Talk:Åke Green

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: "Constitutional amendment"

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ambiguity on the page 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Broken links 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I am calling Godwin's Law on you. Apart from that, it says in Homophobia that: "It is defined by behavior (such as discrimination) as well as motivation (such as fear, antipathy or contempt)." I do not think anybody would say that Åke Green has not shown antipathy towards gays and lesbians. Furthermore, it says on Category:Homophobia, "This category contains articles that discuss or refer to the topic of homophobia. It does not imply that the subjects of any biographical articles are homophobic." I do not think your strong post adds anything to the discussion. --Law Lord (talk) 22:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the real problem is the name of the concept of homophobia. I think it is beyond discussion that there are such things as anti-homosexual viewpoints. This is a fact, it is not a condemnation of their views. So there should also be a category covering this theme. Åke Green definately fits into the category. However, it might be reasonable to change the :Category:Homophobia to a more neutral title because homophobia is a somewhat value-judging concept (similar to islamophobia etc.) The ending -phobia indicates a mental disorder or, at least, something irrational. If Ammon86 wants to join into that discussion, do it on Talk:Homophobia or Category_talk:Homophobia, but don't do it by deleting random subjects from the category. --Sasper (talk) 22:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sasper makes good points; let's leave the category here unless and until one with a better name is generated. IronDuke 23:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Ammon86 claimed that "homosexuals and their supporters [are] trying to impose their ideology on the rest of the users". Actually, Ammon86 has a Bible quote all over his user profile (and no further presentation). According to his user boxes he finds it suitable to proclaim himself a Charismatic/Pentecostal christian, pro-life, and he thinks a marriage only exists between a man and a woman. I think it is rather obvious he has a policial agenda - also clear from this edit - so he has really excluded himself from any serious debate. He removed the Category:Homophobia tag here too. He is just another of those hypocrites who are well described and frowned upon in the New Testament. Living in Poland, he should be cautious with comparisons to Jews in Nazi camps. Luke 6:42: You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother's eye. Anyway, this is even worse than hypocrisy, because Ammon86 is acting wilfully misleading, so maybe the 2nd and 8th commandment are more appropriate here.--Sasper (talk) 01:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: <alarm>Hello!</alarm> Godwin's Law! Don't let the comparisons cross the borderline! Be calm! ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 10:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion in Category : Homophobia 

message: After the lede, the article talks about the sentence as though it were confirmed, established and imposed.
However, this fellow was acquitted.  The discussion of the sentence should reflect that and not go forward based upon the assumption that the sentence was valid.--Blue Tie (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Article has a problem

message: Current version has:
"On the other side, Jonathan Sarfati, who agrees with Green's statement and has denounced Phelps,[9] called the law under which Green was jailed "sodomofascist" and the law's proponents "homonazis".[10]"
The sources given are http://webdiary.smh.com.au/archives/phil_uebergang_comment/001242.html and http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2005/0218.asp .  First link is broken and second is blank (for me at least), but in any case the first according to Wayback captures was a blog post in Sarfati's name and the second would have been self-published or effectively so (perhaps it would have been the same piece that's now http://creation.mobi/the-disingenuous-and-anti-christian-nature-of-gay-rights-rhetoric). 
I don't doubt that Sarfati holds the opinions in question and has published them, but can't find any evidence of them being reported by a reliable source. Is there any other reliable source for these views?  Presumably if Sarfati's views were significant in the debate about Green a reliable source would exist. Therealsleepycat (talk) 08:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sarfati comments: reliable source? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Åke Green. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hogstadomstolen.se/pressmeddelanden.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050105032032/http://www.godhatessweden.com/ to http://www.godhatessweden.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified