Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[BjornP]

http://cphpost.dk/news/denmark-scrappin ... -week.html

A 151-year-old law that criminalises blasphemy is on the chopping block this week thanks to a parliamentary majority.

Government-party Venstre has changed its stance on the issue and the contentious law – which has only resulted in very few cases in Danish judicial history – is now set to be repealed.

The only party in parliment to vote against the scrapping of the law, was the main opposition party, the Social Democrats. The bill to abolish the old law were introduced to parliament by the Marxist party, the "Unity List".

Oooh... waiting for StA's head to split apart.

The blasphemy law has been the joke that kept on giving on the decades. Back before Muslim immigration, it was lauded as a defense against "indecency" and a proper lack of respect of God (and by extension, the monarchy). Even after immigration, untill the Muhammed cartoon crisis, even the nationalist party, DPP. (which is ideologically really a mix between social democrat and national-conservative) considered it a good law because it defended the Lutheran state church (and no, DPP are not Bible thumpers, either....it's cultural , Protestant Christian).

But after Muslims wanted to dust off a law that hardly ever got used....well....then the blasphemy law was (of course) outdated, wrong and irresponsible and ill-befitting the Danish character. I'm fine to see it go, but it's not untill now that there's been broad political support for it, and everyone here sort of accepts that what changed was... Muslims.

And yeah, StA's not gonna be able to wrap his head around it, no. Also, the biggest support for a ban on male circumcision are also the Marxist party, along with the Green-Socialist party. The most immigrant-friendly party, the Social Liberals are against male circumcision, but don't believe in making laws against it. Oh, and the nationalist DPP are also against male circumcision and want it banned.

[Speaker to Animals]

Implying marxists don't institute their own blasphemy laws. What is the criminalization of "hate speech" if not a blasphemy law?

[SuburbanFarmer]

I'm surprised that anyone is "against" male circumcision, honestly. There's no real effect on the penis, that I'm aware of, other than lower infection rates etc.

[Speaker to Animals]

I'm surprised that anyone is "against" male circumcision, honestly. There's no real effect on the penis, that I'm aware of, other than lower infection rates etc.

MRAs trear it on par with FGM.

You probably get some loss of feeling, though. You are still losing nerve endings.

The public health benefit is enormous, however. MRAs leave that little detail out.

[C-Mag]

I'm surprised that anyone is "against" male circumcision, honestly. There's no real effect on the penis, that I'm aware of, other than lower infection rates etc.

MRAs trear it on par with FGM.

You probably get some loss of feeling, though. You are still losing nerve endings.

The public health benefit is enormous, however. MRAs leave that little detail out.

Plus, without it, it's missing a face and personality.

[SuburbanFarmer]

I'm surprised that anyone is "against" male circumcision, honestly. There's no real effect on the penis, that I'm aware of, other than lower infection rates etc.

MRAs trear it on par with FGM.

You probably get some loss of feeling, though. You are still losing nerve endings.

The public health benefit is enormous, however. MRAs leave that little detail out.

As I understand it, the foreskin is just like the lower shaft in sensitivity (very low). I don't have one, so I wouldn't know.

[TheReal_ND]

THE VOLCANO GOD TOOK MY FORESKIN

[Speaker to Animals]

I'm surprised that anyone is "against" male circumcision, honestly. There's no real effect on the penis, that I'm aware of, other than lower infection rates etc.

MRAs trear it on par with FGM.

You probably get some loss of feeling, though. You are still losing nerve endings.

The public health benefit is enormous, however. MRAs leave that little detail out.

As I understand it, the foreskin is just like the lower shaft in sensitivity (very low). I don't have one, so I wouldn't know.

Yeah, mine is missing as well. So I can only guess at what I am missing, though I am pretty sure I would not miss the stink.

[BjornP]

Implying marxists don't institute their own blasphemy laws. What is the criminalization of "hate speech" if not a blasphemy law?

The reason it isn't, is because the blasphemy was aimed at the religion, ie. the beliefs themselves. Hate speech laws are aimed the individuals who practise those beliefs. While both run counter to the spirit of free speech, the subject of their defense is thus different.

I'm surprised that anyone is "against" male circumcision, honestly. There's no real effect on the penis, that I'm aware of, other than lower infection rates etc.

Virtually no Danish male who isn't either Jewish or Muslim, is circumcised. With the invention of antibiotics and better education about daily hygiene, there's no significant medicial benefit to it. And while the opposition here isn't Men's Rights Activism-related, the arguments are the same: That it is morally on par with FGM, that it is mutilation. Personally, I think the practise is bizarre, and has no rational place outside religion, but I don't believe in banning it, and while there is no significant medical benefit to males (or rather, males who are raised to wash themselves and whose parents can afford antibiotics), a medicial benefit is there and the downsides (less sensitivity in the glans of the penis due to the hardening of the skin there) are minor.

And, it creates a little extra cash for the North American medical profession.

[TheReal_ND]