| From: [email protected] (Bertil Jonell)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,soc.culture.nordic
Subject: Re: The Myth of Swedish Socialism
Date: 16 Sep 91 07:57:10 GMT
Sender: [email protected]
Organization: Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden
The law called "Hets mot folkgrupp" (Incitement against ethnic group)
and that means that it has a rather limited scope. Claiming that all
immigrants are parasites that should be expelled is for example *not*
punishable, as immigrants isn't an ethnic group. I don't think claiming
that a certain ethnic group is superior to all others is punishable
either, because it isn't incitement *against* anyone.
(That bozo you mention above must have said something negative about a
specific group.)
To make a net.comparision, neither Schmidling nor Martillio would be
covered by this law, and I suspect that the so-called "Ralph Winston"
would get off free too.
There is however a new law in the works that would make it punishable
to be a member of a "racist organization". I don't know who would
determine if a organization is racist or not, and I think the
opportunities for abuse are astronomic.
-bertil-
--
"Det a"r en Svensk grej. Du skulle inte fo"rsta^..."
|
| In Norway there is definitely a law against certain types of
disparaging descriptions against racial or religious groups. This was
formulated to counter Nazi-type ideology. Regrettably, I do not know
the wording of the law, but it may be a bit like the Swedish one---
possibly a bit stronger.
On the other hand, the courts (especially the Norwegian Supreme Court)
is EXTREMELY cautious in its application, due to the freedom of the
press and freedom of speech inherent in our constitution. The law did
come into being after WW II, and like all Norwegian law, it has a body
of documentation (e.g., debates in Parliament) which define its INTENT.
In the interpretation of any such laws in Norway, great emphasis is
always placed on the basic intent of a given law (a further
Scandinavian peculiarity also places emphasis on how a law is
subsequently practiced, though the Anglo-Saxon "precedense" is not as
strong here).
As to "what is freedom of speech/expression?", this cannot be
categorically stated given only the US Constitutional definition
(which, as I recall, contains the phrase "Congress shall make no laws
limiting..."; thus being perceived as "absolute"). Note that even in
the US, libel is illegal (though you do have to prove malice of
intent). Here in Norway, for example, the burden of proof in a libel
case is on the person making the statement.
You could obviously boil this down to a debate on just whom the law
seeks to protect in a single given case. Which "individual"s right is
to be protected, when two opposing "rights" seem to collide? Is it
ethically right to say that one type of right (to print and say what
you like) will always prevail against another (say, an individual's
right to "life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness")?
As to the last statement in .-1, I believe that laws as they represent
a fundamental sense of justice in a given society, they also have a
role in formulating basic attitudes. Thus, laws do indeed "reach the
heart" (though the path may sometimes be less than smooth).
Mauritz
|