Those advanced and superiorly intellectual Europeans teaching the world a lesson in “tolerance.”
Norway’s hate speech bill was passed on a second reading without the need for a full vote, after legislators supported it during its first reading last week. Based on the penal code, people found in violation can be jailed up to three years for hate speech conducted in public, which is defined broadly as a “place intended for general traffic or frequented by the public.”
“If the act consists of making a statement, it is also public if the statement is made in a way that makes it likely to reach a sizable number of persons,” the penal code adds.
Norway Passes Law Banning Hate Speech Against Transgender, Bisexual People
This old quote is now a felony in Norway.
“Bisexuality immediately doubles your chances for a date on Saturday night.”
Woody Allen
This is the insanity. As usual, what is defined as Hate Speech is vague and that gives the government the ability to shut down any speech it desires. How vague?
Although members of the neo-Nazi group Nordic Resistance Movement also targeted LGBTQ+ activists by coming to events and taking photos of those in attendance as an act of intimidation, overall, most cases of hate speech took place online, according to a review from ILGA-Europe.
See? Taking photos of a “protected group” in a public space can be Hate Speech and intimidation if you are not also a government approved citizen. Taking a photo of Trans or Bi people is a crime. That means the article I am quoting should be against the new law and at least the writer or the editor and surely Lev Radin of Getty Images, should go to prison for three years.
But we know it will only be applied to “enemies of the state.”
Hat Tip @el_espia_vago
I’m reminded of an exam I took in college where I answered one of ten questions in essay form. I don’t remember the question, but it led me to compare a completely free market to a black market- i.e., if something is banned outright without further regulation, then those who participate in it set all the standards free from any .gov rules. This would include violent intervention if things couldn’t be settled otherwise.
This “ban hated speech” (not a typo) binge will operate the same way by driving said speech underground. If someone has issue with lgblt being pushed everywhere, well now they can’t say anything. How long will it take before they decide that action speaks louder than words and, coincidentally, has the same punishment?
This is a ramble. Hope it’s coherent enough
If “Hate Speech” remains undefined (a feature not a bug), it can be expanded to include anything. I.e. if you post a comment online that a certain elected official stole an election with with the illegal aid of a foreign power, that could and would be considered racist, anti-LGBTQ “Hate Speech.” Enjoy your train ride to the Gulag.
Hate speech being undefined is a feature, not a bug, but I can assure you, it will only be used against people on one side of the political aisle.
The first axiom of politics is in full play.
Under the vague and broad wording of this bill, if my husband and I got into an argument in public we’d both be committing hate crimes against the other person.
Little fun fact from Germany:
There was a Jewish march for some reason (a holiday, I think) and of course some Muslim agitated the Jews. Then one of the marchers shouted at the Muslim. Pleasantries were exchanged and in the end both got fined.
The fun fact?
It’s “Volksverhetzung” (incitement of the masses, or similar) to insult a minority based on it beeing part of a minority group (for example the N-word against a black person).
So both people got a felony “Volksverhetzung” BUT both felonies got counted towards “Kriminalität von Rechts” (yes, that’s a real categorie) which means “crimes from the right” because it was a minority that got insulted. So the Muslim AND the Jew are now counted in our statistics of political crime as Neonazis 😀
How do you say “Facepalm” in German? Wow!
We say “Facepalm”. 😀
Afaik we don’t have a word for this gesture. It’s actually quite ironic as we have a word for EVERYTHING.
You could say “die Hand ins Gesicht schlagen” which translates to “to slap the hand into ones face” but no one says that anymore. 😀
The more you know…
Two axioms come to mind as warnings against falling apathetically into gradually accepting the pitfalls of socialism and attacks on our constitutional rights:1. “There is none so blind as those who will not see.”, — John Heywood(?)
and “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” — Edmund Burke.
Then there’s also, “Fore-warned is fore-armed.”
Europe doesn’t have freedom of speech. It’s really that simple.
In fact, I don’t know of any other country that has a constitution even remotely like ours, one that (nominally) limits the power of government and protects basic human rights.
Many nations have such a constitution, either a written one such as Canada or an unwritten one such as the United Kingdom. The problem is that they aren’t usually respected very much these days.
“Unwritten constitution” is a concept that really makes no sense at all. It’s a way for the Brits to pretend that they have rules controlling the government when in fact they do not. The only actual constraint on Parliament is tradition and habit.
I don’t know the Canadian case. I do know the Dutch one. Consider article 7: “1. No one needs prior permission to publish opinions, subject to everyone’s responsibility under the law. 2. The law controls radio and television broadcast”. So (a) the freedom of the press is void where prohibited, and (b) freedom of speech doesn’t exist at all for broadcasters.
But wait, there’s more. Article 120: “The judge has no authority over laws and treaties”. In other words, the legislature can pass any unconstitutional law it wants and the people have no recourse.
So I don’t think it’s just a matter of a theoretically good Constitution that’s ignored by the powers that be — as in the US case. The problem is that the constitution either doesn’t exist at all or isn’t even theoretically good.
Similar in Germany:
Free speech is guaranteed but “hate speech” is not free speech.
What is “hate speech”? That will be decided on a case to case basis. 😀
For grins: I looked a bit more in the Dutch constitution. Found something interesting about treaties. They are ratified by parliament, except if the law says no ratification is needed.
And if a treaty violates the constitution it requires ratification by a 2/3 majority. I kid you not, it actually says this. Amazing.