http://www.akegreen.org/

The events that have transpired in Sweden since 2002 have far reaching ramification for the freedom of religion and freedom of speech in countries far beyond the borders of Sweden.

On June 29, 2004, Pastor Ake Green was sentenced to one month in jail for showing “disrespect” against homosexuals in the sermon he delivered from his pulpit in the small town of Borgholm, Sweden on July 20, 2003.  The title of his sermon was “Are people born with homosexual orientation or is it the result of influence by evil powers?”  Imagine that!  A prison sentence for merely preaching the gospel about sin, righteousness and judgment as well as about grace, redemption, forgiveness and restoration!  You can read a transcript of his sermon translated into English.

The whole thing actually started in 2002 when the Swedish Parliament enacted a new novel law that criminalized expressions of disrespect (Swedish: “missakting”) against homosexuals.  The sentence for violation is up to 2 years in prison for such expressions.  If the expression is “especially offensive” (Swedish: “särskillt kränkande”) the sentencing is up to four years in prison.  The same law actually also covers groups based on race, color, nationality and ethnic origin and faith.  However, expressions of disrespect and offense against such groups are never an issue for people of faith.  The Bible does not condemn anyone based on race, color etc.  But the Bible does condemn people engaging in homosexuality and other perversions.  So when homosexuals were included in the definition of “people groups” the stage was set for confrontation with people who believe the Bible.  This was made very clear by the Swedish Prime Minister himself.  Just before the law was enacted, he stated publicly, as an example, that under the new law it would be criminal to refer to the homosexual lifestyle as something “unnatural”.

The new criminal law (BRB 16:6 para.8) reads as follows (key words underlined for emphasis):
"8 para: Anyone who, through expression or other form of communication that is spread, threatens or expresses disrespect for a group of people or other such groups of persons with reference to race, color, national or ethnic origin, confession of faith or sexual orientation, is sentenced for instigation against a group of people to prison up to two years or, if the crime is minor, to fines.
If the crime is major is sentenced to at least six months and up to four years in jail.  In the determination of whether the crime is major, consideration shall be given to whether the message has had an especially threatening or offensive contents and whether the message has been spread to a great number of people in a way that is meant to generate considerable attention."

(The translation above is from Swedish where it reads verbatum: ”8 § Den som i uttalande eller i annat meddelande som sprids hotar eller uttrycker missaktning för folkgrupp eller annan sådan grupp av personer med anspelning på ras, hudfärg, nationellt eller etniskt ursprung, trosbekännelse eller sexuell läggning, döms för hets mot folkgrupp till fängelse i högst två år eller om brottet är ringa, till böter.
   Är brottet grovt döms till fängelse i lägst sex månader och högst fyra år. Vid bedömande av om brottet är grovt skall särskilt beaktas om meddelandet haft ett särskilt hotfullt eller kränkande innehåll och spritts till ett stort antal personer på ett sätt som varit ägnat att väcka betydande uppmärksamhet. Lag (2002:800).”)

Notice the following key words in the new law:

Expression of “disrespect”.  There is of course a huge difference between threatening a group of people and merely expressing disrespect.  Disrespect is something very subjective.  It goes without saying that the homolobby would consider any preaching of the Biblical teaching about their lifestyle as an expression of disrespect.


The law mentions the act of threatening a person in the same sentence as showing someone disrespect.  Notice that the sentencing in both cases (whether threatening or merely showing disrespect) is for instigation against a group of people.  The obvious purpose of this is to place the stigma of “instigation” on pastors who merely preach the biblical message on homosexuality and in the process show disrespect for such individuals.


Again, when determining whether the crime is minor or major, consideration is given as to whether the contents of the message is especially threatening or offensive.  Notice that the message could be merely especially offensive to a group of people and not at all threatening.  I doesn’t matter.  The sentence is the same.

Alberta Human Rights Tribunal Rules Against Christian Pastor Boissoin

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/dec/07120306.html

REAL Women leader calls for curtailment of power of Canada's Human Rights Commissions

RED DEER, Alberta, December 3, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A complaint against a young Alberta pastor to the Alberta Humans Rights Commission brought by a homosexual activist has been ruled in favour of the complainant, the Canadian Press reports. The Tribunal ruled Friday that letters written in 2002 by Stephen Boissoin to the Red Deer Advocate, exposed homosexuals to “hatred and contempt” and may even have been indirectly responsible for the beating of a homosexual teenager.

Lori Andreachuk, commission panel and chairman, said both Boissoin and the Concerned Christian Coalition to which he belonged had broken the law. “I find that there is a circumstantial connection between the hate speech of Mr. Boissoin and the CCC and the beating of a gay teenager in Red Deer less than two weeks following the publication of Mr. Boissoin's letter,” she wrote.

Boissoin, the full time pastor of a Red Deer youth ministry, wrote a letter to the editor of his hometown newspaper in which he said homosexuality is immoral and physically dangerous for those involved in it. Boissoin particularly criticized the homosexual political lobby that worked to teach children in schools about the practices of the “gay lifestyle”.

Boissoin was upset that “children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights.”

In the extrajudicial courts of the Canadian Human Rights Commissions, the complainant’s expenses are paid for by the state, but the defendant must pay for his own defence and the rules of evidence, normal in the regular courts, do not apply. In nearly every case in Canada brought against Christians who criticize the homosexual subculture, the Tribunals have found in the complainant’s favour. A defendant may follow the case up with an appeal to the legal courts, but again must pay his own expenses.

In Boissoin’s ministry with youth, he had frequent occasion to help those suffering from the homosexual disorder.

The case, however, has highlighted to Canadians the means by which the “grievance culture” created by the Human Rights Commissions, are quashing freedom of expression. In 2005, Boissoin told LifeSiteNews.com that that he had received “a barrage” of supportive phone calls from the US and Canada about his case.

REAL Women of Canada, a free speech advocacy and human rights group, commenting on the Human Rights tribunals, said “The time has come in this country to curtail the power of these people.”

Gwen Landoldt, the group’s Vice-President, told LifeSiteNews.com, the decision is “typical of the Human Rights Commission. If a complaint is laid against you, you’re automatically found guilty.”

She said bluntly, “Something has to be done to curtail the power of these commissions,” she added. “People in a democracy should be able to have an opinion on homosexuality or on gardening or on anything without being charged or paying money out to protect oneself.”

---

A copy of the letter:

http://canadianpastor.blogspot.com/

There is a fine line between freedom of speech and hate speech.

The crux is in the loose definition of the word missakning, meaning scornfulness more than disrespect. It's not quite as strong as ridicule or vilification.

What the Statute lacks is a Schedule or dictionary that defines missakning. It also fails to expand on the definition.

For example, in the Anti Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld), it states:

31A Offence of serious racial, religious, sexuality or gender identity vilification

(1) A person must not, by a public act, knowingly or recklessly incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, a person or group of persons on the ground of the race, religion, sexuality or gender identity of the person or members of the group in a way that includes--

    (a) threatening physical harm towards, or towards any property of, the person or group of persons; or

    (b) inciting others to threaten physical harm towards, or towards any property of, the person or group of persons.


=============

Of course, that's much less ambiguous.

Just noticed the ad on the top of this page - Gay Chubby dating 

muso wrote on Jun 16^th, 2008 at 6:33pm:


LOL.