Stirea suna asa. Este de urmarit ce va fi.
Internal row in Slovakia threatens EU treaty
31.01.2008 – 09:27 CET | By Renata Goldirova
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS – European Parliament president Hans-Gert Poettering has called on Slovakia to act responsibly, as the country locked in internal bickering is heading for a crucial vote on the EU’s hard-fought Lisbon Treaty on Thursday evening.“I call on all respective politicians in Slovakia to realise their enormous political responsibility,” Mr Poettering said at the beginning of the parliament’s plenary session on Wednesday (30 January).
A similar message came from the parliament’s two leading groups, the Conservatives and the Socialists.
“I totally reject the idea of making the Lisbon Treaty dependent on some national law. If all the countries do it, we would never have any progress in Europe,” the Socialists’ vice-chairman Hannes Swoboda said, describing the current deadlock in Slovakia as “negative and un-European”.
The EU’s treaty has been held captive by the Slovak centre-right opposition since Monday (28 January). Even though an overwhelming majority backs the document, they are refusing to vote in favour of the treaty unless the government redrafts a separate media bill.
They say the proposed law will curb press freedom – an argument backed up by Europe’s democracy watchdog, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
Wednesday saw a series of negotiations between the two camps, with the country’s president also taking a part. However, no compromise has been reached and all three opposition parties are still set to walk out from the chamber if the treaty is put to the vote.
The vote is scheduled for 5pm CET on Thursday (31 January).
Without at least five votes from the opposition, Prime Minister Robert Fico’s coalition government will not have the constitutional majority required for the treaty to be passed in the parliament.
Earlier this week, a European Commission spokesperson said it was not up to Brussels to say what issues may or may not be raised during the debate, but he added that the EU’s executive hoped the debate would focus on European issues.
The EU’s Lisbon Treaty, formally signed on 13 December in Portugal’s capital, must be ratified by all EU states in order to enter into force on 1 January 2009. It marks the end of six-year long wrangle to reform the bloc’s institutions.
So far, Hungary, Slovenia and Malta have approved the document.
Sursa (*)
Pentru cei care credeau ca RPC inseamna Republica Populara Chineza…Oficial asa se cheama, insa aceasta structura [forma de guvernamant] este adaptata. Cifrele nu sunt marete: doar vreo 5 milioane de societati pe la sfarsitul lui 2006, insa ideea conteaza. Republica aceasta este diferita de alte republici populare.
Stirea este aici.
Aici (*); concluziile dnei. avocat general Kokott aici (*). In presa aici (*) si (*).
Dispozitivul hotararii:
“Directiva 2000/31/CE a Parlamentului European si a Consiliului din 8 iunie 2000 privind anumite aspecte juridice ale serviciilor societătii informationale, în special ale comertului electronic, pe piata internă (directiva privind comertul electronic), Directiva 2001/29/CE a Parlamentului European si a Consiliului din 22 mai 2001 privind armonizarea anumitor aspecte ale dreptului de autor si drepturilor conexe în societatea informatională, Directiva 2004/48/CE a Parlamentului European si a Consiliului din 29 aprilie 2004 privind respectarea drepturilor de proprietate intelectuală si Directiva 2002/58/CE a Parlamentului European si a Consiliului din 12 iulie 2002 privind prelucrarea datelor personale si protejarea confidentialitătii în sectorul comunicatiilor publice (Directiva asupra confidentialitătii si comunicatiilor electronice) nu impun statelor membre să prevadă, într‑o situatie precum aceea din actiunea principală, obligatia de a comunica date cu caracter personal în vederea asigurării protectiei efective a dreptului de autor în cadrul unei proceduri civile. Totusi, dreptul comunitar impune acestor state ca, la transpunerea directivelor mentionate, să se asigure că se întemeiază pe o interpretare a acestora care permite asigurarea unui echilibru just între diferitele drepturi fundamentale protejate de ordinea juridică comunitară. Pe lângă aceasta, la punerea în aplicare a măsurilor de transpunere a acestor directive, incumbă autoritătilor si instantelor din statele membre nu numai să interpreteze dreptul lor national într‑un mod conform directivelor mentionate, ci si să nu se întemeieze pe o interpretare a acestora care ar intra în conflict cu drepturile fundamentale respective sau cu alte principii generale ale dreptului comunitar precum principiul proportionalitătii”.
am gasit aici o informatie pentru care iti trebuie nu stiu ce parola.
Nu e nici un secret: noul presedinte al Curţii de Arbitraj Comercial Internaţional
de pe lângă Camera de Comerţ şi Industrie a României este Adrian Severin (*). Felicitation!
Francezii au dat un decret de aplicare a unei legi din 1986 care este precum hotararile de guvern de la noi. Una e legea, alta e hotararea (sau decretul, la ei). In fine… Privatizare sa fie, dar nu .. ne vindem tara. Exagerez? Ia sa mai si cititi …e drept ca domeniile sunt limitate, dar si resursele energetice.
Décret n° 2008-80 du 24 janvier 2008 modifiant le décret n° 93-1041 du 3 septembre 1993 pris pour l’application de la loi n° 86-912 du 6 août 1986 modifiée relative aux modalités des privatisations [*]
Spre deosebire de viziunile holistice din dreptul nostru, altii scriu cu folos:
Sacha Prechal and Bert van Roermund, The Coherence of EU Law. The Search for Unity in Divergent Concepts, OPU, 2008 (*).
Cartea intra intr-o serie de lucrari care se preocupa de importanta limbajului juridic (sau a 23 de limbaje juridice sau a 27 sau si mai multe daca vedem regiunile autonome din Europa).
“La crise spirituelle qui frappe actuellement l’Europe a son origine dans la laïcité qui n’a pas pu soutenir les peuples européens. Aujourd’hui, les autres confessions chrétiennes luttent pour ramener le Christ dans leurs sociétés”.
Sursa (*)
The Cultivation of Cosmopolitan Detachment in Comparative Law: The Hellenistic Contributions
Richard Brooks
Raneta L. Mack
When the State Becomes a Liability to Society: Lessons from Carmichele
Nomthandazo Ntlama
On Seizure of Corporate and Limited Liability Company Shares in Spanish Law
Mauricio Troncoso Reigada
The Trademark Fair Use Defense: A Comparative Perspective
Federico Fusco
Les Sociétés Civiles Face à l’Idéologie Libérale
Michel Esdras Franck Miambanzila
Editor: Ugo Mattei (*)
The Takeover Bid Directive, Light and Darkness (*)
The 2004 takeover directive has been implemented in most EU states. It has achieved a very welcome harmonisation of the securities regulatory provisions, especially by introducing a rather strict home rule regime along with mutual recognition, and levelling the conditions for bids (irrevocability, disclosure, equal treatment) although regretfully many concepts remain undefined (equitable price, concert action, etc.).The company law provisions of the directive, and mainly the rules on anti-takeover defences have, generally spoken, not been implemented by the states. This refers to the more general debate on the role of the shareholder, often summarized in the slogan one share, one vote). Although originally supportive of OSOV, the Commission recently decide to drop that approach. This change of mood takes place on the background of more aggressive action of activist shareholders, the fear for hedge funds and the like, and the appearance of sovereign wealth funds.
No Freedom of Emigration for Companies? (*), articol ce a aparut in 2005 in “European Business Law Review”.
Abstract:
The freedom of establishment for companies (Articles 43 and 48 EC Treaty) includes the right to choose the company’s seat in any Member State of the EC. However, in recent years, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) seems to have interpreted those articles as being relevant only to the recognition of foreign companies, whereas the right to leave the company’s country of incorporation has not come within the scope of this freedom. The purpose of this paper is to question this distinction between “departure” and “arrival”.
It is argued that the ECJ’s point of view is inconsistent in itself, creates logical problems and is incoherent in light of its interpretation of other fundamental freedoms. Arguably, the Court has created a “trap” for itself by insisting on the differentiation between “exit” and “entry” and by putting much effort into maintaining this differentiation over the last years. The article ends with an appeal to reassess the application of the freedom of establishment to companies and to find the courage to overcome the artificial differentiation.
European System of Private Laws: An Economic Perspective (*)
Abstract:
A theoretical framework for the analysis and design of a European System of Private Laws and Regulations is presented. Since private laws also encompass a considerable amount of mandatory legal rules (increasingly fuzzy distinction between public and private law), both traditional private law rules that facilitate market exchange as well as mandatory (public or private law) rules for the regulation of markets are taken into account. Based upon a multi-level governance approach, economic theories of federalism and regulatory competition are used to analyze the optimal degree of centralisation/ decentralisation of legal rules for markets within a two-level legal system (EU and Member States). An overview of the most important criteria for the vertical allocation of regulatory powers and of different types of regulatory competition is given (including their advantages and disadvantages). The most important conclusion is that the optimal structure depends on the specific regulatory problem and detailed analyses are necessary, because complex trade off problems between manifold positive and negative effects of centralised/ decentralised solutions and regulatory competition can emerge. For the governance of such a European two-level system of private laws and regulations an appropriate shaping of conflict of laws- and choice of law-rules is crucial. The theoretical analysis of multi-level legal systems, especially in regard to their innovativeness and adaptability to changing circumstances and preferences, suggests that the EU should be more cautious in pursuit of legal harmonisation than they have been in the past.
Am dat acest titlu pentru a parafraza limbajul inept si gol de continut, artificial si semidoct al atator experti cu “expertiza” (sic!). Dar, pana la urma asta e; n-om mai gasi nici un om care sa nu aiba niste “arii de expertiza”… ori macar cu “siviul” golit de substantza vascoasa a atator “uorkshopuri” prin strainatatzi…
Ori, daca preferati, “mobilitate corporata” (sic!).
How Does Corporate Mobility Affect Lawmaking? A Comparative Analysis (*)
Abstract:
This paper examines the impact of increased corporate mobility on corporate lawmaking in the European Union (EU). More specifically, we seek an answer to a simple question: Has the increased mobility which arose from the implementation of the Societas Europaea (SE) and the path-breaking decisions of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) led to an outbreak of regulatory competition and the emergence of a Delaware-like member state in Europe? Two types of corporate mobility are distinguished: (1) the incorporation mobility of start up firms and (2) the reincorporation mobility of established firms. As to incorporation mobility, the Centros triad of cases makes it possible for start-up firms to incorporate in a foreign jurisdiction. Many entrepreneurs have taken advantage of this new freedom of establishment. However, recent data from Germany and The Netherlands indicate declining numbers of such foreign incorporations over time. Moreover, Centros-based incorporation mobility is a rather trivial phenomenon, economically speaking. The actors in question seek only to minimize costs of incorporation. National lawmakers have been responding, amending their statutes to lower these costs. But, because out of pocket cost minimization at the organization stage operates as only a secondary motivation of ‘choice-of-business-form’ decisions, there arise no competitive pressures that cause national legislatures to engage in thorough-going reform addressed to corporate governance more generally. As to reincorporation mobility, which concerns the migration of the statutory seat of a firm incorporated in one member state to another member state, the SE has opened the door, but not widely enough to serve as a catalyst for company law arbitrage. Reincorporation mobility is still far from generally available in the EU. As a result, competitive pressures do not yet motivate changes in the fundamental governance provisions of national corporate law regimes.
The Elusive Antitrust Standard on Bundling in Europe and in the United States at the Aftermath of the Microsoft Cases (*)
Abstract:
We analyze and contrast the US and EU antitrust standards on mixed bundling and tying. We apply our analysis to the US and EU cases against Microsoft on the issue of tying new products (Internet Explorer in the US, and Windows Media Player in the EU) with Windows as well as to cases brought in Europe and in the United States on bundling discounts. We conclude that there are differences between the EC and US antitrust law on the choice of the relevant analogy for bundled rebates (predatory price standard or foreclosure standard) and the implementation of the distinct product and coercion test for tying practices. The second important difference between the two jurisdictions concerns the interpretation of the requirement of anticompetitive foreclosure. It seems to us that in Europe, consumer detriment is found easily and it is not always a requirement for the application of Article 82, or at least that the standard of proof of a consumer detriment for tying cases is lower than in the US.
… un articol recent.
| Abstract: This paper argues on the basis of comparative constitutional law the following five points: 1) That the European Union has developed into a constitutional order, can only be understood if we acknowledge the non-revolutionary, evolutionary and incremental nature of the European constitution. 2) We need to say farewell to formal criteria in order to identify what is constitutional in the political and legal order of the European Union. 3) In European law, we do not know exactly where the boundary is between `constitutional’ and `ordinary’ law, just as is the case with other constitutions of the `historic type’. 4) For lack of a `constitutional moment’, a formal EU `constitution’, if ever realized, would only be a momentary reflection, no more than a snap-shot; it would be a Grundgesetz rather than a Verfassung; that is to say in the appropriate equivalent terms: a fundamental treaty, rather than a constitutional treaty. 5) The coming together of contrasting cultural perceptions of constitutions, the arch-types of `revolutionary’ and `un-revolutionary historic’ types of constitutions (the `French’ v. `British’ type of constitution) within the European Union, can lead to ambiguity and an equivocality which leads to frictions and misunderstandings about the constitutional nature of the European Union; this may fail to contribute to the legitimacy of a consolidated constitutional document.
|
||
|
|
|
Precum se stie, CJCE s-a pronuntat anul trecut in materie… hotarare ce a clarificat posibilitatea ca avocatul sa informeze autoritatile atunci cand se curata bani…
Este vorba despre hotararea in cauza C-305/05 Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone (*). Despre hotarare s-a mai scris pe blogul nostru (*).
Ei bine, Curtea Constitutionala din Belgia, instanta de trimitere, a decis, pe baza interpretarii furnizate de catre Curtea de la Luxemburg (nu de la Strasbourg…!).
Decizia belgiana aici (*)
Votul strans: 10-7…
European court condemns France for refusing to allow lesbian to adopt a child
STRASBOURG, France
A French lesbian woman was discriminated against when authorities refused to allow her to adopt a child, Europe’s human right court ruled Tuesday.
The European Court of Human Rights said the refusal by regional authorities, upheld by two French courts, to authorize the adoption request breached the woman’s rights because it appeared motivated by her sexual orientation. It granted her euro24,500 (US$35,500) in damages and court expenses.
The 45-year-old woman, identified only as E.B., a nursery teacher, first filed a request to adopt a child with authorities in the Jura region in eastern France in 1998, mentioning her stable relationship with another woman.
The request was rejected, but France maintained that the applicant’s sexual orientation played no part in the decision. The French civil code allows singles over the age of 28 to adopt, but says two unmarried people cannot both adopt the same child. It does not mention homosexuality.
France said that it had refused the request due to “the absence of a paternal image” in the woman’s household and what it called the “ambiguous” nature of her partner’s commitment to the adoption. It also said it had to take into account the needs and interests of the adopted child.
But the court’s Grand Chamber of 17 European judges ruled 10-7 that the authorities unduly dwelled on the paternal element since the adoption request was filed by a single woman. It also disputed France’s claim that that the woman’s sexual orientation did not influence the decision.
“The court considered that the reference to the applicant’s homosexuality had been, if not explicit, at least implicit; the influence of her homosexuality on the assessment of her application had not only been established but had also been a decisive factor” leading to the refusal, the court said.
The applicant’s attorney said the ruling effectively prohibits France from refusing adoption requests on sexual orientation grounds.
“France will have to review its position as regards adoptions by homosexuals,” lawyer Caroline Mecary said, adding that nine European countries explicitly allow homosexual adoptions.
The French Association of Gay and Lesbian parents called the judgment a “moral victory” for homosexuals seeking to adopt.
The Council of Europe, which administers the human rights court, will draft a recommendation to France within several months on how to remedy the situation.
Stirea aici (*); o cronica interesanta aici (*). Hotararea aici (*). De notat ca au fost formulate cinci (!) opinii contrare. Si iarasi… apare problema politizarii modului de interpretare a instrumentelor de drepturi ale omului… Instructiv de citit o cronica anterioara in materie aici (*).
Si citez aici din opinia contrara a judecatorului Zupancic:
“(…) is it possible to imagine the Nobel Prize Committee being accused of discrimination because it never awards any Nobel Prizes to scientists of a particular race or nationality? Such an assertion would, of course, require statistical proof. Statistical evidence is, indeed, very prevalent in employment discrimination and similar cases. In other words, if in this particular situation the European Court of Human Rights were to establish that the French administrative authorities systematically discriminate against lesbian women wishing to adopt a child, the issue would be much clearer“.
Articol recent.
Takeover Regulation as a Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing: Taking Armour & Skeel’s Thesis to Continental Europe (*)
MARCO VENTORUZZO Bocconi University – Institute of Comparative Law (IDC)
January 1, 2008 Bocconi Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2008-02
Abstract: Aesop was an optimist. In his cautionary fable that inspired the famous admonition about wolves in sheep’s clothing, the predator intentionally dons a sheep’s fleece in order to sneak up on a lamb. His disguise, it turns out, is so effective that he ends up being mistaken for the real thing and killed by another wolf. According to Aesop, even the most effective fraud can turn against its perpetrator, and justice be done. The results are not always so salutary with other clandestine predators, including legal rules that appear aimed at protecting vulnerable groups, but instead provide valuable tools to be exploited by other, and more powerful, lobbies. The thesis of this Article is that some of the takeover regulations that have proven so successful at protecting minority shareholders in the U.K., and have been incorporated into European takeover regulation, may operate in Continental systems as a deceptive guise that instead ensures protection for entrenched controlling shareholders.
Keywords: Takeover, Tende offer, Mandatory bid, Defensive measures, Breakthrough rule, Ownership stucture, Institutional Investors, Thirteenth Directive
Din decembrie; comunicare scurta. Ramane problema evolutiilor viitoare, avand in vedere cam ce probleme a constatat CJCE in practica sa (relativ recenta).
The application of anti-abuse measures in the area of direct taxation – within the EU and in relation to third countries (*)
Articol foarte percutant. Cititi!
Nu vreti un doctorat?
Dan CIACHIR
In urma cu o luna, un ziar constata ca anul trecut au fost sustinute in Romania 3000 de doctorate. Saptamana trecuta, scriitorul Dan Mircea Cipariu arata, in ZIUA, ca aproximativ un sfert din cele aproape zece mii de lucrari de doctorat sustinute in ultimul deceniu la noi sunt plagiate. Nu e de mirare, in tara Elenei Ceausescu si a Elenei Udrea. Dar si a ministrului plagiator Beuran, a protopopului plagiator Ciulei si-al atator amar de “doctori” produsi pe banda rulanta…
Am mai pus aceasta intrebare: ce nevoie are un preot de doctorat? Daca descopera el siragul de matanii al Sfantului Ieararh Calinic de la Cernica sau bastonul mitropolitului Andrei Saguna si redacteaza o teza de doctorat, isi va spovedi si catehiza mai bine enoriasii? Ii sporeste titlul de doctor unui preot credinta in Dumnezeu ori zelul misionar?… Ma indoiesc. Ba s-ar putea ca preotul respectiv sa ajunga sa piarda pe la consultatii si prin biblioteci ore pe care le-ar putea inchina propriilor credinciosi. Important este ca un medic sa isi vindece pacientii sau sa le trateze eficient maselele. Daca are si doctorat, daca sustine comunicari, asta nu-i intereseaza pe bolnavi. Ca si “creatia”, cercetarea stiintifica nu este o activitate de mase, ci una destinata unei minoritati, unei elite profesionale cu reala chemare. Caragiale, Creanga, Arghezi, Sadoveanu, Rebreanu n-au avut decat o scolarizare precara sau minima; nu le-a trebuit mici macar o licenta in filologie pentru a deveni mari scriitori. Nici marii duhovnici romani din secolul trecut, sau sfintii contemporani (Siluan Athonitul), nu s-au batut in diplome si titluri academice… Tot asa si cu vocatiile stiintifice – nu se gasesc pe toate drumurile. In urma cu o suta sau cu cincizeci de ani, un titlu de doctor omologa vocatiile autentice intr-un domeniu si le incununa. Pe urma a venit erodarea, inflatia, demonetizarea… Sa nu se invoce obiceiul pamantului si precedentul anilor de regim comunist. Trebuie amintit si egalitarismul postmodern cu radacini in Luminism, adica in acel curent de idei vital pentru Occident, care isi propunea emanciparea culturala a maselor. Cu gramada absolventilor de liceu si de universitate nu se impaunau numai regimurile totalitare. Il auzeam deunazi elogiind numarul mare de diplome universitare pe un intelectual francez. Raspundea astfel constatarilor unui confrate care deplangea galopanta degradare culturala din tara lor. In ritmul acesta, poate ca peste cateva decenii Academia Franceza va numara cateva mii de “nemuritori”, iar sora ei, Academia Romana, nu se va lasa mai prejos, dandu-i chiar puncte inainte. E usor sa deosebesti, sub raportul valorii, intre un Bentley si un Matiz, intre un stilou Parker si un pix Bic, dar cum mai faci distinctie intre Dumitru Staniloae si protopopul Ciulei cand de numele amandurora se leaga mentiunea de “doctor in Teologie”, chiar daca ultimul l-a plagiat pe cel dintai?!… Titlurile nemeritate de doctor in stiinte, incepand cu cel al Elenei Ceausescu, nu au fost acordate de politruci sau de secretari de partid, ci de oameni cu autoritate in materie care au cedat. E bulgarele pe baza caruia s-a format avalansa. Apoi au venit demonetizarea si inflatia. Astazi este greu sa deosebesti un intelectual autentic de un plagiator sau de un veleitar, deindata ce ambii au acelasi doctorat. In Romania doctoratele s-ar putea vinde in curand, pe Internet, ca biletele de avion si licentele. In lumea postmoderna a “discriminarilor pozitive”, respectiv in tara tuturor hatarurilor, nu-i exclusa o oferta de genul: “Nu vreti un doctorat?”
Ziua, 18 ianuarie (*)
In toamna, CJCE s-a pronuntat asupra “Legii Volkswagen” (*). De atunci…
Comunicatul de presa al Ministerului federal de Justitie, cu anuntul de modificare a regimului juridic national (*).
Stirea suna asa:
German Law Seeks to Maintain the State’s Role in Volkswagen (*)
Since the state of Lower Saxony owns 20.3 percent of Volkswagen’s shares, the law would enable it to block such moves. Lower Saxony has historically defended the interests of auto workers at Volkswagen, and analysts said the law amounted to a form of worker protection.
“It’s clear the politicians and the trade unions want to retain their influence over this company,” said Ferdinand Dudenhöffer, the director of the Center for Automotive Research in Gelsenkirchen.
Germany disclosed the new law a day after Nokia, the Finnish mobile phone giant, announced it would shut a factory in the industrial Ruhr region, a decision that is likely to cost 2,300 jobs. It also came two weeks before crucial elections in Lower Saxony, where Volkswagen is based.
The draft law could have implications for Porsche, the maker of sports cars, which has amassed 31 percent of Volkswagen’s shares over the last two years and is likely to acquire a majority stake this year.
Porsche executives declined to comment, but people in the auto industry familiar with their thinking said they were not pleased. The company had welcomed the decision of the European Court of Justice, which ruled in October that the Volkswagen law restricted the free flow of capital in Europe.
Still, Mr. Dudenhöffer said he doubted that the new law would deter Porsche from its pursuit of Volkswagen. “Porsche will be so strong that it will be able to find solutions to the blocking minority,” he said.
Stock in Porsche fell 2 percent Wednesday, while stock in Volkswagen rose 2 percent.
A spokesman for Volkswagen, Andreas Meurer, said, “We are the object of this law, so we aren’t speaking about it.”
Germany’s justice minister, Brigitte Zypries, did say the government would drop a central part of the old law, which capped the voting rights of shareholders at 20 percent, regardless of how many shares they own.
The voting cap was the biggest hurdle to Porsche, or anyone else, trying to take over Volkswagen. It was also the provision most criticized by the European Court of Justice in its ruling in October.
“We wanted to preserve the proven VW law as far as possible, and only nullify the provisions that were declared to be against European law,” Ms. Zypries said in a news release.
But in its ruling, the European court also frowned on the requirement that shareholders representing 80 percent of Volkswagen’s shares must approve major changes for them to take effect, which was also part of the old law. Under German law, it noted, a 75 percent majority is normally sufficient.
Lawyers here said it was not clear that the law would pass muster with the European Commission, since it treats Volkswagen differently from other companies to protect Lower Saxony’s position.
Brussels has sued Germany to strike down the four-decade-old Volkswagen law.
“The government might be trying to test the temperature of the European legal community,” said Peter-Christian Müller-Graff, an expert in European law at the University of Heidelberg. “I don’t think the legal discussion is finished. Probably, they are buying some time.”
As a practical matter, Volkswagen can make a host of decisions without needing the approval of shareholders.
“referate master drept social european“. nu incetez sa ma minunez…. la ce mai fac unii masterate, cand le fac degeaba…
The government has “every sympathy” for the case for abolishing blasphemy laws, Justice Minister Maria Eagle has said. Speaking at the end of a debate on proposals to scrap the laws, she told MPs they wanted to first consult the Church of England.
Labour MPs were told to vote against Lib Dem MP Evan Harris’s proposals but ministers feared a backbench revolt.
Dr Harris, who called the law “ancient, discriminatory and illiberal”, withdrew his Criminal Justice Bill amendment.
Subject to those discussions, the government intended to bring forward amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill to abolish the offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel, she said.
During the debate, Dr Harris described the laws as “ancient, discriminatory, unnecessary, illiberal and non-human rights compliant”. He said the last conviction under the law was 1979.
“So it’s not needed any more, old-fashioned, ancient and out of time,” he said.
“The Almighty does not really need the protection of these ridiculous laws and that’s why large numbers of people of a religious perspective share the view that these offences need to be abolished,” he said.
Earlier Labour MP Keith Vaz told BBC Radio 4’s World at One: “A lot of MPs, including myself, would have voted for it – because this is a pretty archaic law.”
He said he welcomed the government’s moves to bring forward its own plans, adding: “There would have been a rebellion and I think the government would have faced a defeat.”
‘Free expression’
Backbenchers involved in talks with ministers say the government is anxious not to be accused of “bouncing” the Church of England into accepting abolition.
Dr Harris’s amendment to the bill comes after leading figures, including former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey, wrote to the Daily Telegraph on Tuesday, arguing the legislation was discriminatory as it only covers attacks on Christianity and Church of England beliefs.
The letter said it served “no useful purpose” and offered Christian activists a means to intimidate broadcasters, publishers and performers.
The High Court last month rejected an attempt by a Christian evangelical group to prosecute the director general of the BBC for blasphemy over the screening of the musical Jerry Springer – The Opera.
‘Respect’
Its director, Nicholas Hytner, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “What we have now is essentially a secular country based on a common bond of decency which includes free speech.
“And free speech includes the expectation that there should be mutual respect between those with different beliefs.
“And I don’t believe that the law should address what people believe. The blasphemy laws protect belief; they don’t protect people.”
Don Horrocks, of the Evangelical Alliance, agreed that there was “no real argument” for retaining the law, saying: “Everybody knows it’s not really going to be used again.”
But he warned that changing the legislation could “send out a signal” that “gratuitous abuse and offence” is acceptable.
