(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
On Wednesday came the statement, which obviously delighted a unified politician-Norway, a united press corps, a unified Christian-Norway and an overwhelmingly large proportion of those who have been involved in the so-called freedom of speech debate over the past week. At that time, the Minister of Transport and Center Party leader Liv Signe Navarsete withdrew the proposal, as mentioned by NTB, "on an addition in the racism section that will prevent offensive statements against religion and belief".
Let it first be said that both Navarsete and Labor Party leader Jens Stoltenberg have made obvious tactical mistakes in this matter. One lies in the banal power struggle and the political purge game that is obviously behind it all. Navarsete with its desire to finally "win" over the Ap in a valuation just before the end of the four-year period. Stoltenberg with his apparent desire to use partisan to make parliamentary politicians think the same about a problematic case about freedom of speech and protection against hate speech.
The second mistake is the government's miserable media handling, where a road minister is set to front a case on the limits of freedom of expression. While both the Minister of Culture and the Minister of Justice hid. "When you sit and discuss a new law on freedom of speech and are referred to the municipal minister and the minister of transport, you realize that something is wrong," as PEN leader Anders Heger pointed out this week. It is limited how good a road minister is to lead the way beyond more prosaic projects like E18 to Kristiansand.
The third mistake lies in the clumsy wording of the Ministry of Justice. The press release's statement that the government "will extend the penal code for hateful utterances to include qualified attacks on religion or outlook" was enough to get a unified opinion against it. Obviously, the blasphemy paragraph must be deleted. And that we should have no restriction on freedom of expression in the Norwegian press, rather than enlargement.
At the same time, there are important debates and boundaries in the other points that the Ministry of Justice presented, but which were not addressed during the last weeks debate. Like this: “Criticism of doctrines or atheistic utterances is protected by freedom of speech. In order for blasphemous utterances to be punishable, it must presuppose that the utterances are insulting or otherwise highly offensive, distant from any factual content of meaning and without being part of the processes facilitated by freedom of expression; truth-seeking, democracy and the individual's free formation of opinion. But punishment should not normally be used to protect moral or religious norms. This is a general principle for criminalization that the Storting has endorsed. Therefore, the government does not propose a separate penal code that protects against blasphemous statements in the new penal code. "
Most of this conclusion has never been quoted or discussed since the case was raised in the tabloid newspapers before Christmas. It is apparently not the usual criticism of Islam that should be limited here, something most debaters probably feared. It is not surprising that Navarsete feels misunderstood: "We set up a process until 2011 to find good wording that could clarify the section of the law that already exists in the Penal Code against hate speech. We must state that the process and the debate in no way reflect our views and our intentions, "she said on Wednesday.
Because it is easily given the impression that there is now full freedom of expression in Norway, that you can say what you want about minority groups. It is then worth noting what is stated in Chapter 20, "Protection of public peace, order and security", added by law on 7 March 2008. Section 185, Hateful statements, states:
"A fine or imprisonment for up to 3 years is punishable for anyone who intentionally or with gross negligence makes a discriminatory or hateful statement in public. The use of symbols is also considered an expression. Discriminatory or hate speech means threatening or insulting anyone, or promoting hatred, persecution or contempt for anyone because of their a) skin color or national or ethnic origin, b) religion or belief, c) homosexuals orientering, d) or disability. "
This is meant as a protection of individuals, not of doctrines. And as the ministry points out, this is only a partial protection for minorities affected by extremists' hateful and derogatory attacks, which made Navarsete want to expand it. But in any case, section 185 as quoted above has been adopted and is to be implemented. Case law will show how this can be used in the future. And here lies the interesting debate.