Støre would punish religion-infringement – NRK

Støre would punish religion-infringement – NRK

When the Penal Code should be revised in 2009, came the coalition government with a controversial proposal. They would remove the blasphemy law and sharpen racism clause to include “qualified attacks on religion or belief.” Compromise proposal came after Sp would keep the old blasphemy law in criminal law. With the new people could under Norwegian law punished for saying something insulting about another religion.

– I could live with the compromise, but I also think it was wise that the three party leaders with the Prime Minister spearheaded withdrew shortly after because there was a strong reaction against, leader of the Labour Minister.

The debate has raged about Støre views on freedom of speech after the terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo in Paris. Six years ago was Støre one of the ministers who were for the extended racism clause, which they coalition thus was forced to go back on.

– Allows manual

Political Editor of Dagens Næringsliv Kjetil B. Alstadheim responds that Støre can “live with the compromise.” Had the amendment been adopted could thus reviewed media houses has recently published many of Charlie Hebdo drawings.

Political Editor of Dagens Næringsliv, Kjetil B. Alstadheim.

Photo: Holm Morten / Scanpix

– It makes me cringe a little, says Alstadheim, who believes Støre still unclear about what he really believes.

– What does he unclear in this debate is that he on one side is so keen to defend freedom of speech, while he on the other side should give everyone a guide for how it should best be used .

Alstadheim adding that all parties have changed attitude about blasphemy issue during the last eleven years.

– Right, now for example is very clear that it should be allowed with blasphemy, said in 2004 that we had to have a protection against the type of violations of religious feelings.

– I stand up for the law course

Minister says he in recent days have tried to show that there is no end in itself that a statement should be profane or offensive.

– I’m very strong criticism of religion. It is not the same as blasphemy, but perceived utterances that they are blasphemous, so it is actually allowed, and I stand up for course law.

– But it had not been, had you gotten your will?

– Hehe, well, I got the willingness min at I backed Prime Minister withdrew the proposal.

Published 18.01.2015, kl. 18.16