Desecration against homosexuals has become a criminal offense by a Swedish court. In the case of Vejdeland and others v Sweden, the Sweden court for the first time applies principles developed in relation to hate speech in the framework of sexual orientation and gender identity. On 9 February 2012, the Fifth Section of the European Court of Human Rights found that Sweden did not violate the right to freedom of expression of the applicants who had distributed flyers holding violent and abusive statements about members of the LGBT community (Discrimination). This case concerned the principle of the applicants in Sweden for the criminal offence of tension against members of the LGBT community (Anti-Gay).
“The applicants, Tor Fredrik Vejdeland, Mattias Harlin, Björn Täng and Niklas Lundström, are Swedish nationals who were born in 1978, 1981, 1987 and 1986 respectively” (Vejdeland v Sweden). In December 2004, the applicants, together with three other persons, entered a secondary school and distributed approximately 100 leaflets in and on lockers of the school's pupils. The incident ended when the school’s principal intervened and ordered the applicants to leave the premises. The leaflets, made by the organisation 'National Youth' were strongly anti-homosexual.The declarations stated that homosexuality had devastating moral effects on the society and was responsible for the development of "HIV" and "AIDS". They also claimed that gay organizations were trying to "play down paedophilia" (Anti-Gay).
The applicants were charged and convicted under Chapter 16, Article 8 of the Swedish Penal Code for agitation against a national or ethnic group. Article 8 of the Swedish Penal Code makes it an offence to “threaten or express contempt for a national, ethnic or other such group of persons with allusion to race, colour, national or ethnic origin, religious beliefs or sexual orientation.” Under Swedish law, this anti-hate speech provision in the criminal code also related to threats or expressions of contempt directed against people with allusion to their sexual orientation (Beck). The applicants were charged in order to defend themselves, they claimed that their leaflets did not offend homosexuals and they were not aimed at spreading hatred but at encouraging argument in schools and presenting urgings to students. They also stated that they do not propose to express homosexuality as a group, but that they are aiming to initiate a discussion on the lack of objectivity in Swedish school education (Discrimination).
Following the court's decision to convict the applicants, they requested that the court violated their freedom of expression in accordance with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Vejdeland - Sweden). Additional, the applicants argued that the law was so unclear; they could not be sentenced of a crime in violation of Article 7 of the Convention. The court rejected the claim and in doing so reiterating, that intolerance based on sexual orientation and gender identity is as serious as race, origin, or color discrimination. The court agreed, stating; "Sexual discrimination is as serious as discrimination on the basis of race, origin or color." This intervention pursued a legitimate aim, namely to protect the reputation and rights of others, and was necessary in a democratic society. So, no violations were made by the court (Case of).
Convicts appealed the decision to the Swedish Court of Appeal, which overturned the decision and stated that the punishment was a violation of the right to freedom of expression (Vejdeland - Sweden). Formerly, the charges against the applicants were rejected on appeal, on the ground that a conviction would amount to a violation of their right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights (Discrimination). After reviewing the case, on July 6th2006, the Supreme Court convicted the applicants of excitement against a national or ethnic group. The Court finally looked at whether the conviction violated Article 7 of the Convention. The Court found that this argument was unacceptable and did not discuss it. Therefore, the Supreme Court upheld the court's decision. Most judges agreed that students were unable to reject the announcement and that the purpose of preparing students for discussion could be achieved without offending homosexuals as a group (Case of).
A number of elements that were critical in the Court's reasoning include; the leaflets were dispersed to young people at a sensitive age and in situations where they had no opportunity to reject the leaflets. As well as the “real problem of homophobic … bullying and discrimination in educational settings” (Beck). It took into account that none of the applicants attended the school and that they did not have free access to the school. The Supreme Court of Sweden had considered related aspect itself, including the finding that the statements on the leaflets had been 'unnecessarily offensive' (Case of). Judges also noted that not only members of the LGBT community continue to face "deep-rooted prejudice, hostility, and widespread discrimination across Europe", but that "homophobic and trans-phobic bullying in education settings" is a real problem that may constitute barriers. Justify in freedom of expression (Anti-Gay).
After extensive scrutiny and complex judicial discussions, the Supreme Court ruled that, the penalties forced on the applicants were not extreme. Three of the applicants received suspended sentences combined with fines, whilst the fourth applicant was sentenced to probation (Beck). Eventually, no less than three different concurring opinions, by five judges in total, were added to the judgment. It illustrates the difficult judicial and moral struggle that the court faced in deciding this case. Applicants lodged a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights arguing that the conviction violated their freedom of expression. The European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”), On 9 February 2012, unanimously found no violation of the freedom of expression. Accordingly, Sweden had not overstepped the boundaries of the ECHR by combatting this form of hate speech (Case of).
In conclusion, a very difficult and heavy legal case came to a close after eight years, trying to get justice is not an easy task. If the case had been brought up in the United States, the outcome might have been different, but the European Court of Justice took a different approach. It is the first verdict in the verdict that the court sentenced to hate for individuals because of their sexual orientation and gender identity. Speeches by members of the LGBT community, both teachers and students, are prevalent in schools across Europe. Today, we continue to see bullying in various forms, with the hope that all acts of violence of all genders will be controlled with the help of sound justice and that all human beings will enjoy full and equal rights with every belief and attitude.
Works Cited
“Anti-Gay Speech Judgment.” The European Convention of Human Rights. Feb 20, 2012.
Beck, Jan. “Case of Vejdeland and others v. Sweden.” Advocates for Justice and Human Rights.
Feb 9, 2012.
"Case of Vejdeland and Others v. Sweden." Global Freedom of Expression. Sep 5, 2012.
“Discrimination and Hate Speech on the Basis of Sexual Orientation: is it protected by Freedom
Of Expression?” Human Rights Law Center. Feb 10, 2012
"Vejdeland v Sweden." Interights.2019.
Comments