If at first you don’t succeed, reinterpret the law!

Posted by Guest Blogger on Wednesday, 27 April 2005 12:02.

In 2003 a leader of a Swedish gay rights group, Susanna Gustafsson, decided to “have a pash” with her girlfriend in a Stockholm restaurant. The restaurant owner asked them to leave.

The next day she reported the incident to the police and the restaurant owner was brought before the courts. He defended himself successfully on the grounds that he wasn’t discriminating, but would also have asked a pashing heterosexual couple to leave. The court decided there was no evidence to prove otherwise.

Now the big guns were brought in. A gay rights ombudsman (“HomO”) sued the restaurant owner on Susanna’s behalf. But again the court decided there was no evidence to convict.

So Susanna appealed. This time the court decided to “reinterpret” the law. It now decided that because Ms Gustafsson felt discriminated against, it was up to the restaurant owner to prove his innocence! He lost the case and is required to pay 50,000 kronor to Susanna Gustafsson.

I suppose there are two disturbing aspects of the case. The first is the legal one, in which laws can be suddenly “reinterpreted” in order to secure the “right” result and in which you can be assumed to be guilty if someone feels you have discriminated against them.

The second is that the case makes it more difficult for individuals to uphold traditional standards in their own private businesses. Basically, you now have to accept very overt displays of homosexuality or be heavily fined. The older understanding, in which there was a broad tolerance for homosexuals on the basis that the homosexuality itself was toned down in public, may not be the way of the future.

Tags: Law

Comments:

Posted by Braveheart on Wed, 27 Apr 2005 15:42 | #

In Belgium the judges even don’t have to reinterpret the law. There simply already is reverse proof of innocence in cases of suspected “discrimination”. But traditionally Justice normally won’t do anything. Only the lawyers of the notorious “Centre for Equal Opportunities” have the (financial) means to possibly start the “right” procedure that forces the Judiciary to start a criminal investigation.

I am no lawyer myself, but as far as I have understood, if they claim to have undergone harm, an “investigating judge” MUST be indicated. Only to say, that if they really have it in for you, they can make it tough for you too. This is no coincidence.

And the following I can’t prove, but I suppose they will only stir themselves if there is political “added value” in the case, also because their board is politically composed.

Flanders,

Posted by Effra on Wed, 27 Apr 2005 18:58 | #

“I suppose there are two disturbing aspects of the case. The first is the legal one, in which laws can be suddenly “reinterpreted” in order to secure the “right” result”

This is the modus operandi of the US Supreme Court vis a vis the Constitution.

Posted by onetwothree on Thu, 28 Apr 2005 03:59 | #

Pash? Kronor?

Posted by Braveheart on Thu, 28 Apr 2005 08:16 | #

“have a pash”, perhaps was meant: “made a splash”

Today: 1.00 USD = 7.0729 SEK

Flanders,

Posted by Lurker on Thu, 28 Apr 2005 08:39 | #

pash = passion ?

Posted by Mark Richardson on Thu, 28 Apr 2005 08:44 | #

Sorry, I didn’t realise “to pash” or “to pash on” were Australianisms.

The terms mean “to get passionate” in the sense of hugging and kissing. (So Lurker wins the guess the Australian slang competition.)

Posted by Lurker on Thu, 28 Apr 2005 09:25 | #

Modesty forbids me etc etc…

Actually I think its British slang as well.

Posted by Andrew L on Fri, 29 Apr 2005 07:05 | #

I wonder if the Lesbians had a full pash and a, @#%$@!! in the court room ,I wonder if the Judges would be offended, or take vidioes with pleasure, Europe has lost the plot, Islamo’s might be able to straighten it out. Best of both worlds bearing down on them, as they say, Be careful of what you ask for, you just might get it.I think they got it. Fitting for the subject.

Posted by Adolf Himmler on Mon, 17 Apr 2006 16:43 | #

Fucks you, you lesbian Sussana and your fucking lesbo mates.The law should be repeal.Homos had no right for lawsuit.I think Sussana & her lesbo friends should went into Holland and made sex amimal porno films.That is perfectly legal for her.No lawsuit can sue them.I hope Sussana had the courage to film sex animals porno in front of public in Sweden and hopefully the government support the laws.