ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Gender and Relationships»
  • Romantic Intimacy

Dutch Porn Makers let off by Court Shooting Film in Church at Tilberg

Updated on October 28, 2017
The church in question
The church in question

Church and Blasphemy Law

A bizarre case has been reported from Holland. Popular porn star Kim Holland was accused by the Church at Tilburg of having violated the sanctity of the church by shooting a porn film inside it. It was alleged she shot the porn film in the confessional box. The case was heard but the authorities dismissed the case and the complaint from the church was not processed. The church officials were told that in case they still wanted to file a case they could file a civil suit but a criminal complaint could not stand. The video shot in the church was posted on a Dutch porn website earlier this year. It was also posted by Kim Holland on her web page but she deleted it after the furor it caused. She also apologized and claimed that the film had been shot by an external producer. It is possible she did not fully understand the implications of such a shooting and how it would affect other churchgoers. Newsweek has carried this news.

Complaint of the Priest

The authorities who listened to the complaint by Fry Jan van Noorwegen, a priest at Saint Joseph’s Catholic Church told him that shooting of the film was offensive but not against the law, as the law against Blasphemy had been erased from the statute books in 2012. There had been no conviction under the earlier law for over 40 years. The Dutch are one of the few nations on earth who does not have a blasphemy law at present.

The priest at Saint Joseph's Catholic Church said he was unhappy with their decision and he also could not agree with the suggestion of the Justice Department that “No entry” sign could have been displayed outside the church. The priest said it would be wrong to display such a sign as it would go against the concept of a church. However other officials felt that there was something wrong with the legal system where such a case was dismissed and the culprits had gone scot free.


Desecration of the church?


Fr Van Noorwegen felt that the church had been desecrated and held a special Sunday mass to ask for forgiveness. The mass was well attended and the priest could carry out his wish. He was the one who had taken the case to the prosecutor. The case was discussed with the prosecutor who ruled that in the absence of a blasphemy law the act, though undesirable could not be prosecuted and as there was no notice, the offense of trespassing could not be applied. In effect, it meant that no action whatsoever could be taken against the culprits who had indulged in the act.

Repercussions

The priest was worried that the repercussions of this decision would set a precedent that the incident could be repeated in a restaurant, town hall or for that matter anywhere. The blasphemy act which was repealed in 1968 was praised by all as a step in the right direction at that time.Most countries in Western Europe do not punish anyone for Blasphemy, though Ireland toughened its approach in 2009; since then publishing blasphemous materials can lead to a fine of 25,000 euros.


Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • emge profile image
      Author

      Madan 8 months ago from Abu Dhabi

      Yes Clive, times change perceptions

    • clivewilliams profile image

      Clive Williams 8 months ago from Jamaica

      Well,,,the morals of society decreases daily

    working