Paivi Rasanen

[Danllan]

This lady is a Finnish MP of long standing, a medical doctor, a Christian and - currently - is in the middle of being prosecuted for what would be termed incitement to hate LGBT etc. in this country. The case was brought because she tweeted a Bible verse to a Lutheran Church, opposing its sponsorship of a 'Pride' event in that country.

Now, I am a rational atheist, and regard all of this religious / superstitious stuff as utter claptrap. But that doesn't matter, this woman has a right to her beliefs and to free speech and expression - as others have a right to contradict her. Yet the Finnish police and prosecutors have charged her, have brought this case, are prosecuting her, and are trying her for tweeting an image of text from what is probably the most widely available / read book in the world.

The manifest absurdity of this apart, it is very, very dangerous; apart from some religious groups and a few free-speech advocates, this has received very little criticism. Certainly no fellow EU states have raised this, and that should be surprising... when some EU member-states have had Court cases that looked to restrict free speech, e.g. Poland and Hungary, there has - quite rightly in my opinion - been sharp criticism from the likes of Germany, France and the Netherlands. But in this instance, nothing...

The reason this should be surprising, consistency and lack of hypocrisy aside, is because the ECJ can take and adopt precedent from any subordinate jurisdiction, i.e. from any EU member-state's own national Courts. So, if this lady is convicted and that conviction is upheld, it can have applicability across the whole of the EU. Stupid, and dangerous.

The second and final part of her trial is set for February 14th, if convicted she faces several years inside.

 

[alex04w]

After she posted a photo of some bible verses in 2019, they went back and looked at a television appearance she made in 2018 and a pamphlet she wrote 15 years earlier in 2004!!]

She faces up to 6 years in prison.

Christian politician could face prison for sharing biblical sexual ethics

A Christian politician in Finland could face up to six years in prison for sharing the Bible’s position on sexual ethics.

www.christian.org.uk

There is a great spirit of intolerance abroad these days. No one can say or do anything these days as it will offend someone. Facts, opinions, beliefs are irrelevant.

Sad time and it is not likely to get any better.

 

[linga]

Via the link above .

Starmer apology for visiting pro-marriage church 'an insult' to Christians

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has apologised for visiting a church which teaches the biblical understanding of sexuality and marriage – a move branded “an insult” to Christians.

www.christian.org.uk

 

[Gong Farmer]

This lady is a Finnish MP of long standing, a medical doctor, a Christian and - currently - is in the middle of being prosecuted for what would be termed incitement to hate LGBT etc. in this country. The case was brought because she tweeted a Bible verse to a Lutheran Church, opposing its sponsorship of a 'Pride' event in that country.

Now, I am a rational atheist, and regard all of this religious / superstitious stuff as utter claptrap. But that doesn't matter, this woman has a right to her beliefs and to free speech and expression - as others have a right to contradict her. Yet the Finnish police and prosecutors have charged her, have brought this case, are prosecuting her, and are trying her for tweeting an image of text from what is probably the most widely available / read book in the world.

The manifest absurdity of this apart, it is very, very dangerous; apart from some religious groups and a few free-speech advocates, this has received very little criticism. Certainly no fellow EU states have raised this, and that should be surprising... when some EU member-states have had Court cases that looked to restrict free speech, e.g. Poland and Hungary, there has - quite rightly in my opinion - been sharp criticism from the likes of Germany, France and the Netherlands. But in this instance, nothing...

The reason this should be surprising, consistency and lack of hypocrisy aside, is because the ECJ can take and adopt precedent from any subordinate jurisdiction, i.e. from any EU member-state's own national Courts. So, if this lady is convicted and that conviction is upheld, it can have applicability across the whole of the EU. Stupid, and dangerous.

The second and final part of her trial is set for February 14th, if convicted she faces several years inside.

So the long and short of it is, the Bible is banned in Finland?

 

[Danllan]

So the long and short of it is, the Bible is banned in Finland?

We'll have to wait until the 14th to find out...

 

[robs1]

Via the link above .

Starmer apology for visiting pro-marriage church 'an insult' to Christians

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has apologised for visiting a church which teaches the biblical understanding of sexuality and marriage – a move branded “an insult” to Christians.

www.christian.org.uk

So one group can promote LGBTQ and that's ok but another group cant disagree, what happened to free speech, the worse part is starmer wants to be prime minister and should stand up for diverse opinions.

 

[linga]

So one group can promote LGBTQ and that's ok but another group cant disagree, what happened to free speech, the worse part is starmer wants to be prime minister and should stand up for diverse opinions.

Yes. What has become of us !?

 

[Muck Spreader]

So one group can promote LGBTQ and that's ok but another group cant disagree, what happened to free speech, the worse part is starmer wants to be prime minister and should stand up for diverse opinions.

A case of dammed if he does and dammed if he doesn't.

 

[David.]

Better be damned for taking the correct stance then.

 

[Muck Spreader]

This lady is a Finnish MP of long standing, a medical doctor, a Christian and - currently - is in the middle of being prosecuted for what would be termed incitement to hate LGBT etc. in this country. The case was brought because she tweeted a Bible verse to a Lutheran Church, opposing its sponsorship of a 'Pride' event in that country.

Now, I am a rational atheist, and regard all of this religious / superstitious stuff as utter claptrap. But that doesn't matter, this woman has a right to her beliefs and to free speech and expression - as others have a right to contradict her. Yet the Finnish police and prosecutors have charged her, have brought this case, are prosecuting her, and are trying her for tweeting an image of text from what is probably the most widely available / read book in the world.

The manifest absurdity of this apart, it is very, very dangerous; apart from some religious groups and a few free-speech advocates, this has received very little criticism. Certainly no fellow EU states have raised this, and that should be surprising... when some EU member-states have had Court cases that looked to restrict free speech, e.g. Poland and Hungary, there has - quite rightly in my opinion - been sharp criticism from the likes of Germany, France and the Netherlands. But in this instance, nothing...

The reason this should be surprising, consistency and lack of hypocrisy aside, is because the ECJ can take and adopt precedent from any subordinate jurisdiction, i.e. from any EU member-state's own national Courts. So, if this lady is convicted and that conviction is upheld, it can have applicability across the whole of the EU. Stupid, and dangerous.

The second and final part of her trial is set for February 14th, if convicted she faces several years inside.

It does look slightly bizarre, and one wonders if a Muslim who quoted something similar from the Koran would be treated in the same way. As always, is there a bit more to this than meets the eye. As for the ECJ its probably all in the word can as they must have dozens of weird and wonderful legal rulings from around Europe to contemplate every year.

 

[Muck Spreader]

Better be damned for taking the correct stance then.

Which is?

 

[The Agrarian]

I think this is very bad for freedom and equality. Instead of exposing her opinions as being against freedom and equality, which they are, it makes a victim of her. Locking her up for expressing an opinion is not a way to progress equality. Debate is a healthy thing, even if the subject matter has become tiresome. E.g. if the Roman Catholic church still wanted to claim the earth was the centre of the cosmos, you'd still have to let them speak about it, and let people judge them accordingly.

 

[David.]

Which is?

That free speech applies equally to both sides of any argument.

 

[Muck Spreader]

That free speech applies equally to both sides of any argument.

Exactly, in a case like this. Gets a bit more blurred for example, when you have British Muslims protesting against the role of the British army in Iraqi or Afghanistan. Or antivaxxers being given equal air time with medical experts, etc etc.

 

[essex man]

Exactly, in a case like this. Gets a bit more blurred for example, when you have British Muslims protesting against the role of the British army in Iraqi or Afghanistan. Or antivaxxers being given equal air time with medical experts, etc etc.

How is that more blurred?

 

[Danllan]

... As for the ECJ its probably all in the word can as they must have dozens of weird and wonderful legal rulings from around Europe to contemplate every year.

Quite right, that is the important word; but experience has demonstrated - in every jurisdiction I've experience of - that if a course of action is available to a Judge, sooner or later, somewhere, one will take advantage of it, the ECJ is no exception to this 'rule'.

When a Supreme Court here, in the US or in e.g. France adopts such a precedent, their decision can be countered by legislation, from an elected legislature. One problem in the EU is that this is not a possibility, because an ECJ adjudication is the final word. It's a constitutional flaw and is one of the leading arguments for rectifying the EU's democratic deficit.

 

[wanton dwarf]

So one group can promote LGBTQ and that's ok but another group cant disagree, what happened to free speech, the worse part is starmer wants to be prime minister and should stand up for diverse opinions.

Pretty much.

This is one of the reasons people say the UK is becoming more communist in it's adoption of ideology by state dicatat.

Unless the voting public stamp on Politicians necks this will continue.

 

[wanton dwarf]

Quite right, that is the important word; but experience has demonstrated - in every jurisdiction I've experience of - that if a course of action is available to a Judge, sooner or later, somewhere, one will take advantage of it, the ECJ is no exception to this 'rule'.

When a Supreme Court here, in the US or in e.g. France adopts such a precedent, their decision can be countered by legislation, from an elected legislature. One problem in the EU is that this is not a possibility, because an ECJ adjudication is the final word. It's a constitutional flaw and is one of the leading arguments for rectifying the EU's democratic deficit.

Perhaps.

But I have no faith in ill Liberal Politicians in the West. They have totally lost the plot and I think we are ultimately heading to Civil conflict - there is an ever growing gulf between how people live their lives in the UK and Politicians "words" (I won't use deeds).

 

[The Agrarian]

UK law has inconsistencies on this subject. The glaring big one is the religious exemption to equality legislation. Groups and institutions are allowed to discriminate on grounds that are not permitted in the rest of society. They have a free pass if you like to break the laws of fairness. They also are allowed to have the power to silence people within their midst who would speak up for the fairness that is supported by law in all other walks of British life. For example, the Presbyterian Church in Ireland (operating predominantly in Northern Ireland, but also in the Republic) is preparing to sanction one of its ministers for refusing to lead the enforcement of the exclusion of a man from the congregational council (on grounds of sexual orientation). We are waiting to see what the sanction is, but it's entirely possible it will be sacking. Contrast this with police acting against religious street preachers on complaints against their offensive speech, and you could be forgiven for thinking that the law doesn't quite know what it's aiming for.

 

[dogandstick]

Let those that are without sin cast the first stone.