In the EU, speaking out against homosexuality will soon be a crime

Wow! I guess people will not be allowed to read Romans Chapter 1 or Leviticus out loud anymore in the EU.

When in Europe Watch What You Say – EU Attempts to Restrict Free Speech. Media Missing in Action

brusselsjournal.com/node/4136

From the desk of Paul Belien on Mon, 2009-10-26 12:58

If all goes as planned, the 27 member states of the European Union will soon have a common hate crime legislation, which will turn disapproval for Islamic practices or homosexual lifestyles into crimes. Europe’s Christian churches are trying to stop the plan of the European political establishment, but it is unclear whether they will be successful. The media are silent on the topic.

Last April, the European Parliament approved the European Union’s Equal Treatment Directive. A directive is the name given to an EU law. As directives overrule national legislation, they need the approval of the European Council of Ministers before coming into effect. Next month, the Council will decide on the directive, which places the 27 EU member states under a common anti-discrimination legislation. The directive’s definition of discriminatory harassment is so broad that every objection to Muslim or homosexual practices will be considered unlawful…

… the almost complete silence of the European media and of public opinion on the important issues which are at stake, is worrying. Europe risks losing important fundamental freedoms, such as the freedom of speech and the freedom of opinion, but does not seem prepared to fight and preserve these freedoms. Perhaps the lack of interest of the inhabitants of Europe for legislation concocted at a supranational level explains the lack of interest in this matter…

As I understand, Islam is against homosexuality (officially, that is). That sounds like a can of worms waiting to happen; two “protected” groups that can “hate crime” each other. If you charge one for “hate criming” the other, are you “hate criming” the first?:hmmm:

This proposed Directive does, actually, have to have the unanimous support of all 27 members of the Council of Ministers before it can be implemented. There’s a lot of ‘horse-trading’ to go yet.

It applies to ‘provision of goods and services’, so, basically, saying 'You Muslims/Gays/Catholics/Jews are going to burn in Hell," while selling them a cup of coffee is not going to be acceptable.

This, by the way, was the response of the UK’s Catholic Bishops during the consultation process.

Um, excuse me; do you mind? We’re trying to have a reasonable discussion about European politics here, and we’d like to do so without all these constant intrusions from actual Europeans, thankyouverymuch!

Thanks for the link; the way Monsignor lays it out, this is a pretty terrifying potential Directive:

"8. Article 2 (3) defines harassment as ‘unwanted conduct … with the
purpose or effect of violating the dignity of a person and or creating an
intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment’. That
is to say that no intention is required, the test is entirely subjective, and as
the burden of proof is reversed, if a person declares themselves to be
offended, there is no legal defence as the respondent cannot prove that
the complainant was not offended.

  1. Discrimination under this Directive is not restricted to employment, and so
    this subjective approach to harassment will apply in all walks of life,
    including academic discourses, sermons, theatre, television and radio
    discussions. Various pressure groups are likely to use the provisions of the
    Directive to curtail the expression of views they disagree with by the
    simple expedient of declaring themselves to be offended. Homosexual
    groups campaigning for same sex marriage may declare themselves
    offended by the presentation of the Catholic Church’s moral teaching on
    homosexual acts; Catholics may declare themselves offended by a ‘Gay
    Pride’ march; an atheist may be offended by religious pictures in art
    gallery; a Muslim may be offended by any picture representing the human
    form."

I mean, seriously, most people are already walking around offended by something or other pretty much most of the time these days; I don’t know a whole heckufalot about European law, but it seems to me that if this thing goes into effect, it’s only the lawyers who win. I mean, I’m a lawyer and all and I’m all for increased employment opportunities for my European barrister, solicitor, av(v)ocat(o) counterparts, but still…

Ooops, sorry! :slight_smile:

I mean, seriously, most people are already walking around offended by something or other pretty much most of the time these days; I don’t know a whole heckufalot about European law, but it seems to me that if this thing goes into effect, it’s only the lawyers who win. I mean, I’m a lawyer and all and I’m all for increased employment opportunities for my European barrister, solicitor, av(v)ocat(o) counterparts, but still…

The thing is we’ve had these sorts of things before (‘employment and women’ obviously springs to mind as a prime example of one ‘end of civilization’ event) and, yes, lawyers do well out of it but the alternative is to do nothing. The problem with the EU is that a basic premise is that it’s (or should be) a level playing field but different countries tend to move along, socially, at their own rate - some uncomfortably fast and some glacially slow. Then comes the big EU ‘event’ like this and ‘it’s the end of the world as we know it’.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.