Talk:Åke Green

Feedback from homosexuals:

"Soren Andersson, the president of the Swedish Federation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender rights, said on hearing Green's jail sentence that religious freedom could never be used as a reason to offend people."

Sick fagots. - User:66.27.147.94

That seems to be one (1) homosexual, not homosexuals, and faggots has two g's. Just in case you want to get it right on your placard at the next fag-bashing. - Outerlimits 01:06, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually, Outerlimits, faggots is alternatively spelled with one g too, although I prefer the former, personally. Эйрон Кинни 05:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

We have an incorrect perspective on life. We look at it from our standpoint and not God's. Life is His creation, not ours. His to do with as He pleases, not ours. He sets the standards for living, not us. And he will judge (ultimate "offend" or approve), not us. The way we live this short life we are given determines what kind of eternity we will have. Our personal eternity will be blessed or cursed dependent upon our personal lived out faith in God Our Saviour.

We seem to have an incorrect perspective on encyclopedias.. (and this coming from a bigoted conservative fundamentalist zealot)

As a non-bigoted fairly liberal theist, I have to say that it is worrisome that someone could be imprisoned merely for saying something "offensive". The quotes given in this article from his sermon (assuming that they're A) genuine, and B) are in proper context) certainly don't seem like hate speech to me, but rather, simply taking a stand that, while I disagree with it, is his right to hold. Unless somehwere in his sermon he advocated violence against homosexuals, I can't see why it would be classified as hate speech. Nik42 03:23, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As an aside, Christians denouncing homosexuality is just like Buddhists denouncing smoking (or whatever they denounce). Christians don't hate homosexuals any more than Buddhists hate smokers.

I agree with Nik42. Shows you I am not a bigot, eh? Эйрон Кинни 19:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Uh..., I would like to address the comment that came just before Nik42's. For one, whomever posted that comment, does not know the person they were speaking of. If you don't even know a person, how are you going to call them a Fundamentalist zealot? Furthermore, when did being a Christian mean someone is a bigot? I'm concerned. Эйрон Кинни 05:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, some Swedish gay activists are already rallying to get Bible labelled as "hate literature". Consequently, they demand that only a censored version should be available in public libraries, schools and bookstores. In particular, they demand that Romans 1:24-32 chapter should be completely erased from the New Testament.

This certainly seems relevant. Could I bother you to dig up a link? :)

Yes, I would like to know more about this too. Эйрон Кинни 17:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Offending someone is not against the law in Sweden. Hate campaigns against a group based on race, sex or sexual preference are, as it is considered anti-democratic. I believe Poland and Germany have similar protections for minorities. As for Sören Andersson's comment on offending people, it was a mistranslation. "Få hets" means "to be persecuted," not "to be offended." I have fixed it. Input junkie 18:50, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:193.166.89.77 reinserted "offend" as a possible alternative translation of Sören Andersson's words. I concur with Input junkie that this is incorrect. What Andersson said (according to national news agency TT [1]), was "Religionsfrihet kan aldrig innebära att hetsa mot människor". "Hetsa mot" means "to persecute", "to bait" or "to agitate against". It cannot in any circumstance I can think of correctly be translated to "offend" (since you can "hetsa mot" somebody without the object even knowing it). (The closest Swedish equivalents of "offend" would be "förolämpa" or "kränka", and possibly "förnärma".) Just because someone somewhere made an erroneous translation into English, it shouldn't be replicated in Wikipedia. Alarm 18:59, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I did it mainly because the "this stand worries religious people" thing doesn't really make sense without it. Everywhere where the statement has raised worries, it's been translated as "offend". I'll check with a translator once I have the time.

Since Input junkie said the same thing, and no other Swedish-English translation authority has been referred to, I'm taking out the reference to "offend". The following sentence, "Many religious people have found this stand deeply worrying" is both unsourced and using weasel terms, and the previous post makes the point that it is to some degree dependent on the incorrect translation. Due to those reasons I'm removing the sentence. If anyone wants to reinsert it, please cite your sources and specify the worried parties in question. / Alarm 14:15, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It caused a huge uproar in the right-leaning media, which is certainly relevant. I can't see how else it could have been expressed.

Liberal views

"Liberal groups see it as a victory for human rights" - that's not particularly true. In Sweden, almost all liberal groups and commentators have opposed the first verdict against Åke Green (I haven't seen one liberal yet who supports it), refering to the freedom of speach, which indeed is one of the most important cornerstones of the liberal ideology. I know that "liberal" in the U.S. almost has come to mean "left-wing" or "social democrat", but please use the correct term. /Jebur 16:54, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Generally, Wikipedia terminology favors American/English-language meanings. Yes, I know, liberal has a different meaning in the non-English-speaking world, but "liberal" is good here.

Actually, liberal doesn't quite mean what you appear to think it means in Australia which is English speaking Nil Einne 14:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"Constitutional amendment"

The article states that

Sweden passed a constitutional amendment in 2002, including sexual orientation in a list of groups protected against "unfavorable speech."

This is a problematic sentence for several reasons. Mainly because although the constitution of Sweden mentions this subject, Åke Green wasn't prosecuted on basis of the constitution but on Brottsbalken 16:8, a section of the Swedish criminal law known as Lagen om hets mot folkgrupp (roughly "The Act on Persecution of Groups" or possibly "Hate Speech Act"). The section makes it illegal to "threaten or express disdain for [...] [a] group of persons, referring to [...] sexual orientation".

The corresponding section of the constitution, Tryckfrihetsförordningen 7:4 (11.), and Yttrandefrihetsgrundlagen 5:1, deal specifically with printed and broadcast expressions, since such expressions have a general constitutional protection and thus can't be prosecuted under criminal law, but only according to the process regulated in the constitution itself. A sermon is not covered by the constitutional protection for printed and broadcast expressions, so alleged "hate speech" in a sermon will be tried according to criminal law.

Since Swedish law in this case regulates similar offences in different places, I think it would be more appropriate to refer to "legal protection" without specification.

Secondly, "unfavorable speech" is a rather awkward translation of hets as in Lagen om hets mot folkgrupp (see discussion above). In my opinion, a more appropriate wording would be "persecution" or, alluding to the actual legal text, "threats and expressions of disdain".

On a side note, the term "constitutional amendment" isn't really appropriate in a Swedish context, since the Swedish constitution isn't really amended in the way the U.S. constitution is, but simply changed (because Swedes, unlike Americans, do not treat their constitution as a sacred document). Alarm 20:31, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Since there have been no objections to this, I'm changing the article along the lines of what is said above. / Alarm 14:22, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ambiguity on the page

Am I the only one who finds this page extremely confusing? Maybe it's not just the page... it's the situation. We have phelps praising green, for condemning gays, but hating him for saying they could repent. He honors him with a hate page. So now phelps is showing his appreciation for people by giving them a hate page? We have green's lawyer agreeing with green, and calling the law makers that incarcerated him gay nazis, but at the same time, denouncing Phelps, for denoucing green for denoucing gays but saying they could repent. Yeah, it's really that confusing.

The other confusing part is this: the decision to incarcerate Green was a "victory" for human rights? Isn't it a human right to have free speech? Now we have two liberal groups disagreeing: The ones that favor free speech over decency, and the ones that favor decncy over free speech. Well, which one is it? Deathtalon 00:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Broken links

I don't speak Swedish, but it appears to me that the two most important weblinks (and citations) are broken:

• Judgment of the Supreme Court (translated to English from Swedish)
• http://www.hogstadomstolen.se/pressmeddelanden.htm

Any way we can get that fixed? --Micahbrwn (talk) 03:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion in Category : Homophobia

I think it is more than reasonable to call this guy homophobic, regardless of whether his homophobia comes from the bible interpretation or not. Therefore, I include the article in category Homophobia. Anybody disagrees? --Law Lord (talk) 09:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• I do. His views, based on the both Old and New Testament, are no different than views of hundreds of millions of evangelical Christians wordwide. And I object to calling biblical beliefs by artificially created term "homophobia". Wikipedia is not a private property of LGBT organizations, and your discriminatory name-calling shouldn't have a place in it. Ammon86 (talk) 10:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment First of all, I am not from any LGBT-organization. Secondly, I do not think "homophobia" is name-calling; rather, it is an accurate asssesment of his beliefs. Thirdly, have you looked at the people who are in fact included in the category? There are plenty of Christians included, and when they have been included by consensus, I fail to see why Åke Green should be left out. --Law Lord (talk) 11:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

By what consensus? A group of homosexuals and their supporters trying to impose their ideology on the rest of the users you call consensus? It you do, it is such consensus like that in Iran between Ahmadinejad and Khamenei that the last elections were free and fair. And argument that there are plenty of Christians included into this category is like argument that plenty of Jews were killed in Nazi camps - why we should then object to the death of another one? We reached a "consensus" that they should be there.. Ammon86 (talk) 12:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)