Sunday, August 7, 2011

Westboro to Go to Norway for Massacre Funerals?

Both Norway and the UK have excellent traditions of respecting freedom of speech, while perhaps doing a better job than we do of curbing it's excesses.  I have to admire the notion of the very pleasant, slightly reserved but polite Norwegians, en masse, telling the Westboro crazies that their conduct is unacceptable.  Because they will be correct, in their courteous way; it IS unacceptable.  It is also a shame that we export that kind of right wing nut nonsense.

From the Penigma blog roll, the Freethinker in the UK:
Crazy Christian group threatens to demonstrate its hatred of gays in Norway

Unlike the US, where the Supreme Court has upheld the church’s right to conduct their foul demonstrations, Norway has laws banning hate speech. Its penal code reads, in part:

Any person who wilfully or through gross negligence publicly utters a discriminatory or hateful expression shall be liable to fines or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years. An expression that is uttered in such a way that it is likely to reach a large number of persons shall be deemed equivalent to a publicly uttered expression, cf. section 7, No. 2. The use of symbols shall also be deemed to be an expression. Any person who aids and abets such an offence shall be liable to the same penalty.
The Atlantic Wire report points out that:
If Westboro is going to protest, its members had better get their lawyers ready. Holding a sign outside a funeral would certainly constitute public speech.
I can only regret that our own Supreme court has ruled in favor of this hate speech, rather than putting this within bounds.  As with the Citizens United ruling, this seems one more misstep of our current SCOTUS.
In a story about the church’s plan, the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (NRK) got a quote from Oslo Police Chief of Staff Johan Fredriksen.

If they implement what they threaten, I can only confirm that it is one of the most bad ideas at the moment.
But it is unlikely that this scum will ever wash up on Norway’s shores. One Norwegian posting in an English-language message board said he doubted the church would even be granted access to enter the country, and if they did make it to a funeral:

They’ll be surrounded by some tens of thousand people telling them how completely insane they are.
I can imagine that.  The Norwegians would do exactly that, with great politeness, because that is who they are, and how they respond to challenges.   I suspect also, occurring in such overwhelming numbers that it would take the Westboro fanatics aback.  God bless the Norwegians for their national character; and may he simply forgive the excesses and false religion of the Westboro fools who can't separate hatred from spirituality, or religion from superstition.


DERANGED members of the world’s loopiest Christian sect – The Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas – are threatening to travel to Norway to disrupt the funerals of those who killed by right-wing lunatic Anders Behring Breivik.

The WBC claims in a press release that Breivik had been appointed by God to punish Norwegians for their tolerant attitude towards homosexuals.

6 comments:

  1. Westboro serves a useful function for the homophobic Right in the US. They're so extreme that even SPLC-certified hate groups can point to them and say "we're not so bad -- at least we're not like them."

    Good for Norway to do what this country doesn't have the guts or integrity to do anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You're probably correct about the homophobic right and further right.

    I simply find these lunatics to be a national embarassment that we tolerate them and that they were given the support of our SCOTUS.

    I think those countries clearly have been strong bastions of freedom of speech, while doing better than we have at reasonably restricting hate speech, to our detriment and to their superior success.

    ReplyDelete
  3. WHile I despise everything WBC says and stands for (if we are thinking of what separates them from others as "what they stand for"), I do NOT regret the fact that the Supreme Court has upheld their right to say it.

    Picking and chosing that speech which we find offensive as "unacceptable" while allowing that which is popular, rapidly moves a nation toward controlled speech. Who would argue that Robert Maplethorp's art exhibit of the cross covered in excrement was anything but offensive? And yet it was also a powerful comment and accusation, such is the point, often, of modern art.

    When Muslim Americans were being jailed for a time running from a few to as many as 90 days following 9/11 as "material witnesses", in violation of habeaus corpus, should we have condemned and prevented those who protested the government's conduct?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Not at all Penn; I have no problem with the Westboro hate mongers saying what they believe.

    Where I think the SCOTUS went wrong was allowing them to intrude on private funerals, what I think can fairly be identified as an overstep that fails to adequately respect EQUALLY the rights of those attending the funerals.

    I'm not arguing for censorship, only that the SCOTUS more fairly and objectively identify where the line is between the respective claims to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, and between competing claims of fredom of religion. Mourners should have the freedomn not be harrassed, while still allowing the Westboro nut jobs to have unpopular speech.

    All the more so in respect to the requirement we used to see under the Bush admin where protesters were required to be a more considerable distance from what they wished to protest.

    Inconsistent standards, which favors the Westboro folks over anti-Bush protesters.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The thing is when the 1st amendment was written anyone doing something as blatenly offensive as WBC would have gotten their asses kicked by friends of the deceased and the local authorities would have looked the other way. Yeah there is free speech but there was also consequences. Now police will rarely look the other way and most of the time there are no consequences, but some places are doing what they can. That town in Mississippi managed to keep them away from a funeral. Someone from WBC filed assault charges against someone spitting on them and a judge on the state supreme court (I think Wisconsin or Minnesota) ruled it expression rather than assault and dismissed it. I know a couple of the freedom riders here and they park their motorcycles across the cemetary entrance once the family is inside, any attempt to move them can be taken as attempted theft and then it is legal to use physical force to protect your property. And none of this does anything to their first amendment rights.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Tuck,

    I certainly don't think vigilantism is acceptable. I don't think most of our founders would have supported any beatings of those who said something unpopular, such as supporting King George, etc.. in fact I think they'd find that very offensive and totally counter to supporting free speech.

    Which goes to a further point. Some speech we may not like, but attacking, physically or verbally, those who speak, especially through the media (for example), is a sure fire way to squelch speech, including speech we may not like but need to hear. This happens from both the left and the right, but I think FAR more often from the right. If someone talks about wage fairness or equitability in the split of profits, they are labeled as communists, socialists, or even traitors.

    I believe some people should be rightly mocked for their outrageous speech, because that speech belies outrageous belief, but I absolutely oppose the idea of punitive action against them, such as loss of a job, etc.. unless they say something and are in a role where their speech and conduct affects the public face of tehir employer, either way violence is never acceptable.

    ReplyDelete