorises you to ignore my victory.


They also say that your victory is invalid since your move is againstt he move. additional rules for tournament may also see you getting warned and/or banned. and I can certainly chose not to play with you again.

[Skybird]

Having now read the paper you mentioned I can confidently say that no part of that directive prevents anyone from publishing or saying any blasphemies.

Indeed you can do that. But you can be held responisble over alleged hate crimes and harassement (discrimination). Which is why certain lobbies have pressed so very hard to get religion included in the directive from the early draft versions on (originally it was not included).

You must be a fast reader if you say you have read the paper. I had a long time with it earlier last year, nothing I could have done in just half an hour or so.


The directive only ensures that I can create an offensive environment for
you when providing you with social/welfare services, education and
the professional/commercial provision of goods/services, including
housing.

You sure you understood it correctly? I quote again the defintion of harassement: a conduct with the purpose or effect of violating the dignity of a person and of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. That is a very subjective criterion, and it is not only to be used for "social/welfare services, education and
the professional/commercial provision of goods/services, including
housing", the harassement implementation has general validity, for exyample holding up a sign during a demonstration.Hysteric cartoon haters will see thiscriterion fulfilled much earlier than coldblooded me, or stoic Neal. Mind you that in the cartoon row, muslim argument was that freee speech was abused to violate the dignity of Islam and humilitate the prophet and the faith of muslim people. Criticising of Islam becomes a hate crime the moment somebody charges me for criticicing islam. The burden of ividence that my critcism is not meant as harassement, but is founded on rational argument, is with me. the guy charging me - must prove nothing. He only needs to raise the accusation.

Don't be so naive, Letum. I urge you to make a bit of Google research on the issue, it should be as easy for you as it is for me to find many warnings and critical comments showing that the language of the directive, as I already indicated, is so vague and loose that you can construct almost every hate crime case you want on the ground of this directive. It is not limited to the examples you mentioned, and is about their understanding of "harassement".

There is no anti-discrimination law in the UK (even from Europe) that
prevents me, here and now, telling you that Vishnu smells like a goat.
Indeed, prevented you are not. But once the directive passes the minister council, it will have legal consequences for you to make such a statement. EU directives are mandatory laws in deed in that nations must translate them into national laws.

Part of the critcism indeed is that you must not have said or done anything at all in order to be charged for harassement. If somebody charges you by just claiming you said something offending to the prophet, you are already in the middle of the action, since the burden of evidence is with you - not with him. ;) just imagine how wonderfully you can intimidate and hijack the wide public that way! Critical, independent minds will become more shy before voicing their thoughts in public. That is what already is happening in France, I have read some days ago in a German report.

Scientology uses a version of this tactic, by ripplefiring charges after charges at critics or apostates and launching one court case after another at them. They do not win ost of these. But their victims pay a price, in nerves, and detoriating morale to fight against Scientology. And this is the primary purpose of this tactic.

[Letum]

You sure you understood it correctly? I quote again the defintion of harassement: a conduct with the purpose or effect of violating the dignity of a person and of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. That is a very subjective criterion, and it is not only to be used for "social/welfare services, education and
the professional/commercial provision of goods/services, including
housing", the harassement implementation has general validity, for exyample holding up a sign during a demonstration.

Are you sure you understand the "directive on implementing the principle
of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief,
disability, age or sexual orientation" correctly?


Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin
Article 3: Scope
Discrimination based on religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation is prohibited by both the public and private sector in:
- social protection, including social security and health care;
- social advantages;
- education;
- access to and supply of goods and services which are available to the public, including housing.
In terms of access to goods and services, only professional or commercial activities are covered. In other words, transactions between private individuals acting in a private capacity will not be covered: letting a room in a private house does not need to be treated in the same way as letting rooms in a hotel. The areas are covered only to the extent that the subject matter falls within the competences of the Community. Thus, for example, the organisation of the school system, activities and the content of education courses, including how to organise education for persons with disabilities, is a matter for the Member States, and they may provide for differences in treatment in access to religious educational institutions. For example, a school could arrange a special presentation just for children of a certain age, while a faith based school would be allowed to arrange school trips with a religious theme.
The text makes it clear that matters related to marital and family status, which includes adoption, are outside the scope of the directive. This includes reproductive rights. Member States remain free to decide whether or not to institute and recognise legally registered partnerships. However once national law recognises such relationships as comparable to that of spouses then the principle of equal treatment applies[21].
Article 3 specifies that the directive does not cover national laws relating to the secular nature of the State and its institutions, nor to the status of religious organisations. Member States may thus allow or prohibit the wearing of religious symbols in schools. Differences in treatment based on nationality are also not covered.


Therefore, legislation should prohibit discrimination based on religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation in a range of areas outside the labour market, including social protection, education and access to and supply of goods and services, including housing. It should provide for measures to ensure the equal access of persons with disabilities to the areas covered.

Discrimination, offence and harassment outside of the scope of the
proposed directive is not covered in this directive. Demonstration signs
are certainly not in the stated scope.


Is there some other directive you have in mind?

[Snestorm]

Just some thoughts.

1: One should remmember thet Freedom Of Speech was never written into any constitution to merely protect popular speach, but to protect unpopular speech.

2: A succesful attack on Freedom Of Speech is only the first hurdle on the route to the abolition of Freedom Of Thought.

Why bother ourselves with thinking, when some of our leaders would be happy to do it for us?!?! "The end justifies the means".-Machiaveli. (Just something to think about, before one eagerly surrenders their Freedom Of Speech).

[Tribesman]

Ireland had in 2005 62% church attendance
Thats strange as an Irish survey came up with less than 50%.

Ireland's economy before the boom of the late 90s/2000s
Ah I see now, you are jumping between time periods to try and make a inconsistant point.
Well Britain was bankrupt in 1917 so it must be a real dive compared to Poland as Polands government didn't have any financial worries in 1914

Again, would you care to point out which part of European law or directive
you think forbids blasphemy? ...or where you just taking a wild stab in the dark?
Well last time he mentioned it he claimed it was in the Lisbon treaty, but it isn't so he claimed that it was what they secretly put in the treaty if you read stuff in the treaty that isn't in the treaty.
So in simple terms, there is no such law.


Fish.....
Blasphemy law is dropped in Netherlands
Sunday, 9th November 2008. 8:15am

No, the plan to drop them that was announced was followed by an announcement that they were not dropping them.
It was planned to drop 147 and rewrite 137(c) to cover it instead but they changed their minds 6 months after the date you mentioned.

[Respenus]

Letum, can I direct you back at my post? The ECJ has a nasty history of overstepping the traditional interpretation of law (EU regulations and directives). In no treaty is it written that EU regulations and directives are above the law of a member state. Two cases in 72 and 74 respectively have changed that and now it's a part of the EU legal system. What we have now is a directive on non-discrimination in the work place. Now, it might not happen right now or in the immediate future, yet we can all be damned sure a case based on this directive will come up and it won't be tied directly to the workplace. The ECJ might reject it the first, I'm not so sure about the second. Skybird is right, the EU system is far from guilt free when you look deeper at it. Not everything is does is wrong or bad, far from it, yet certain decisions are questionable. The German GG was overruled by the ECJ, something the Germans didn't take lightly, as GG is above the constitution itself. I understand Skybird better now in comparison with the past. As I say, if something is rational, it doesn't mean it's rationalistic.

[Letum]

What we have now is a directive on non-discrimination in the work place. Now, it might not happen right now or in the immediate future, yet we can all be damned sure a case based on this directive will come up and it won't be tied directly to the workplace.


There is nothing to suggest that this is the case here, but your here say
and bias.

SB is very much wrong. He said I could be "brought to court for saying
something of wich soembody claims he feels offended in his precious
religious feelings", but when asked under what law all he came up with
is a proposed directive that applies to professional/commercial goods and
service provision. It is neither law, nor relevant.

[Skybird]

"Therefore, legislation should prohibit discrimination based on religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation in a range of areas outsidethe labour market, including social protection, education and access to and supply of goods and services, including housing."

You obviously are not aware of the dodges and tricks of advocates. It is vague and open forumlöations like "in a range of areas outside x, y, z" that opens door, window and gate for charges outside the objects of "labour market, including social protection, education and access to and supply of goods and services, including housing."

There is plenty of critcism of these laws, that you can find easily - if only you would want. critcism from law experts themselves, btw, whose hints at crticial imp0lications I trust morer than your detemrination to just understand it as superficial as the ink on the surface of the paper. It works the same way here like the Lisbon dictate, which on the surface reads all nice and well - and has all the critical stuff hidden in implications the layman does not easily recognise, and in complex appendices that several dozen times the volume than the original document.

I already corrected myself, I tend to mix mistake a directive draft with that directive already having passed the minister council, but when this directive has passed the ministre council this year, Britain is obligated to turn it into mandatory law, with all it's details and demands - there is no no escape. And then you can be sued for any comment you make that somebody else claims is hurting his religious feelings. And YOU have to bring the eviodence that it is not. The other does not have to prove his claim.

You better believe it, Letum, even if I do not take the time to drown you in a series of links.

[Letum]

"Therefore, legislation should prohibit discrimination based on religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation in a range of areas outsidethe labour market, including social protection, education and access to and supply of goods and services, including housing."

And it gives a full list of that range of areas if you care to read a little further.
Areas inside the labour market are covered by other directives.

There is plenty of critcism of these laws, that you can find easily - if only you would want. critcism from law experts themselves

Of course there is plenty of criticism!
There is plenty of criticism of every law, institution, politician, constitution
and government there has ever been since the dawn of civilisation.
The important thing is the validity of the criticism and in this case the
accusation and criticism you make is utterly invalid and baseless in fact.

...And then you can be sued for any comment you make that somebody else claims is hurting his religious feelings.

Again, under what law if not this one?
And if under this directive, then what part of it obliges the creation of
blasphemy laws?

[Skybird]

There is nothing to suggest that this is the case here, but your here say
and bias.



Possibly negative again. Two years ago or so there was this order in the health minstry, valid for all offices of the NHS, if I'm not mistaken, that all employees, no matter their faith, should not eat pork on their sandwiches, for any eventually present Muslim may be offended by that. Back then they made a referring to the upcoming anti discrimination laws, as I remember.

This should tell you about the swing of things and the direction at which anti discrimination laws will be pointed at. Like the blasphemy law they just have passed in Ireland and where the justice ministre admitted openly that this law was not because of the Christians, but the "immigrants of different faith" (it is a reasonable guess that he had muslims on his mind, what other group of different faith than islam or Christianism immigrates to Ireland in hugh numbers?), the lobbying to include relgion in anti-discirmination, with all its imkplications, is due to supress people taking a critical stand against Islam and Islamic migration. and as we all know - even you should have realised it - there is no other religion present in the West that is so noisy in bringing even the smallest bagatells to court and that files charges (at least in germany and France) in huge numbers in order to enforce another small step back. Christians don't do it so often. not Jews. Not Buddhists. Not atheists, not cultists. Only scientology can compete with Islam'S belieging of the courts.

Religion was not included in the original draft, Letum. And the draft as it is now, with relgion and implicatiopns included, even gets criticies by the Anglican church (althoiugh for ither reasons). the pressure to include relgion came from polkiticians from countries that classically are very freindly to Muslim migration, and by coincidence also take Turkey'S future EU membership as alreade sealed and decided.


Sit downa while , and add 1 and 1 together.

[Skybird]

And it gives a full list of that range of areas if you care to read a little further.

You call that a full list? It is not...! It says "things outside the labour market, including x, y, z". That means in English as well as in German, that x, y, z are included. They are illustrative examples only. the list is open for building it up!

Okay I see that this is becoming anothe rone of these discussion that will end somewhere on abstract orbit level number 214. I just add - and end with - that explicit blasphemy laws are not needed with this directive becoming valid national law. When you say something that somebody else considers blashemy, he will sue you for religious harassement and discrimination. Like it or not, believe it or not.

[Letum]

Two years ago or so there was this order in the health minstry, valid for all offices of the NHS, if I'm not mistaken, that all employees, no matter their faith, should not eat pork on their sandwiches, for any eventually present Muslim may be offended by that. Back then they made a referring to the upcoming anti discrimination laws, as I remember.


Wow SB; you're on a roll!
When in a hole...

A quick google about tells me that this was a story that broke in the "Daily
Express" (a kind of Daily Mail paper for those who struggle with long
words).

The story turned out to be false. No one was told by anyone not to eat any
kind of sandwich, there was no suggestion that vending machines should
be moved and no one at NHS Lothian mentioned anything about
discrimination laws (which don't cover that kind of thing anyway!).

You can find the NHS's statement on the Daily Express article HERE (http://www.nhslothian.scot.nhs.uk/news/mediaroom/news_release/07_08_15_ramadan.asp)

I couldn't find the original Daily Express article in full, but I assume you
read it mirrored in some gutter of the internet.

Is this the level of your abundant expert criticism?
What next SB?

[Tribesman]

Okay I see that this is becoming anothe rone of these discussion that will end somewhere on abstract orbit level number 214.
No its one of those discussions where you are inventing "facts" and have been called on it.

Is this the level of your abundant expert criticism?
What next SB?
When he is on form you never quite know what made up story he is going to bring up next, as a rough guide for prediction go to Gates of Vienna or Dhimmiwatch and see the wide selection of Daily Mail and Express stories that are up for grabs.

[Skybird]

Wow SB; you're on a roll!
When in a hole...

A quick google about tells me that this was a story that broke in the "Daily
Express" (a kind of Daily Mail paper for those who struggle with long
words).

The story turned out to be false. No one was told by anyone not to eat any
kind of sandwich, there was no suggestion that vending machines should
be moved and no one at NHS Lothian mentioned anything about
discrimination laws (which don't cover that kind of thing anyway!).

You can find the NHS's statement on the Daily Express article HERE (http://www.nhslothian.scot.nhs.uk/news/mediaroom/news_release/07_08_15_ramadan.asp)

I couldn't find the original Daily Express article in full, but I assume you
read it mirrored in some gutter of the internet.

Is this the level of your abundant expert criticism?
What next SB?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2258664.ece

http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/blog/archives/001577.php

And since you cut short so nicely the EU directive, here it is in full:


The European Parliament ,
– having regard to the Commission communication on non-discrimination and equal opportunities for all - A framework strategy,
– having regard to Article 13 of the EC Treaty,
– having regard to Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origi ,
– having regard to Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation ,
– having regard to the Commission communication on the application of Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin ,
– having regard to the Commission report on Developing Anti-Discrimination Law in Europe: The 25 EU Member States compared, of July 2007,
– having regard to the national reports on the implementation of anti-discrimination legislation and the thematic reports produced by the network of legal experts in anti-discrimination to support its work set up by the Commission in order to provide independent information and advice on relevant developments in the Member States,
– having regard to the UN International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,
– having regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities,
– having regard to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Protocol No12 thereto,
– having regard to the Commission's Special Eurobarometer Survey on Discrimination in the European Union, of January 2007,
– having regard to the designation of 2007 as European Year of Equal Opportunities for All and 2008 as European Year of Intercultural Dialogue,
– having regard to Rule 45 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs,
A. whereas Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union provides that the European Union shall be founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law, principles which are common to the Member States and it is important that political declarations on the fight against discrimination are matched by the progressive development and full and correct implementation of legislation and policies, notably as regards the directives prohibiting discrimination and projects promoting equality,
B. whereas Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union also provides that the European Union shall respect fundamental rights as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and the promotion of equality and non-discrimination in accordance with Article 13 of the EC Treaty should be a priority of the European Union's laws and policies,
C. whereas employment is one of the basic requirements of social inclusion but levels of unemployment among many groups, in particular women, migrants, people with disabilities, ethnic minorities, older and younger people and those with isolated or unrecognised skills, remain unacceptably high; whereas unemployment among persons suffering from multiple discrimination is even higher,
D. whereas Community law does not currently cover discrimination in most areas of Community competence and whereas Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC provide different levels of protection, which create gaps in protection against discrimination that impacts on employment,
E. whereas the Commission's mapping survey on Developing Anti-Discrimination law in Europe confirms that at Member State level there is a patchwork of legislation across Member States, protecting against discrimination in different ways and often lacking a common method of implementation, which has led to a lack of harmony in the implementation of directives and a situation in which people are not sufficiently aware of their rights,
F. whereas the inconsistent application of non-discrimination policies in Member States contributes to the lack of implementation in practice of Community directives prohibiting discrimination, as is reflected in reports such as that of the European Group of Experts on Combating Sexual Orientation Discrimination entitled "Combating sexual orientation discrimination in employment: legislation in fifteen EU member states",
G. whereas in its resolution of 5 December 2007 on the follow-up of the European Year of Equal Opportunities for All (2007), the Council invited Member States and the Commission, in accordance with their respective competences, to sustain and reinforce the mainstreaming of disability issues into all relevant policies,
H. whereas the Commission has therefore justly commenced procedures against several Member States, and needs to continue doing so when necessary,
1. Calls on the Member States to take due account in their legislative practice of the various grounds for discrimination set out in Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;
2. Recalls that Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC provide minimum requirements and should be the foundation on which a more comprehensive Community anti-discrimination policy is built;
3. Expresses concern about deficiencies in the transposition and implementation of Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC by some Member States and the lack of information for EU citizens about possible remedies in cases of discrimination;
4. Regrets that Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC do not cover differences in treatment of a discriminatory nature based on physical criteria such as height or complexion, particularly in relation to access to jobs where there is no direct link between those physical characteristics and the skills required to perform the jobs concerned;
5. Calls on the Member States to ensure that, following the transposition of all their provisions, Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC are fully, correctly and effectively transposed and adequately implemented, and that, in accordance with their provisions, any exemptions are objectively justified;
6. Calls on the competent EU, national and local authorities to improve the coordination of their efforts of implementation; calls for a unified approach to combating discrimination which is inclusive of, and takes into account, all grounds for discrimination at the same time;
7. Emphasises that public authorities have a key role to play in promoting equality and preventing discrimination, through their policies, their provision of services and their employment practices;
8. Calls for a commitment by the Commission to carry out a substantial review of the implementation of Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC as well as issuing interpretive guidelines for their implementation to ensure full and correct implementation by Member States; calls on the Commission, in particular, to assess the way in which Member States have interpreted the exemptions provided for in Articles 6 and 8 when transposing Directive 2000/78/EC into national law; recalls that the implementation of both Directives requires a range of mechanisms and strategies including compliance, proactive engagement and enforcement as well as effective exchanges of best practices;
9. Urges that sanctions applicable to infringements of national provisions adopted pursuant to the transposition of Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive;
10. Urges the Commission to monitor carefully the transposition of Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC as well as compliance with legislation resulting from their transposition, and to continue to put pressure on the Member States, by way of infringement and non-compliance procedures, to respect their legal obligations in fully transposing those Directives as soon as possible; believes that Parliament's competent Committee should play a role in the ongoing monitoring of Member States" obligations under those Directives;
11. Reminds the Commission that Article 4 of Directive 2000/78/EC permits exceptions only to the extent that they are genuinely objectively necessary for the satisfactory performance of occupational activities; calls on the Commission to interpret that article strictly and to bring actions against Member States before the Court of Justice if they permit too broad a definition in their national legislation;
12. Asks for an annual evaluation of Member State implementation as part of the open method of coordination and an extended review of the implementation of such legislation every five years as part of the Social Agenda; believes that independent bodies concerned with non-discrimination issues, including the Commission's network of legal experts and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) representing potential victims of discrimination, should be involved in that annual evaluation and that concrete measures should be taken to build the capacity of NGOs in order to enable them to provide information and support to victims and to contribute constructively to the annual evaluation;
13. Believes that the absence of a provision in Directive 2000/78/EC indicating the necessity for broad definitions of disability has excluded some categories of disabled people from the legal protection of that Directive; therefore invites the Commission and the Member States to agree such broad definitions of disability urgently, in order to facilitate the harmonisation of anti-discrimination legislation, which could be based on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities;
14. Believes that the lack of a provision establishing a time limit for bringing proceedings to challenge discrimination has led some Member States to set very short time limits, which might be an obstacle to bringing such proceedings;
15. Believes that exceptions linked to marital status in Directive 2000/78/EC has limited the protection against discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation offered by that Directive;
16. Urges the Member States to promote more effectively the application of the rights of EU citizens under Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC, and urges the Commission, the Member States, trade unions, employers, as well as governmental and non-governmental stakeholders to do all in their power to improve awareness of rights under those Directives and to ensure that victims of discrimination have access to a range of advocacy support to enable them effective to exercise their rights thereunder; notes that the burden is often on the victim to challenge the alleged perpetrator of the discrimination, frequently with neither support from any public authority nor access to legal aid; urges Member States to empower concerned independent bodies to provide effective help to victims of discrimination;
17. Is concerned about the low level of awareness of anti-discrimination legislation among citizens in the Member States and calls on the Commission, the Member States, trade unions and employers to step up their efforts to raise that level of awareness; recalls that the Directives impose an obligation on Member States to disseminate information to the public on the relevant provisions of the Directives by all appropriate means;
18. Recommends that Member States undertake independent reviews of preventive and restitutive anti-discriminatory measures and the effectiveness of protection against victimisation and ensure that statutory and non-statutory bodies that participate in the prevention of discrimination and that support the victims of discrimination are adequately resourced; recommends also that the Commission include peer reviews in its ongoing monitoring exercise;
19. Recommends that Member States adequately resource and empower independent bodies that promote equality so that they can perform their role effectively and independently, including providing sound expertise on all forms of discrimination and appropriate assistance for victims of discrimination; encourages the Member States to ensure that the remit of those bodies covers all forms of discrimination, and calls on the Commission to establish standards against which to monitor and ensure the effectiveness and independence of those bodies;
20. Recommends that Member States and the Commission resource and empower those NGOs that represent discriminated groups, and those that are active in informing citizens and providing legal aid, as regards matters of discrimination;
21. Calls on the Member States to work together with the relevant social partners to monitor the correct implementation of Community legislation;
22. Stresses that in any event Member States should ensure that victims of discrimination are automatically assisted in legal proceedings, if necessary by public funding through legal aid schemes;
23. Calls upon the Commission practically and effectively to support the adoption of measures by Member States through the Progress programme and the European Social Fund in order to support programmes promoting equal opportunities and the eradication of discrimination;
24. Recommends that, in order to provide a more effective level of protection, Member States should empower associations, organisations and other legal entities to engage in legal proceedings, including on behalf or in support of any victim;
25. Urges the Member State governments to ensure equal treatment and opportunities under employment and social inclusion policies, and, in particular, to address the serious barriers raised by discrimination in recruitment procedures;
26. Recommends that Member States ensure that associations, organisations and other legal entities may engage on behalf of one or more complainants in any judicial proceedings for the enforcement of the Directives;
27. Calls on the Member States, in cooperation with the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights and the Commission, to collect, compile and publish comprehensive, accurate, comparable, reliable and separate statistics on discrimination at regular intervals and to publish them in such a way that they can be easily understood by the public and enable a more effective exchanges of best practices; stresses the need for the availability of sufficient funds to achieve this and the importance of developing ways of gathering data on discrimination in line with data protection legislation;
28. Calls for the establishment of national integrated action plans against all forms of discrimination;
29. Welcomes the Commission's interest in collecting equality data, including the publishing of the European handbook on such data; asks the Commission to study carefully the various legal questions and parameters regarding the issue of data collection and to put forward proposals to improve the recording of cases of discrimination and look at common standards for data collection; recommends that the Commission continue to provide legal training for judges, lawyers, trade unions and NGOs in order to enhance the long-term impact of the Directives, and also conduct more research and analysis of the impact of legislation transposing the Directives;
30. Welcomes the Commission's interest in multiple discrimination, including its launch of a study on this subject; calls on the Commission to adopt a balanced broad concept of multiple discrimination and for the Commission to examine and supply data on multiple discrimination and hate crimes; calls on the Commission to include provisions explicitly designed to combat multiple discrimination in any future legislation adopted under Article 13 of the EC Treaty, which can be invoked on either one or a combination of more than one of the grounds;
31. Stresses the importance of networking between groups active in combating discrimination at European, national, regional and local level;
32. Calls on Member States to review their national legislation and consider repealing acts that are incompatible with Article 13 of the EC Treaty;
33. Regards Directive 2000/43/EC as the foundation upon which to base a comprehensive anti-discrimination framework for measures relating to the prohibition against discrimination on the basis of race or ethnic origin; stresses, however, that account must be taken of problematic aspects which have already been identified and of the difficulties encountered by Member States in effectively transposing and implementing the provisions of that Directive;
34. Stresses that the Commission must produce a common, EU-wide definition of, or at least work towards a consensus about, the meaning of positive action, thereby dispelling the myths surrounding its meaning and its application in some Member States, particularly given its effectiveness for successfully tackling discrimination and producing equality of outcomes in some Member States;
35. Notes that the Commission may intend now to put forward only legislation to outlaw discrimination in access to goods and services on some, but not all grounds; reminds the Commission of its commitment to put forward a comprehensive directive covering disability, age, religion or belief and sexual orientation to complete the package of anti-discrimination legislation under Article 13 of the EC Treaty as provided in its 2008 work programme; reiterates the political, social and legal desirability of putting an end to the hierarchy of protection against the different grounds of discrimination; strongly believes that it does not make sense to prohibit discrimination in one area while allowing it in another;
36. Awaits with interest the development of the Community definition of disability which will allow disabled people from all over the European Union to enjoy the same rights wherever they are situated within the European Union;
37. Believes that any new proposed directive designed to combat discrimination as referred to in Article 13 of the EC Treaty will have to prohibit all forms of discrimination, including direct and indirect discrimination, in all areas already covered by Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC, discrimination by association, discrimination linked to perceived membership of a protected group and harassment; believes that an instruction to discriminate should be deemed to constitute discrimination, and that an unjustified failure to make a reasonable accommodation should be regarded as a form of discrimination; believes that the Directives should make clear that there is no hierarchy between the different forms of discrimination and that they must all be combated in equally strong measure; insists that any new proposed legislation duly reflects all the specificities of the different respective grounds;
38. Believes strongly that the material scope of the new proposal for a directive to combat discrimination within the meaning of Article 13 of the EC Treaty must be broad, covering all the areas that fall within the Community's competence as well as education, life-long learning, social protection including social security, housing and healthcare, images of discriminated groups in the media and advertising, physical access to information for people with disabilities, telecommunication, electronic communication, transport modes and public spaces, social advantages and access to and supply of goods and services which are available to the public; further believes that the new directive should also develop the scope of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions to make it is consistent with the protection of discrimination against the other groups;
39. Is firmly convinced that in combating discrimination, a holistic approach to raising public awareness must be developed, beginning with school programmes;
40. Calls on the Commission to investigate how future legislation based on Article 13 can incorporate further provisions promoting the implementation of the principles of non-discrimination and equality which are not dependent on complaints being made by individual victims; believes that that investigation should consider how future legislation can create obligations to introduce positive action and/or positive duties to promote equality, and link obligations related to non-discrimination and equality to national public procurement policy;
41. Takes the view that differences in treatment based on nationality or language, which are neither objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim nor achieved by appropriate and necessary means, may constitute indirect discrimination on the grounds of racial or ethnic origin contrary to Directive 2000/43/EC;
42. Considers that discrimination must also be seen as interfering with the four fundamental freedoms - particularly the freedom of movement for persons - and as such constitutes an obstacle to the functioning of the internal market; calls on the Commission to encourage the Member States to review their transitional provisions regulating access to their labour markets in order to eliminate differentiation between European citizens in this respect;
43. Considers that minority communities, and in particular the Roma community, need specific social protection, since their problems of exploitation, discrimination and exclusion have become even more acute in the areas of education, health, housing, employment and women's rights following recent enlargements of the European Union;
44. Recommends that, as regards access to high-quality education for disadvantaged and Roma children and their unjustified classification as disabled, special attention be paid to fighting all forms of discrimination encountered in the field of education;
45. Emphasises, that legislation is effective only when citizens are aware of their rights and have easy access to the courts; therefore believes that the new proposal for a directive to combat discrimination within the meaning of Article 13 of the EC Treaty must also address remedies and enforcement and recommends the establishment by Member States of one or more independent and effective bodies for the promotion of equal treatment and for combating the various forms of discrimination, with a remit to cover all grounds of discrimination under Article 13, and all areas covered by Directive 76/207/EEC; believes that the competence of those bodies should include providing independent assistance to the victims of discrimination in order to enable them to pursue their complaints about discrimination, conducting independent surveys about the application of non-discrimination legislation and making recommendations on any issue relating to such discrimination;
46. Calls for an obligation to be included in any future legislation under Article 13 of the EC Treaty to consult and include NGOs, independent specialised equality bodies, and representative national organisations, in regard to the drafting, the transposition process and the monitoring of its implementation;
47. Believes that the new directive should include a requirement that Member States implement equality mainstreaming in all planning, policy making and programme development in the areas covered by the directive, that service providers be organised and systematic in their approach to equality, and that service providers make adjustments and provide special treatment to ensure that members of minority groups that are experiencing inequality can access and benefit from the services provided;
48. Notes with concern that while 19 Member States have signed Protocol No12 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, only 5 have ratified that Protocol;
49. Calls for the continuation of the process of signature, conclusion and ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, including its Optional Protocol, and recalls that, following ratification of the Convention by the Community, any proposed Community non-discrimination legislation must comply with its requirements in full; reminds the Council about its call on the Commission, made at the informal ministerial conference on disability in June 2007, to launch a European strategy for the effective implementation of the Convention; calls upon the Commission, within that framework, to evaluate the need to amend secondary Community legislation or adapt relevant policies;
50. Stresses the importance of horizontal implementation and mainstreaming of the non-discrimination clause of the Treaty of Lisbon after it comes into force, which commits the European Union to aim to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation in defining and implementing its policies and activities;
51. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to mainstream equal opportunities and non-discrimination in the Lisbon Strategy for growth and employment, the guidelines for the open method of coordination on social inclusion, and national reform programmes and the regulations governing the structural funds; calls on the Commission and the Member States, therefore, to revise the Integrated Guidelines for Growth and Jobs and, in particular, the Employment Guidelines in order to ensure and improve the integration and visibility of the social dimension in the next cycle of the Lisbon Strategy; emphasises that in order to be effective equality and non-discrimination policies need to be strongly linked to social policies with an important role for social partners;
52. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to end all discrimination based on the employment contract by ensuring equal treatment for all workers, health and safety protection, provision for working and rest time, freedom of association and representation, protection against unfair dismissal, collective bargaining and collective action; emphasises the importance of access to training as well as the continued protection of acquired rights by covering periods of education and training, improved care opportunities, the maintenance of essential social rights such as pension rights, training rights and the right to unemployment benefits during changes in a person's occupational situation, between employment contracts and between dependent and autonomous employment;
53. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the parliaments and governments of the Member States and candidate countries.

I leave out the already existing appendices and supplementing chapters. And I remind of that this thing even then is not complete in itself, but cross-references to the Lisbon dictate's reference to the EU Human Rights declaration with its several critical issues included that mess up the issue of alleged or real religious discrimination even more.

You can try to simplify things as much as you want, Letum. But that is - naive.

[Tribesman]

And since you cut short so nicely the EU directive, here it is in full:

thats amazing.
So Skybirds claim about Blasphemy was entirely false again.

You can try to simplify things as much as you want, Letum. But that is - naive.
To simplify things, for Skybirds imagined law to become real they would have to repeal just about the entire set of documents the EU have drawn up over the years....including the one where he imagines this "law" exists:down:

[Castout]

It's Irish law and not EU's

@Skybird thanks for misleading the masses and pointing it out :hmmm: