'Last week, Switzerland’s parliament rejected by 115 votes to 48 a proposal to abolish the crime of blasphemy in Switzerland.
Beat Flach proposed the motion, arguing that defining blasphemy as a crime places limits on free speech. We should not punish people for criticising religion, believes Flach. Instead he thinks Switzerland should send a strong signal in favour of liberty of expression....'
I am incredibly disappointed in the Swiss people.
They have always been considered the most modern Nation in Europe. And the most ancient democracy in the continent too.
They keep a law that doesn't even exist in the Catholic Belt ( Portugal-Spain-Italy- France) where the freedom of expression is absolute.
'Last week, Switzerland’s parliament rejected by 115 votes to 48 a proposal to abolish the crime of blasphemy in Switzerland.
Beat Flach proposed the motion, arguing that defining blasphemy as a crime places limits on free speech. We should not punish people for criticising religion, believes Flach. Instead he thinks Switzerland should send a strong signal in favour of liberty of expression....'
There is no crime of blasphemy in Switzerland to abolish. Which is why the Swiss felt that to create a law against it would in effect be a law against free speech.
They already have laws protecting citizens from each other. And they are enforcing them as best they can.
There is no crime of blasphemy in Switzerland to abolish. Which is why the Swiss felt that to create a law against it would in effect be a law against free speech.
They already have laws protecting citizens from each other. And they are enforcing them as best they can.
You do have a point...the problem is of different nature.
Actually the Article 261 bis (Schweizerisches Strafgesetzbuch) states, according to the Swiss jurisprudence that criticizing a religion is considered equivalent to targeting a religious group and so spreading racial hatred.
Which is light years away from the jurisprudence in my country...where one can freely criticize any religion, for religions are not persons so they cannot feel insulted.
Thete is no correlation between "religion" and "believers".
You do have a point...the problem is of different nature.
Actually the Article 261 bis (Schweizerisches Strafgesetzbuch) states, according to the Swiss jurisprudence that criticizing a religion is considered equivalent to targeting a religious group and so spreading racial hatred.
Which is light years away from the jurisprudence in my country...where one can freely criticize any religion, for religions are not persons so they cannot feel insulted.
Thete is no correlation between "religion" and "believers".
I can give you an example: I can write a book where I criticize the Vatican harshly...as long as I name no living person. I can defame saints, past popes...etc...
We can criticise who or what we like.
However we do have hate laws and laws that prevent racial and sexual and religious attacks.
You can criticise Catholicism, but you can not discriminate against someone for being Catholic.
We can criticise who or what we like.
However we do have hate laws and laws that prevent racial and sexual and religious attacks.
You can criticise Catholicism, but you can not discriminate against someone for being Catholic.
Could it have happened probably, yes.
Would it have happened probably not.
Publishers have a responsibility not to create breaches of the peace.
Largely such things are governed by the application of common sense.
not by confrontation.
Could it have happened probably, yes.
Would it have happened probably not.
Publishers have a responsibility not to create breaches of the peace.
Largely such things are governed by the application of common sense.
not by confrontation.
I perfectly understand your reasoning. You mean """"since Catholics could not care less about criticism, criticizing them does not imply a 'breach of the peace'. But if a religious group does care about criticism, it does imply a 'breach of the peace' """...am I wrong?
In our system the principle lex eadem omnibus is applied. Meaning : the same law for all...no exceptions, no double standards, no privileges.
We are all anthropologically equal...so one is supposed to understand the separation between religion and state.
'Last week, Switzerland’s parliament rejected by 115 votes to 48 a proposal to abolish the crime of blasphemy in Switzerland.
Beat Flach proposed the motion, arguing that defining blasphemy as a crime places limits on free speech. We should not punish people for criticising religion, believes Flach. Instead he thinks Switzerland should send a strong signal in favour of liberty of expression....'
Some thoughts. Do you (or @viole) think under Swiss Law:
1) Drawing a picture of Muhammad is considered blasphemy?
2) Drawing a picture of Muhammad to mock Islam is considered blasphemy?
3) Drawing a picture of Muhammad to point out "killing those who draw is wrong" is considered blasphemy?
4) Drawing a picture of Muhammad and publicizing without thinking and/or knowing about Islam is considered blasphemy?
Note: IF drawing a picture of Muhammad without intend to harm is a criminal offence THEN you impose Islam Rules on non-Muslims Note: Hinduism teaches that it is valuable to draw a picture of your beloved Master/Prophet as it increases love in you (certain Muslims lack) Note: "Freedom of Religion" gives freedom to practise Religion how you want it; IF I want to draw Muhammad it should be allowed (as Hindu too)
The ‘blasphemy’ law
There is one article in the Swiss Criminal Code of 1937 regarding an “[A]ttack on the freedom of faith and the freedom to worship”.
“Any person who publicly and maliciously insults or mocks the religious convictions of others, and in particularly [sic] their belief in God, or maliciously desecrates objects of religious veneration, any person who maliciously prevents, disrupts or publicly mocks an act of worship, the conduct of which is guaranteed by the Constitution, or any person who maliciously desecrates a place or object that is intended for a religious ceremony, or an act of worship the conduct of which is guaranteed by the Constitution, is liable to a monetary penalty not exceeding 180 daily penalty units.”
A “daily penalty unit” amounts to a minimum penalty of 30 CHF and a maximum penalty of 3000 CHF. The court exercises its discretion to decide the amount of the daily penalty units based on the offender’s financial situation.
Article 261 does not criminalize blasphemy per se, as it outlaws insulting and mocking “the religious convictions of others, and in particularly [sic] their belief in God”. Nevertheless, Article 261 is still problematic because it specifically protects religious beliefs from criticism and constitutes an unnecessary restriction to the right to freedom of expression, enshrined in article 16 in the Constitution. Article 261bis of the Penal Code sufficiently limits freedom of expression to the necessary extent, as it prohibits the discrimination and incitement to hatred against a person because of their race, ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation, making article 261 redundant.
Any person who publicly incites hatred or discrimination against a person or a group of persons on the grounds of their race, ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation,
any person who publicly disseminates ideologies that have as their object the systematic denigration or defamation of that person or group of persons,
any person who with the same objective organises, encourages or participates in propaganda campaigns,
any person who publicly denigrates or discriminates against another or a group of persons on the grounds of their race, ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation in a manner that violates human dignity, whether verbally, in writing or pictorially, by using gestures, through acts of aggression or by other means, or any person who on any of these grounds denies, trivialises or seeks justification for genocide or other crimes against humanity,
any person who refuses to provide a service to another on the grounds of that person’s race, ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation when that service is intended to be provided to the general public,
is liable to a custodial sentence not exceeding three years or to a monetary penalty.
What can I say? I was not aware of that. Too many Catholics, I guess
However, since we banned the constructions of minarets, and nobody got in jail for depicting the same minarets as rocket bombs in posters around the country, I am not too concerned.
We should not punish people for criticising religion, believes Flach. Instead he thinks Switzerland should send a strong signal in favour of liberty of expression
I fail to see how allowing for legally empowered religious-based censorship can ever be thought of as desirable. If god's skin is as thin as Trump's I have to wonder if this being is even a god.
Some thoughts. Do you (or @viole) think under Swiss Law:
1) Drawing a picture of Muhammad is considered blasphemy?
2) Drawing a picture of Muhammad to mock Islam is considered blasphemy?
3) Drawing a picture of Muhammad to point out "killing those who draw is wrong" is considered blasphemy?
4) Drawing a picture of Muhammad and publicizing without thinking and/or knowing about Islam is considered blasphemy?
Note: IF drawing a picture of Muhammad without intend to harm is a criminal offence THEN you impose Islam Rules on non-Muslims Note: Hinduism teaches that it is valuable to draw a picture of your beloved Master/Prophet as it increases love in you (certain Muslims lack) Note: "Freedom of Religion" gives freedom to practise Religion how you want it; IF I want to draw Muhammad it should be allowed (as Hindu too)
The ‘blasphemy’ law
There is one article in the Swiss Criminal Code of 1937 regarding an “[A]ttack on the freedom of faith and the freedom to worship”.
Discrimination and incitement to hatred
Any person who publicly incites hatred or discrimination against a person or a group of persons on the grounds of their race, ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation,
any person who publicly disseminates ideologies that have as their object the systematic denigration or defamation of that person or group of persons,
any person who with the same objective organises, encourages or participates in propaganda campaigns,
any person who publicly denigrates or discriminates against another or a group of persons on the grounds of their race, ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation in a manner that violates human dignity, whether verbally, in writing or pictorially, by using gestures, through acts of aggression or by other means, or any person who on any of these grounds denies, trivialises or seeks justification for genocide or other crimes against humanity,
any person who refuses to provide a service to another on the grounds of that person’s race, ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation when that service is intended to be provided to the general public,
is liable to a custodial sentence not exceeding three years or to a monetary penalty.
'Last week, Switzerland’s parliament rejected by 115 votes to 48 a proposal to abolish the crime of blasphemy in Switzerland.
Beat Flach proposed the motion, arguing that defining blasphemy as a crime places limits on free speech. We should not punish people for criticising religion, believes Flach. Instead he thinks Switzerland should send a strong signal in favour of liberty of expression....'
Some people really do want freedom to upset and insult and provoke other folks.
And then, if one person reacts badly to such treatment the entire religion can be attacked and criticised.