Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Who believes this video should be a criminal offence?



If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 04:51:20 AM EST
How can you compare this with what happened in Russian Church? Not comparable.

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...Albert Einstein
by vbo on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 05:16:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 05:19:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If "Virgin Mary, become a feminist" is an offence, then so is that "after three days in the oven, the Christ comes out on its own".

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 05:24:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Certainly comparable. An amateur video was produced which offended religious people. Then...

An extreme right-wing "trade union" called "clean hands" sued singer-songwriter Javier Krahe for his role in making this video. The courts accepted the lawsuit and initiated proceedings. The judge ordered preventative prison [intended for dangerous criminals or when there's risk the accused will flee the jurisdiction], which Krahe avoided by posting €200,000 in bail. Eventually the case was thrown out. Read more about it here.

God is busy with bigger things, but the arrogance of men makes them feel obligated to defend him, Penal Code in hand.

On the basis of that legislation, a Catholic association named after the Renaissance philosopher Thomas More took two people to court: the singer-songwriter Javier Krahe and Montserrat Fernández, director of a television program that aired an old movie about Krahe's life which included a humorous sketch showing viewers how to "bake" a crucifix in the oven.

The trial sparked a flood of comments by supporters and opponents of the legislation; there was also heated debate regarding the fact that the offending events were so old -- Krahe's crucifix short was released in 1977, and the television program dates from 2004.

Clean Hands shoud have been laughed out of court in the first instance. Barring that, Krahe should never have been asked to post bail to avoid preventative prison.

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 05:23:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Laughed out of court, forced to pay the entire court costs, and then slapped with a million € or so in punitive damages for making self-evidently frivolous lawsuits with the clear intent to suppress free speech and harass their detractors.

Europe seriously needs anti-SLAPP statutes. And needs to make the presence of "offending religious feelings" or any similar garbage in the complaint or the press release accompanying it prima facie evidence of a SLAPP.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 05:38:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I confused the Clean Hands "trade union_ with the Thomas More Centre for Legal Studies "think tank", obviously.

It's so hard to keep all the astroturfers straight, these days.

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 06:53:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No idea. Does anybody believe that?
by Katrin on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 05:48:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You have not read the followup comments, have you?

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 06:04:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, this is a bit too quick. Another instance of not separating blasphemy laws, laws to protect the exercise of religion, and personality laws, though.

For a Lutheran the making, not the cooking, of an image is the problematic act, by the way.

by Katrin on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 06:09:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So Lutheran interpretations of blasphemy are okay, but Catholic ones are a bridge too far?

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 06:12:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You asked for a subjective answer, mind. The point is, there are different interpretations of the video.
by Katrin on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 06:15:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You still haven't answered whether the video should be a criminal offence. Neither has vbo, by the way, who simply protested at the juxtaposition of that video with the PR case.

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 06:26:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
First of all I do not have a clue what this woman is talking in this video.It may be offending...may not.
Second this video has been made in private kitchen.Sooo different of what PR has done.If they have done it in their bedroom first of all not many viewers will be interested to even watch it and it would be irrelevant. There is a lot of lunatics on Youtube, you know.
If there is no offending language in my believes that wouldn't be worth going in to the court and it is OK with me that case was dropped. Not every case is the same.
If someone yelled at me going out of my church that I am religious nut I wouldn't care to go to court. There are intolerant people out there and I can live with it. But if some group of "artist" come to MY CHURCH to scream the same shit in to my face...that's different story.

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...Albert Einstein
by vbo on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 06:59:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
First of all I do not have a clue what this woman is talking in this video.It may be offending...may not.

If you want, I'll translate the string of religious double entendres so you can decide it you're sufficiently offended.

Second this video has been made in private kitchen.Sooo different of what PR has done.If they have done it in their bedroom first of all not many viewers will be interested to even watch it and it would be irrelevant. There is a lot of lunatics on Youtube, you know.

But then 27 years later it was spliced into a documentary on the life of Krahe and aired on national TV. The producer of the TV program was a co-defendant in the case, and was also forced to post bail before being acquitted, like Krahe.

If there is no offending language in my believes that wouldn't be worth going in to the court

But if there is, you would go to court?

If someone yelled at me going out of my church that I am religious nut I wouldn't care to go to court.

But that would be harassment. The question is whether the religious character of the harassment should count as an aggravating circumstance in the eyes of the law.

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 07:05:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Second this video has been made in private kitchen.Sooo different of what PR has done.

So you would have had absolutely no problem with Pussy Riot if they had made their video using stock footage of some church they had never set foot in?

If there is no offending language in my believes that wouldn't be worth going in to the court

So now you believe in censoring coarse language on YouTube.

Joy.

But if some group of "artist" come to MY CHURCH to scream the same shit in to my face...that's different story.

Pussy Riot did not scream in church. The sound was added in post.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 07:30:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes. I can't answer if the video should be a criminal offence because I am not offended by it. I would have to hear from the offended to decide if hurts people in an important part of their identity.

I think that is what Jake consistently underrates: how much matters of religion are related to identity, which makes offending religious feelings particularly humiliating.

by Katrin on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 12:32:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
On what objective grounds do you distinguish it from the present case?

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 06:07:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
My first knee-jerk reaction is "what is the context?" while the hijacking of the church and the mock prayer of PR speak for themselves.

I'm not forced to watch the video, while people in the Moscow church had no freedom of a decision. And then I'm a Lutheran with strict views on making images... :-)

by Katrin on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 06:13:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What, precisely, happened in the church which should be a crime?

That a heathen approached the altar? That someone dressed provocatively in church? That a heathen prayed in church?

That's all thoughtcrime, based on the fact that their piety was insufficiently sincere. Something you could only ascertain based on either their general habitus - religious profiling, if you will - or long after the fact, once they had added sound to the performance and uploaded it on the internet.

Well, I'm not a fan of retroactive criminalization of otherwise legal actions, and I'm not a fan of religious profiling.

As far as I can tell, the only substantive charge here is that they painted graffiti in the church. Which is a real and substantive charge, aggravated by the fact that the church in question is a building of historical and cultural significance.

It's also not what they were charged with.

So what exactly happened in the church, which was obviously criminal at the time (except for defacing a building, which is a crime everywhere, not just in church)?

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 06:25:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What, precisely, happened in the church which should be a crime?

A violation of space that serves the exercise of religion. The arrogant violation of rules Christians want to see observed in their churches. The altar has a significance, and don't tell me PR didn't know what they were doing. That was intent, not accident.

by Katrin on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 07:31:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That's not concrete.

Which of their concrete actions would you prohibit?

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 07:39:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't think it would be analytically correct to divide this action into its components. Note how carefully PR have composed (not sure if I like the word here) it.
by Katrin on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 08:07:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, there are quite clearly at least two distinct actions here: One is filming a mock prayer in church, and the other is adding a song you don't like.

Otherwise, you are entering the murky netherworld of banning general habitus which would not in and of itself be criminal, based on some future action which may be taken at some future date, or some past action which in and of itself was also legal.

Or, to put it concisely: Thoughtcrime.

Besides, the only applicable delineation on the act in its totality is that it offends religious sentiment. Which was established around the time of the French Revolution to not be a valid argument for censorship.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 08:24:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, it is more or less objectively true that Javier Krahe's home video can be construed [by assuming intent to offend] as falling under the language of Article 525 of Spain's Criminal Code, whereas Pussy Riot falls under the language of Article 524 [assuming what they did counts as acts of profanation] which covers acts in a house of worship.

If I'm not misreading, in the hands of the right Spanish judge (such as the one who imposed a €200,000 on Krahe for cooking a Christ), Pussy Riot could have been sentenced to 6 to 12 months in prison or a fine of €720 to €288,000.

Which (before anyone argues I'm Spanish therefore I must agree) doesn't make the PR sentence in Russia right, it makes Spain's criminal law wrong, in my opinion.

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 06:37:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
the one who imposed a €200,000 bail on Krahe

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 06:50:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Spanish criminal code: Crimes against the constitution
Article 525.

1. Those who, in order to offend the feelings of the members of a religious confession, make public scorn, by word, in writing or by means of any kind of document, of their dogmas, beliefs, rites or ceremonies, or vex, also publicly, those who profess or practice them, will incur a fine of 8 to 12 months.

There is an monetary equivalence of time for the purpose of fines: 2 to 400 euros per day, at 30 days per month. So we're talking a fine of 480 to 144000  euros. But what's really interesting about this is that the law requires the intent to offend. It doesn't require the effect of offending. And how do you prove the intent to offend?

To be fair, the same protection is extended to scorn of nonbelievers

2. The same penalties will be incurred by those who make public scorn, by word or in writing, of those not professing any religion or belief.
The real problem with this law is that it's an instance of thoughtcrime.

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 06:24:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And how do you prove the intent to offend?

Maybe not easy in court but for me it is obvious...

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...Albert Einstein

by vbo on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 07:08:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So let's do away with the courts, then. Justice was so much easier in the 17th century.

The point is you have to prove the intent to offend to the court's satisfaction. Sorry to have to break the news to you this late.

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 07:10:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Hah...Calling my religious feelings " God's shit" is like if you call me "idiot". And there is no "Ops". I haven't heard them apologize. I believe apologizing is what makes a difference with intent to offend as opposed to something that was not intentional to hurt...

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...Albert Einstein
by vbo on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 07:26:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, calling you an "idiot" is defamatory. Calling your beliefs "shit" is not.

You are not your beliefs and your beliefs are not you. Defaming your beliefs does not defame you, and defaming you does not defame your beliefs.

I don't even know the name for the fallacy of mistaking attacks on your views for attacks on your person, but "inverse ad hominem" seems appropriate.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 07:33:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Now again you are trying to be smart.
We are not talking about my VIEWS that anyone can attack at wish. We are talking about my religious feelings. But it is really hard to explain to someone who simply hates word religious and is not aware of the fact that some people have these feelings too.
I am sorry but I do not see my feelings and my believes if you wish as not being part of me.
And mental abuse in the eyes of law now is almost equal to physical abuse. And damage may be even worse.
We are not talking here about our views in politic , we are not even commenting brother social issues...
Luckily they put much more consideration in making laws that you "progressives" would.

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...Albert Einstein
by vbo on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 07:50:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
We are not talking about my VIEWS that anyone can attack at wish. We are talking about my religious feelings.

So, religious beliefs are not just opinions, they are something more essential?

Of course religious people will make that claim, but what makes it true?

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 07:57:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Of course religious people will make that claim, but what makes it true?  

That's what you are not able to understand and probably never will because you are lacking a bit of spiritual component in your soul ( no offense). There is nothing that can be done here. So I give up.
How do I give you an evidence of feelings...it is not material...it's not science...I simply do not have will to drag this conversation any farther...

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...Albert Einstein

by vbo on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 08:11:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Are you saying I don't have feelings?

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 08:14:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That's what you are not able to understand and probably never will because you are lacking a bit of spiritual component in your soul

Um, why should the law take it on your say-so that such a difference exists?

Particularly when it looks, to all empirical investigation, as though the disparity in the severity of your reaction is due to nothing more than the fact that the beliefs in question are not regularly questioned, whereas your other beliefs are?

That would rather argue for more challenges to your religious beliefs, to make you not break down into dysfunction whenever someone tells you that Creationism is idiocy or that God is dead.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 08:45:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
We are not talking about my VIEWS that anyone can attack at wish. We are talking about my religious feelings.

Ding! I'll have "distinctions without a difference" for 1,000.

I am sorry but I do not see my feelings and my believes if you wish as not being part of me.

Then you are not mature enough to take part in a democratic debate.

Global warming is real. Evolution is real. HIV causes AIDS. Vaccinations work. Homeopathy does not work, nor does chiroquacktic. If you don't believe these facts, then you believe bullshit fairy tales.

Pointing that out is not an attack on your person. It is an attack on bullshit fairy tales that you happen to carry around in your head.

And mental abuse in the eyes of law now is almost equal to physical abuse. And damage may be even worse.

I know people who have been victims of mental abuse.

You comparing "God is shit" to mental abuse is offensive in the extreme to anybody who has ever actually been abused, physically or mentally. Equating "God is shit" to the systematic breaking of a human spirit demonstrates total cluelessness, incredible arrogance or such towering privilege as is difficult for me to wrap my mind around.

We are not talking here about our views in politic , we are not even commenting brother social issues...

The Patriarch made that a political subject when he peddled partisan political propaganda from the pulpit.

If you don't like playing by the rules of political discourse, write the Patriarch and tell him how disappointed you are that he drags the Church into petty partisan politics.

But don't genuflect before his petty partisan political propaganda peddling out of one side of your mouth and then out the other condemn people for treating the Orthodox Church as they would any other European ugly party.

That's dishonest special pleading.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 08:08:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If you don't like playing by the rules of political discourse, write the Patriarch and tell him how disappointed you are that he drags the Church into petty partisan politics.

Huh I can't stop my self.
How do you know that I didn't do something similar? I did write to my Patriarch when I wasn't able to accept how my Church welcomed war/and other criminals in to the service, for example.
That did not make me less religious person.
I boycotted going in to my Church when priest was preaching politics during Milosevic.
That did not make me less religious person.\
But what definitely is going to make me rude and very impolite is if I continue this conversation with you.
And I am not going to fall that low.
So Goodbye!

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...Albert Einstein

by vbo on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 08:24:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
How do you know that I didn't do something similar?

I don't. Congratulations to you if you did.

Sadly, you lost. You have my sympathy. I know very well how it sucks to see reactionaries hijack an organization you love.

But the fact that you lost means that those reactionaries are now the ones who control the Russian Orthodox Church. And that makes the church a valid target.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 08:55:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"I know it when I see it" is a valid standard to acquit, but not to convict.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Sep 2nd, 2012 at 07:13:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series