New crimes: from discrimination to blasphemy

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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]

Originally Posted by Letum

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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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]

Originally Posted by Letum

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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?

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).

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]

Originally Posted by Respenus

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]

Originally Posted by 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."

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]

Originally Posted by Letum

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.