Norwegian actress Tonje Gjevjon faces up to 3 years in prison for saying men cannot be lesbians

[Politesse]

But I have never asked anyone to exempt me from having to follow the law at all, to make some special exception for me.

Dude, this is about criticizing a terrible blasphemy law. Nothing to do with special excpetions. Good grief.

Ah well, I guess you get to decide what this is "about". Blasphemy, is it? Well, at least someone is making a concrete claim now.

I disagree with it.

Tell me, in what way has Tonje Gvejon profaned a deity (as opposed to, as would seem much more obviously the case, attacked a fellow Norwegian citizen)? Why do you feel that a God or gods, rather than Norwegian trans people, have standing in this case? The law in question says nothing about religion, indeed would seem to curtail religious extremism more than encouraging it. With hate speech, the object of the legislation, the victim is always considered to be the human who is under attack, not the principles that led to the attack. If I threaten to murder my neighbor over his habit of taking evening prayers out on his verandah, he is the one who has standing to press suit, or the state on his behalf. Not because I insulted Allah, but because I threatened to murder him. His god may be important to him, but the existence or honor of his god (nor mine) is not the reason I might be questioned by the police over the incident. Even if I am religiously motivated, the only crime the state is generally willing to prosecute is my threat to the nighbor, not the implied insult to his god nor recourse to mine. To the best of my knowledge, the reason Tonje Gvejon is being investigated is because of the threat she may pose to fellow citizens, not to her god nor Christine Jentoft's.

In short, I don't think you understand what is morally wrong about blasphemy laws, if you think they would apply to just any sort of situation in which two people have a philosophical or social disagreement. That blasphemy laws force you to publically tolerate religious differences with others is not their significant flaw. Bringing a fictive injury to a deity into a courtroom is what makes blasphemy laws opprobrious, the more so because the testimony of religious authorities must then be relied upon to stand in for said deity in said legal setting. Whereas injuries between one human and the next can be fairly adjudicated without any recourse to particular theological positions or texts.

 

[AdamWho]

NY Post isn't a reliable source.

This is still a "skeptic" forum... right?

 

[Oleg]

Tell me, in what way has Tonje Gvejon profaned a deity (as opposed to, as would seem much more obviously the case, attacked a fellow Norwegian citizen)?

The state punishing a person for expressing a viewpoint is, by its very definition, a blasphemy law. The same cudgel against "wrongthink" for the Medieval Church, Nazi Germany, or Soviet Russia. Why the hell would any atheist or agnostic support this crap?

 

[Politesse]

The state punishing a person for expressing a viewpoint is, by its very definition, a blasphemy law.

Dare I ask what "definition" you are referring to?

No, blasphemy laws are not punishment for having differing opinions (nor are hate crime laws about punishing people for having differing opinions).

 

[Oleg]

NY Post isn't a reliable source.

This is still a "skeptic" forum... right?

Or, sorry. Let's stick to approved media sources. Can't let stories we don't like geting through.

 

[Oleg]

The state punishing a person for expressing a viewpoint is, by its very definition, a blasphemy law.

Dare I ask what definition you are referring to?

No, blasphemy laws are not punishment for having differing opinions (nor are hate crime laws about punishing people for having differing opinions).

So metaphor (not the user) just goes over your head? Punishment for criticizing Stalin or the Communist Party. What would you call that? Blasphemy laws are enforcement of state approved views and opinions. Again, how can any atheist or agnostic support this shit?

 

[Politesse]

The state punishing a person for expressing a viewpoint is, by its very definition, a blasphemy law.

Dare I ask what definition you are referring to?

No, blasphemy laws are not punishment for having differing opinions (nor are hate crime laws about punishing people for having differing opinions).

So metaphor (not the user) just goes over your head? Punishment for criticizing Stalin or the Communist Party. What would you call that? Blasphemy laws are enforcement of state approved views and opinions. Again, how can any atheist or agnostic support this shit?

I explained why I feel your analogy (not metaphor) fails.

No, I do not think that Stalin is a deity either, though a post-humous punishment for profaning his memory or somesuch would fail the same legal test of demonstrable injury, so the analogy would be closer in that case.

 

[Oleg]

The state punishing a person for expressing a viewpoint is, by its very definition, a blasphemy law.

Dare I ask what definition you are referring to?

No, blasphemy laws are not punishment for having differing opinions (nor are hate crime laws about punishing people for having differing opinions).

So metaphor (not the user) just goes over your head? Punishment for criticizing Stalin or the Communist Party. What would you call that? Blasphemy laws are enforcement of state approved views and opinions. Again, how can any atheist or agnostic support this shit?

I explained why I feel your analogy (not metaphor) fails.

No, I do not think that Stalin is a deity either, though a post-humous punishment for profaning his memory or somesuch would fail the same legal test of demonstrable injury, so the analogy would be closer in that case.

It's got nothing to do with believing in an diety. It's about forcing confirmlity of viewpoint and punshing dissenters. This isn't hard, dude.

 

[Metaphor]

I don't agree with the government going after you directly but I do believe that if your words cause provable/tangible harm, the harmed party should be able to legally go after you.

In this scenario (saying publically that men cannot be lesbians), what kind of "tangible" harm would arise?

 

[Metaphor]

Norwegian actress Tonje Gjevjon faces up to 3 years in prison for saying men cannot be lesbians

A woman in Norway is facing up to three years in prison on criminal hate-speech charges after saying that a man cannot become a lesbian.

nypost.com

A woman in Norway is facing up to three years in prison on criminal hate-speech charges after saying that a man cannot become a lesbian.

Tonje Gjevjon, a lesbian filmmaker and actress, was informed on Nov. 17 that she was under investigation for speaking out against prominent Norwegian activist Christine Jentoft on Facebook. Jentoft is a transgender female that often refers to herself as a lesbian mother.

Jentoft previously accused another woman, Christina Ellingsen, of transphobia for a similar claim. Ellingsen is also under investigation and faces three years in jail if found guilty.

The post on Gjevjon’s Facebook page under investigation read, “It’s just as impossible for men to become a lesbian as it is for men to become pregnant. Men are men regardless of their sexual fetishes.”

Gjevjon has said that she intentionally posted her Facebook message to draw attention to Norway’s hate speech laws.

Gjevjon’s comments appear to be under investigation for falling under a 2020 amendment to the country’s penal code that added “gender identity and gender expression” under protected categories from hate speech. People found guilty of hate speech face a fine or up to one year in prison for private remarks, and a maximum of three years for public comments.

...

So she intentionally broke the law, to "challenge" it, and now thinks she should be exempt from the consequences?

I'm not sure where you get the idea that she claimed she ought be 'exempt' from the consequences? Gjevjon said:

“Will the equality minister take action to ensure that lesbian women’s human rights are safeguarded, by making it clear that there are no lesbians with penises, that males cannot be lesbians regardless of their gender identity, and by tidying up the mess of the harmful gender policies left behind by the previous government?” Gjevjon asked.

Do you agree with her?

I don't agree that people should be 'exempt' from laws simply because they don't like the laws; that isn't how the law should work. (It's the same reason that I think laws with religious exemptions are generally a sign a law is bad in the first place).

I think it's an insanely terrible law (and that includes even if this goes no further whatsoever - the threat and the process are the punishment). And Gjevjon is doing her fellow citizens a favour by facing prosecution to call attention to it.

As it happens, I too believe men cannot be lesbians, and even if people regard that statement as mistaken, I can't see anything hateful about it.

 

[Metaphor]

NY Post isn't a reliable source.

This is still a "skeptic" forum... right?

I do look for multiple sources when I post an OP, but these were thin on the ground (at least, English-language reports).

EDIT: Some of the characters involved in this drama are on Twitter but I don't know Norwegian.

 

[Politesse]

Norwegian actress Tonje Gjevjon faces up to 3 years in prison for saying men cannot be lesbians

A woman in Norway is facing up to three years in prison on criminal hate-speech charges after saying that a man cannot become a lesbian.

nypost.com

A woman in Norway is facing up to three years in prison on criminal hate-speech charges after saying that a man cannot become a lesbian.

Tonje Gjevjon, a lesbian filmmaker and actress, was informed on Nov. 17 that she was under investigation for speaking out against prominent Norwegian activist Christine Jentoft on Facebook. Jentoft is a transgender female that often refers to herself as a lesbian mother.

Jentoft previously accused another woman, Christina Ellingsen, of transphobia for a similar claim. Ellingsen is also under investigation and faces three years in jail if found guilty.

The post on Gjevjon’s Facebook page under investigation read, “It’s just as impossible for men to become a lesbian as it is for men to become pregnant. Men are men regardless of their sexual fetishes.”

Gjevjon has said that she intentionally posted her Facebook message to draw attention to Norway’s hate speech laws.

Gjevjon’s comments appear to be under investigation for falling under a 2020 amendment to the country’s penal code that added “gender identity and gender expression” under protected categories from hate speech. People found guilty of hate speech face a fine or up to one year in prison for private remarks, and a maximum of three years for public comments.

...

So she intentionally broke the law, to "challenge" it, and now thinks she should be exempt from the consequences?

I'm not sure where you get the idea that she claimed she ought be 'exempt' from the consequences? Gjevjon said:

“Will the equality minister take action to ensure that lesbian women’s human rights are safeguarded, by making it clear that there are no lesbians with penises, that males cannot be lesbians regardless of their gender identity, and by tidying up the mess of the harmful gender policies left behind by the previous government?” Gjevjon asked.

Do you agree with her?

I don't agree that people should be 'exempt' from laws simply because they don't like the laws; that isn't how the law should work. (It's the same reason that I think laws with religious exemptions are generally a sign a law is bad in the first place).

I think it's an insanely terrible law (and that includes even if this goes no further whatsoever - the threat and the process are the punishment). And Gjevjon is doing her fellow citizens a favour by facing prosecution to call attention to it.

As it happens, I too believe men cannot be lesbians, and even if people regard that statement as mistaken, I can't see anything hateful about it.

I've never heard of a country where the question of whether or not a hate crime has occurred is determined by whether the accused says they "see anything hateful" about their speech. Is this the case in Sweden?

 

[Metaphor]

Sounds like a Norwegeian problem to me. Ok, they have stupid laws on the books. So what?

So...on an international message board, you're only interested in discussing stories from Finland?

 

[Metaphor]

I've never heard of a country where the question of whether or not a hate crime has occurred is determined by whether the accused says they "see anything hateful" about their speech. Is this the case in Sweden?

You mean Norway? No, I don't mean a conviction for 'hate speech' should turn on whether the speaker thinks their speech is hateful (though indeed there are laws where the test is subjective from a complainant's point of view rather than an 'objective person' test.) I mean I cannot see how it is hateful even from an 'objective person' test. What about it makes it hateful?

 

[Jarhyn]

It seems rather that they are under investigation for using a platform to claim that trans people don't exist. It's rhetoric that accelerates to a violent fever pitch of tolerated too long.

That comment goes so much further than merely claiming "men" cannot be "lesbians", but moreover, maybe understand that you don't need to call someone "not a woman" to say "I am not attracted to some aspect of you, and am not interested in you that way".

That said, it's NYPost, so who the fuck knows. There's probably a LOT more involved that they just aren't sharing. Usually there is.

 

[Oleg]

It's rhetoric that accelerates to a violent fever pitch of tolerated too long.

Like denying the divinity of Jesus.

 

[Politesse]

I've never heard of a country where the question of whether or not a hate crime has occurred is determined by whether the accused says they "see anything hateful" about their speech. Is this the case in Sweden?

You mean Norway? No, I don't mean a conviction for 'hate speech' should turn on whether the speaker thinks their speech is hateful (though indeed there are laws where the test is subjective from a complainant's point of view rather than an 'objective person' test.) I mean I cannot see how it is hateful even from an 'objective person' test. What about it makes it hateful?

Fomenting hatred and intolerance of an already marginalized group.

 

[Metaphor]

I've never heard of a country where the question of whether or not a hate crime has occurred is determined by whether the accused says they "see anything hateful" about their speech. Is this the case in Sweden?

You mean Norway? No, I don't mean a conviction for 'hate speech' should turn on whether the speaker thinks their speech is hateful (though indeed there are laws where the test is subjective from a complainant's point of view rather than an 'objective person' test.) I mean I cannot see how it is hateful even from an 'objective person' test. What about it makes it hateful?

Fomenting hatred and intolerance of an already marginalized group.

How does it foment hate or intolerance?

 

[Politesse]

I've never heard of a country where the question of whether or not a hate crime has occurred is determined by whether the accused says they "see anything hateful" about their speech. Is this the case in Sweden?

You mean Norway? No, I don't mean a conviction for 'hate speech' should turn on whether the speaker thinks their speech is hateful (though indeed there are laws where the test is subjective from a complainant's point of view rather than an 'objective person' test.) I mean I cannot see how it is hateful even from an 'objective person' test. What about it makes it hateful?

Fomenting hatred and intolerance of an already marginalized group.

How does it foment hate or intolerance?

I don't see how there can be a more obvious expression of intolerance than straight up denying the very existence of people you hate. The idea of "fake" men and women is more actively dangerous, as surprise at the revelation of someone's birth sex is a common motivator for the violent hate crimes that plague the trans members of the global community. Finally, such views encourage misgendering of others.

 

[Jayjay]

Sounds like a Norwegeian problem to me. Ok, they have stupid laws on the books. So what?

So...on an international message board, you're only interested in discussing stories from Finland?

No, what I'm saying is that quirks of one small country, be in Norway or Finland or elsewhere, are hardly indicative of wider societal problems. Especially when viewed through the distorted lens of sensationalist media.

Let the Norwegians deal with it.

When reading about this online, they're saying that the original post that the person wrote said way more than just "men can't be lesbians", so that's one distortion probably right there.