Pouch

Pouch (pronounced pouch)

(1) A bag, sack or similar receptacle, especially one for small articles or quantities and historically closed with a drawstring although in modern use zips and other fasteners are common.

(2) A small, purse-like container, used to carry small quantities of cash.

(3) A bag for carrying mail.

(4) In manchester, as “pillow pouch”, an alternative name for a pillowslip or pillowcase (archaic).

(5) As “diplomatic pouch”, a sealed container (anything from an envelope to a shipping container) notionally containing diplomatic correspondence that is sent free of inspection between a foreign office and its diplomatic or consular posts abroad or between such posts.

(6) As “posing pouch”, a skimpy thong (G-string) worn by male strippers, bodybuilders and such; known also as the “posing strap”; within the relevant fields, now an essential Instagram accessory.

(7) In the industrial production of food, as retort pouch, a food packaging resistant to heat sterilization in a retort, often made from a laminate of flexible plastic and metal foils.

(8) In military use, a container (historically of leather) in the form of either a bag or case), used by soldiers to carry ammunition.

(9) Something shaped like or resembling a bag or pocket.

(10) In physics, as “Faraday pouch”, a container with the properties of a Faraday cage.

(11) A pocket in a garment (originally in Scots English but lade widely used by garment manufacturers).

(12) In nautical design, a bulkhead in the hold of a vessel, to prevent bulk goods (grain, sand etc) from shifting (a specialized form of baffle).

(13) A baggy fold of flesh under the eye (more commonly as “bags under the eyes”).

(14) In zoological anatomy, a bag-like or pocket-like part; a sac or cyst, as the sac beneath the bill of pelicans, the saclike dilation of the cheeks of gophers, or the abdominal receptacle for the young of marsupials.

(15) In pathology, an internal structure with certain qualities (use restricted to those fulfilling some functional purpose): any sac or cyst (usually containing fluid), pocket, bag-like cavity or space in an organ or body part (the types including laryngeal pouch, Morison's pouch, Pavlov pouch & Rathke's pouch).

(16) In botany, a bag-like cavity, a silicle, or short pod, as of the “shepherd's purse”.

(17) In slang, a protuberant belly; a paunch (archaic and probably extinct).

(18) In slang, to pout (archaic and probably extinct).

(19) In slang, to put up with (something or someone) (archaic and probably extinct).

(20) To put into or enclose in a pouch, bag, or pocket; pocket.

(21) To transport a pouch (used especially of a diplomatic pouch).

(22) To arrange in the form of a pouch.

(23) To form a pouch or a cavity resembling a pouch.

(24) In zoology, of a fish or bird, to swallow.

1350–1400: From the Middle English pouche & poche, from the Old Northern French pouche, from the Old French poche & puche (from which French gained poche (the Anglo-Norman variant was poke which spread in Old French as “poque bag”), from the Frankish poka (pouch) (similar forms including the Middle Dutch poke, the Old English pohha & pocca (bag) and the dialectal German Pfoch).  Although documented since only the fourteenth century, parish records confirm the surnames “Pouch” & “Pouche” were in use by at least the late twelfth and because both names (like Poucher (one whose trade is the “making of pouches”)) are regarded by genealogists as “occupational”, it’s at least possible small leather bags were thus describe earlier.  In the 1300s, a pouche was “a bag worn on one's person for carrying things” and late in the century it was used especially of something used to carry money (what would later come to be called a “coin purse” or “purse”).  The use to describe the sac-like cavities in animal bodies began in the domestic science of animal husbandry from circa 1400, the idea adopted unchanged when human anatomy became documented.  The verb use began in the 1560s in the sense of “put in a pouch”, extended by the 1670s to mean “to form a pouch, swell or protrude, both directly from the noun.  The Norman feminine noun pouchette (which existed also as poutchette) was from the Old French pochete (small bag).  Surprisingly, it wasn’t picked up in English (a language which is a shameless adopter of anything useful) but does endure on the Channel Island of Jersey where it means (1) a pocket (in clothing) and (2) in ornithology the Slavonian grebe, horned grebe (Podiceps auritus).  Pouch is a noun & verb, pouchful & poucher are nouns, pounching is a verb, pouchy is an adjective and pouched is a verb & adjective; the noun plural is pouches.  The organic pocket in which a marsupial carries its young is known also as both the marsupium & brood pouch, the latter term also used of the cavity which is some creatures is where eggs develop and hatch.

Diplomatic pencil pouch.

The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (UNVCDR; United Nations (UN) Treaty Series, volume 500, p 95) was executed in Vienna on 18 April 1961, entering into force on 24 April 1964.  Although the terminology and rules governing diplomatic relations between sovereign states had evolved over thousands of years, there had been no systematic attempt at codification until the Congress of Vienna (1814-1815), held to formalize the political and dynastic arrangements for post-Napoleonic Europe.  There were also later, ad-hoc meetings which dealt essentially with administrative detail (some necessitated by improvements in communication technology) but it was the 1961 convention which built the framework which continues to underpin the diplomatic element of international relations and is little changed from its original form, making it perhaps the UN’s most successful legal instrument.  With two exceptions, all UN member states have ratified the UNVCDR; the two non-signatories are the republics of Palau and South Sudan.  It’s believed the micro-state of Palau remains outside the framework because it has been independent only since 1994 and constitutionally has an unusual “Compact of Free Association” arrangement with the US which results in it maintaining a limited international diplomatic presence.  The troubled West African state of South Sudan gained independence only in 2011 and has yet to achieve a stable state infrastructure, remaining beset by internal conflict; its immediate priorities therefore remain elsewhere. The two entities with “observer status” at the UN (the State of Palestine and the Holy See) are not parties to the UNVCDR but the Holy See gained in Vienna a diplomatic protocol which functionally is substantially the same as that of a ratification state.  Indeed, the Vatican’s diplomats are actually granted a particular distinction in that states may (at their own election), grant the papal nuncio (the equivalent rank to ambassador or high commissioner) seniority of precedence, thus making him (there’s never been a female nuncio), ex officio, Doyen du Corps Diplomatique (Dean of the Diplomatic Corps).

Lindsay Lohan in SCRAM bracelet (left), the SCRAM (centre) and Chanel's response from their Spring 2007 collection (right).

A very twenty-first century pouch: Before Lindsay Lohan began her “descent into respectability” (a quote from the equally admirable Mandy Rice-Davies (1944-2004) of MRDA fame), Lindsay Lohan inadvertently became of the internet’s early influencers when she for a time wore a court-ordered ankle monitor (often called “bracelets” which etymologically is dubious but rarely has English been noted for its purity).  At the time, many subject to such orders often concealed them under clothing but Ms Lohan made her SCRAM (Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitor) a fashion statement, something that compelled the paparazzi to adjust their focal length to ensure her ankle of interest appeared in shots.  The industry responded with its usual alacrity and “ankle monitor” pouches were soon being strutted down the catwalks.

Chanel's boot-mounted ankle pouch in matching quilted black leather.

In one of several examples of this instance of Lohanic influence on design, in their Spring 2007 collection, Chanel included a range of ankle pouches.  Functional to the extent of affording the wearing a hands-free experience and storage for perhaps a lipstick, gloss and credit card (and the modern young spinster should seldom need more), the range was said quickly to "sell-out" although the concept hasn't been seen in subsequent collections so analysts of such things should make of that what they will.  Chanel offered the same idea in a boot, a design actually borrowed from the military although they tended to be more commodious and, being often used by aircrew, easily accessible while in a seated position, the sealable flap on the outer calf, close to the knee.   

The origin of the special status of diplomats dates from Antiquity when such envoys were the only conduit of communication between kings and emperors.  They thus needed to be granted safe passage and be assured of their safety in what could be hostile territory, negotiations (including threats & ultimata) often conducted between warring tribes and states and the preamble to the UNVCDR captures the spirit of these traditions:

THE STATES PARTIES TO THE PRESENT CONVENTION,

RECALLING that peoples of all nations from ancient times have recognized the status of diplomatic agents,

HAVING IN MIND the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations concerning the sovereign equality of States, the maintenance of international peace and security, and the promotion of friendly relations among nations,

BELIEVING that an international convention on diplomatic intercourse, privileges and immunities would contribute to the development of friendly relations among nations, irrespective of their differing constitutional and social systems,

REALIZING that the purpose of such privileges and immunities is not to benefit individuals but to ensure the efficient performance of the functions of diplomatic missions as representing States,

AFFIRMING that the rules of customary international law should continue to govern questions not expressly regulated by the provisions of the present Convention have agreed as follows…

US Department of State diplomatic pouch tag.

The diplomatic pouch (known also, less attractively, as the “diplomatic bag”) is granted essentially the same protection as the diplomat.  Historically, the diplomatic pouch was exactly that: a leather pouch containing an emissary’s documents, carried usually on horseback and in the modern age it may be anything from an envelope to a shipping container.  What distinguishes it from other containers is (1) clear markings asserting status and (2) usually some sort of locking mechanism (the origin of which was an envelope’s wax seal and if appropriately marked, a diplomatic pouch should be exempt from any sort of inspection by the receiving country.  Strictly speaking, the pouch should contain only official documents but there have been many cases of other stuff being “smuggled in” including gold, weapons subsequently used in murders, foreign currency, narcotics, bottles of alcohol and various illicit items including components of this and that subject to UN (or other) sanctions.  For that reason, there are limited circumstances in which a state may intersect or inspect the contents of a diplomatic pouch.  The protocols relating to the diplomatic pouch are listed in Article 27 of the UNVCDR:

(1) The receiving State shall permit and protect free communication on the part of the mission for all official purposes. In communicating with the Government and the other missions and consulates of the sending State, wherever situated, the mission may employ all appropriate means, including diplomatic couriers and messages in code or cipher. However, the mission may install and use a wireless transmitter only with the consent of the receiving State.

(2) The official correspondence of the mission shall be inviolable. Official correspondence means all correspondence relating to the mission and its functions.

(3) The diplomatic bag shall not be opened or detained.

(4) The packages constituting the diplomatic bag must bear visible external marks of their character and may contain only diplomatic documents or articles intended for official use.

(5) The diplomatic courier, who shall be provided with an official document indicating his status and the number of packages constituting the diplomatic bag, shall be protected by the receiving State in the performance of his functions. He shall enjoy person inviolability and shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention.

(6) The sending State or the mission may designate diplomatic couriers ad hoc. In such cases the provisions of paragraph 5 of this article shall also apply, except that the immunities therein mentioned shall cease to apply when such a courier has delivered to the consignee the diplomatic bag in his charge.

(7) A diplomatic bag may be entrusted to the captain of a commercial aircraft scheduled to land at an authorized port of entry. He shall be provided with an official document indicating the number of packages constituting the bag but he shall not be considered to be a diplomatic courier. The mission may send one of its members to take possession of the diplomatic bag directly and freely from the captain of the aircraft.

Former US Ambassador to Pretoria, Lana Marks.

Some ambassadors have been more prepared than most for handing the diplomatic bag, notably Ms Lana Marks (b 1953), the South African-born US business executive who founded her eponymous company specializing in designer handbags.  In 2018, Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021) nominated Ms Marks as US ambassador to South Africa, a role in which she served between January 2020 and January 2021 when, under the convention observed by political appointees, she resigned her office.  Although Ms Marks had no background in international relations, such appointments are not unusual and certainly not exclusive to US presidents.  Indeed, although professional diplomats may undergo decades of preparation for ambassadorial roles, there are many cases where the host nation greatly has valued a political appointee because of the not unreasonable assumption they’re more likely to have the “ear of the president” than a Foggy Bottom apparatchik who would be restricted to contacting the secretary of state.  That was apparently the case when Robert Nesen (1918–2005), a Californian Cadillac dealer, was appointed US ambassador to Australia (1981-1985), by Ronald Reagan (1911-2004; US president 1981-1989), a reward (if that’s how being sent to live in Canberra can be described) for long service to the Republican Party fundraising rather than a reflection of Mr Reagan’s fondness for Cadillacs (Mr Nesen’s dealership also held other franchises) although it was Mr Reagan who arranged for Cadillac to replace Lincoln as supplier of the White House limousine fleet.  Ms Marks’ connection to the Trump administration’s conduct of foreign policy came through her membership of Mr Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club and golf resort (annual membership fee US$200,000), an institution which also produced the country’s ambassador to the Dominican Republic.  Ms Marks seems to have fitted in well at Mar-a-Lago, telling South Africa's Business Live: “It's the most exclusive part of the US, a small enclave, an island north of Miami.  One-third of the world's wealth passes through Palm Beach in season. The crème de la crème of the world lives there.”  One hopes the people of South Africa were impressed.

The Princess Diana by Lana Marks is sold out in emerald green but remains available in gold, black and chocolate brown.

Dogdish

Dogdish (pronounced dog-dish or dawg-dish)

(1) The dish in which a pet dog’s meals are served (probably a rare use because “dog bowl” is the more common (an accurate) descriptor.

(2) In US use, the style of simple hubcap used in the 1960s & 1970s for low-cost vehicles (especially for fleet operators such as police forces) or certain high-performance cars (including those ordered for competition use).

1940s or 1950s (in the automotive context): The word dog pre-dates the eleventh century and was from the Middle English dogge (akin to the Scots dug), from the Old English dogga & docga, of uncertain origin.  The documentary evidence from a thousand years ago is unsurprisingly scant but does suggest “dog” was used to mean something like the modern “cur” or “mutt” (ie a common or stray dog as opposed to one of good breeding), later refined to be applied to “large or stocky canines”.  The Old English dogga & docga may have been a pet-form diminutive of dog, the appended suffix -ga also used of pet frogs (frocga) and pigs (picga).  The ultimate source of dog (and the meaning) is uncertain but there may be some link with the Old English dox (dark, swarthy) or the Proto-West Germanic dugan (to be suitable), the latter the origin of the Old English dugan (to be good, worthy, useful), the English dow, the Dutch deugen and the German taugen.  It’s all speculative but the most supported theory appears to be it was likely a children’s epithet for dogs meaning something like “good creature”.  Less supported is the notion of a relationship with docce (stock, muscle), from the Proto-West Germanic dokkā (round mass, ball, muscle, doll), from which English gained dock (stumpy tail) and ultimately (in that context) docking (the removal of a tail.  In England, as late as the early fifteenth century, the common words used of domestic canines was hound, from the Old English hund while dog tended to be restricted to a sub-type resembling the modern mastiff and bulldog.  In the way English tends towards shorter forms, by the sixteenth century dog had become the general word with hound increasingly a specialist word used of hunt dogs (accounting for all those English pubs called “The fox & hounds”.  At the same time, the word dog was adopted by several continental European languages as their word for mastiff although this use didn’t persist as “dog” became more generalized.  Etymologists note that despite the overlaps in form and meaning, the English word was not related to the Mbabaram dog.  Dish predated the tenth century and was from the Middle English dish & disch, from the Old English disċ (plate; bowl; dish), from the Proto-West Germanic disk (table; dish), from the Latin discus, from the Ancient Greek δίσκος (dískos) (quoit, disc, discus, dish, trencher, round mirror, reliquary, marigold).  For centuries the orthodox etymology of dískos was that it was from δίκ-σκος (dík-skos), from δικεῖν (dikeîn) (to cast) but more recent scholarship have cast doubts on this on the grounds the suffix -σκο- was rare in nominal derivation.  The alternative suggestion was δισκ- (disk-) was a variant of δικεῖν (dikeîn) (of pre-Greek origin) rather than a direct formation.  Dogdish is a noun; the noun plural is dogdishes.

The dogdish hubcap

Dogdishes (also as dog dish or dog-dish and there’s even a faction which calls them “pie pans” although the most evocative collective is “poverty caps”) are a basic, unadorned style of hubcap used with steel wheels (“steelies” to the tappet-heads).  Although some steel wheels could be stylish (notably those offered by the US manufacturers in the 1960s & 1970s and those Jaguar fitted to some E-Types (XKE) and XJs, in passenger vehicles, lighter aluminium wheels have in recent decades become the standard fitting for all but the cheapest models in a range.  However, the steel wheel possesses a number of virtues as well as being cheaper than aluminium units, notably their resistance to impact injuries and ease of repair, the latter the reason they’re still the choice for many police & commercial vehicles.  The steel wheel is inherently heavier so not the ideal choice for high performance use but their characteristics are attractive for off-road users who appreciate being able to effect repairs in remote places with little more equipment than a hammer.

1929 Mercedes-Benz 460 Nürburg (W08, 1928-1933); a Nürburg was the first "Popemobile" (supplied by the factory to Pius XI (1857–1939; pope 1922-1939) and the official car of Eugenio Pacelli (1876-1958, the future Pope Pius XII (1939-1958)) while Apostolic Nuncio to Germany (1920–1930).  The wheels were fashioned in timber and the hubcaps were of stainless steel.  Wooden wheels were by 1929 already archaic although some were still being produced as late as 1939.  Typically, hickory was favored because of its strength, flexibility and shock resistance which made it able to cope with the stresses imposed by the often rough roads of the era.

1957 Cadillac Eldorado Brougham.  During the 1930s, for various reasons (dirt protection, aerodynamics and, increasingly, aesthetics), hubcaps grew to become "wheel covers" and in the hands of US stylists in the 1950s they became an integral component of the whole design, used for product differentiation and the establishment of a model's place in the hierarchy.  Compared with the excesses which would be seen in the 1960s & 1970s, those on the 1957 Cadillac Eldorado Brougham were almost restrained.      

The origin of the hubcap was, fairly obviously, “a cap for hub”, something which dates from the age of horse-drawn carts.  Although they would later become something decorative, hubcaps began as a purely function fitting designed to ensure the hub mechanism was protected from dirt and moisture because removing a wheel when the hub was caked in mud with bolts “rusted on” could be a challenge.  In the twentieth century the practice was carried over to the automobile, initially without much change but as wheels evolved from the wooden-spoked to solid steel (and even in the 1920s some experimented with aluminium), the hubcaps became larger because the securing bolts were more widely spaced.  This meant they became a place to advertise so manufacturers added their name and before long, especially in the US, the humble hubcap evolved into the “wheel-cover”, enveloping the whole circle and they became a styling feature, designs ranging from the elegant to the garishly ornate and some were expensive: in 1984 a set of replacement “wire” wheel covers for a second generation Cadillac Seville (the so-called “bustle-back”, 1980-1985) listed at US$995.00 if ordered as a Cadillac part-number and then that was a lot of money.

1969 COPO Chevrolet Camaro ZL1.  Only 69 units in this configuration were built for not only was the all-aluminium ZL1 a highly-strung engine not suited to street use, it added US$4160.15 to a V8 Camaro's base price of US$2727.00 restricting demand to those who really did want to run on drag strips.  The basic interior fittings and dogdish hubcaps saved buyers a few dollars. 

But the dogdishes persisted because police forces and other fleet operators ordered cars with them in large volumes and many thrifty private buyers opted for them too.  As the cult they are today however, the origin lies in their appearance on muscle cars during the 1960s.  Sometimes their inclusion was as a cost-cutting measure such as the 1968 Plymouth Road Runner although in 1969, when the model was made available with a triple carburetor version of the 440 cubic inch (7.2 litre) V8, even the dogdishes weren't included in the package and the cars shipped to dealer with the five chromed lug nuts exposed, the companion Dodge Super Bee also so de-contented.  Those purchasing something for competition (such as the Chevrolet Camaros fitted with 427 cubic inch (7.0 litre) engines via General Motors’ (GM) COPO (Central Office Production Order) scheme used usually for volume runs of things like vans for utility companies or police interceptors with the high-performance but not the "dress-up" options) also usually would opt for the steelie/dogdish combo.  The apparent anomaly of the high-performance Camaros running the dogdishes (already referred to as “poverty caps”) was that the buyer would anyway be fitting their own wheel/tyre combination so the vehicle was supplied ex-factory with the cheapest option.  The photographic record suggests that in truth, when new, relatively few muscle cars prowled the street with dogdishes still attached, something more stylish usually fitted at some point during ownership but they’ve become so emblematic of the era that reproductions are now available for those undertaking restorations or creating their own clone (tribute/faux/fake/replica etc); authenticity can be emulated.

1973 Maserati Bora 4.9 with the early (1971-1975) aluminium wheels fitted with "frisbee" (not dogdish) hubcaps (left), 1977 Maserati Bora 4.9 with the later (1975-1978) aluminium wheels without hubcaps (centre) and 1974 Maserati Merak 3.0 (right).

So in the US, the dogdish tended to appear on (1) the cheapest cars in a range, (2) those purchased (sometimes in the thousands) by fleet operators interested only in cost-breakdown or (3) those buying a car for racing, the wheels of which were going to be discarded immediately upon delivery.  In Europe however, things were done differently and one of history’s plainest hubcaps appeared on a top-of-the-range model: Between 1971-1975, the mid-engined Maserati Bora (Tipo AM117; 1971-1978) was equipped with removable, polished stainless steel hubcaps (which the Maserati cognoscenti call frisbees) on its 7½ x 15 inch (190.5 x 381 mm) Campagnolo aluminium wheels.  Although structurally different, the less expensive Merak (Tipo AM122; 1972-1983) used a similar body but was equipped with 2.0 & 3.0 V6 engines rather than the Bora’s 4.7 & 4.9 litre V8s, the smaller engines meaning the Merak was able to be fitted with two rear seats (most suitable for small children or contortionists).  The Merak used wheels in the same style without the frisbees and after 1975 this configuration extended to the Bora.  Rarely has there been a hubcap plainer than the those used on the Bora but anyone calling it a “poverty cap” would be shocked by the price they command as used parts; on the rare occasions they’re available, they've been listed at US$700-2000 apiece.  Unlike the Merak which was named after a star in the constellation of Ursa Major, the Bora borrowed its name from a wind which blows along the Adriatic coast, the company over the years having used the names of a number of (usually hot) winds from North Africa and the Middle East including Ghibli, Khamsin, Shamal and Karif.

Dogdish owner: Lindsay Lohan leaving a Lincoln Town Car with Chloe the Maltese (which lived to the reasonable age of 15), May 2008, New York City.  He first dog, also a Maltese, she called Gucci, the name explained by the puppy arriving simultaneously with her “first pair of Gucci boots”.  The dog promptly chewed up the boots.

Usually, in the collector market, what commands the highest price is a vehicle which left the factory fitted with the most options, the “fully-optioned” machine the most desirable (although the odd extra-cost item like an automatic transmission or a vinyl roof can detract), the dogdishes don’t deter buyers, most of who would probably admit the various styled steel wheels of the era were better looking.  In August 2024, the most highly optioned 1969 Dodge Daytona in the most desirable mechanical configuration (the 426 cubic inch (7.0 litre) Street Hemi V8 & four-speed manual transmission combination) achieved US$3.36 million at Mecum’s auction at Monterey, California.  The price was impressive but what attracted the interest of the amateur sociologists was the same Daytona in May 2022 sold for US$1.3 million when offered by Mecum at their auction held at the Indiana State Fairgrounds.  The US$1.3 million was at the time the highest price then paid for a Hemi Daytona (of the 503 Daytonas built, only 70 were fitted with the Hemi and of those, only 22 had the four-speed manual) and the increase in value by some 250% was obviously the result of something other than the inflation rate.

The US$3.36 million 1969 Dodge Daytona.  When new, the Daytona (and the more numerous companion "winged warrior" Plymouth Superbird) was sometimes difficult for dealers to sell, the wild body modifications not appealing to all.  Consequently, so resorted to returning them to the same visual appearance as standard Dodge Chargers.  Now, the process is reversed and a number of Chargers have been transformed into "clone" Daytonas.   

The consensus was that although the internet had made just about all markets inherently global, local factors can still influence both the buyer profile and their behaviour, especially in the hothouse environment of a live auction.  Those who frequent California’s central coast between Los Angeles and San Francisco include a demographic not typically found in the mid-west and among other distinguishing characteristics there are more rich folk, able to spend US$3.36 million on a half-century old car they’ll probably never drive.  That’s how the collector market now works.

1971 Plymouth Hemi 'Cuda: US$410,000 in 1999; US$3.36 million in 2014, the appreciation due to (1) the supply & demand curve and (2) the largess of the US Federal Reserve.  For those wanting "the look", reproduction stainless steel dogdishes are available for US$258.00 (set of four). 

Despite the result, the green Daytona’s result wasn’t even the highest price a Chrysler product had achieved at auction, that mark set in Seattle in 2014 when one of the five four-speed manual 1971 Plymouth Hemi ‘Cuda convertibles (there were another seven automatics) sold US$3.78 million.  While the outcome of such a rarity was not indicative of broader market trends (although there have been stellar performances for classic Mercedes-Benz and pre-1973 Ferraris), it did illustrate the effect of the increase in the global money supply in the wake of the GFC (Global Financial Crisis, 2008-2012) when central banks essentially not only “replaced” much of money the rich had lost gambling but gave them a healthy bonus as well.  The Hemi ‘Cuda in December 1999 had (albeit in its original, un-restored state sold at auction for US$410,000 so the successful US$3.36 million bid 14 years on was an increase of more than 800%, the sort of RoI (return on investment) which would once have impressed even Richard "Dick" Fuld (b 1946), chairman & CEO of Lehman Brothers (1850-2008).  Time however will tell if the money spent in 2014 was a good investment because when another four-speed 1971 Hemi ‘Cuda convertible was offered for auction in 2021, despite predictions it would go for as much as US$6.5 million, it was passed-in at US$4.8 million without reaching the reserve.  The car was fitted with Chrysler’s “Rallye” wheels rather than the steelie/dogdish combo but this was not thought to be of any significance.

Mecum Auctions catalogue image of 1971 four-speed Plymouth Hemi 'Cuda convertible with 15" Rallye wheels.  Passed in on a high-bid of US$4.8 million, it'll be interesting to see if, when next offered, steelies & dogdishes are fitted.

Nuncio

Nuncio (pronounced nuhn-shee-oh, nuhn-see-oh or noo-see-oh)

(1) In the Roman Catholic Church, the ecclesiastic title of a permanent diplomatic representative of the Holy See to a foreign court, capital or international organization, ranking above an internuncio and accorded a rank equivalent to an accredited ambassador.

(2) By extension, one who bears a message; a messenger.

(3) Any member of any Sejm of the Kingdom of Poland, Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, Galicia (of the Austrian Partition), Duchy of Warsaw, Congress Poland, or Grand Duchy of Posen (historic reference only).

1520–1530: From the older Italian nuncio (now nunzio) from the Classical Latin nūncius & nūntius (messenger) of uncertain origin.  It may be from the primitive Indo-European root neu- (to shout) or new (to nod), same source as the Latin nuō, the Ancient Greek νεύω (neúō) (to beckon, nod) and the Old Irish noid (make known).  The alternative view is it was contracted from noventius, from an obsolete noveō, from novus.  Nuncio, nunciature & nuncioship are nouns and nunciotist is an adjective; the noun plural is nuncios but according to the text trawlers, the more frequently used plural is nunciature ((1)the status or rank of a nuncio, (2) the building & staff of a nuncio and (3) the term of service of a nuncio) which seems strange and may reflect the selection of documents scanned. Nunciatory & nunciate are unrelated (directly) and are form of the Latin Latin nuncius & nuntius (messenger, message).

In diplomatic service

An apostolic nuncio (also known as a papal nuncio or nuncio) is an ecclesiastical diplomat, serving as envoy or permanent diplomatic representative of the Holy See to a state or international organization and is head of the Apostolic Nunciature, the equivalent of an embassy or high-commission.  The Holy See is legally distinct from the Vatican City, an important theological distinction for the Vatican although one without practical significance for the states to which they’re accredited.  Most nuncios have been bishops or Archbishops and, by convention, in historically Catholic countries, the nuncio usually enjoys seniority in precedence, appointed ex officio as dean of the diplomatic corps.  Between 1965 and 1991, the term pro-nuncio was applied to a representative of full ambassadorial rank accredited to a country that did not accord precedence and de jure deanship of the diplomatic corps and in countries with which Holy See does not have diplomatic ties, an apostolic delegate may be sent to act as liaison with the local church.  Apostolic delegates have the same ecclesiastical rank as nuncios, but no diplomatic status except those which the country may choose to extend.

Der Apostolische Nuntius (Apostolic Nuncios) to Germany leaving the presidential palace  of Generalfeldmarshall Paul von Hindenburg (1847-1934), Reichspräsident (1925-1934) of the Weimar Republic 1918-1933): Archbishop Eugenio Pacelli (1876–1958, later Pope Pius XII 1939-1958), October 1927 (left) and Archbishop Cesare Orsenigo (1873–1946), May 1930 (right).

The above photograph of Archbishop Pacelli was central to what proved a fleeting literary scandal.  In 1999, journalist John Cornwell (b 1940) published Hitler's Pope, a study of the actions of Pacelli from the decades before the coming to power of the Nazis in 1933 until the end of the Third Reich in 1945.  As a coda, the final years of the pontificate of Pius XII (1939-1958) were also examined.  Cornwell’s thesis was that in his pursuit of establishing a centralized power structure with which the rule of the Holy See could be enforced over the entire church around the world, Pacelli so enfeebled the Roman Catholic Church in Germany that the last significant opposition to absolute Nazi rule was destroyed, leaving Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) able to pursue his goals which include military conquest and ultimately, what proved to be the attempted genocide of the Jews of Europe.  For a historian that would be an indictment damning enough but Cornwell went further, citing documentary sources which he claimed established Pacelli’s anti-Semitism.  More controversially still, the author was critical of Pius' conduct during the war, arguing that he did little to protect the Jews and did not even loudly protest against the Holocaust.  

Critical response to Hitler’s Pope was, as one might imagine, varied and understandably did focus on the most incendiary of the claims: the lifetime of anti-Semitism and the almost lineal path the book tracked from Pacelli’s diplomacy (which few deny did smooth Hitler’s path to power) to Auschwitz.  The consensus of professional historians was that case really wasn’t made and by 1933 Pacelli’s view of Hitler as (1) a staunch anti-communist and (2) likely to provide German with the sort of rule Benito Mussolini (1883-1945; Duce (leader) & prime-minister of Italy 1922-1943) had delivered in Italy, then the only model of a fascist regime and one with which the Holy See had successfully negotiated a concordat (a convention or treaty) which resolved issues which between the papacy and the Italian state had festered since 1870.  Pacelli was hardly the only notable figure to misjudge Hitler and few in 1933 anticipated anything like the events which would unfold in Europe over the next dozen years.  The critics however were legion and in the years after publication Cornwell did concede that in the particular circumstances of wartime Italy the “scope” for a pope to act was limited and he needed carefully to consider what might be the repercussions for others were his words to be careless; he was at the time playing for high stakes.  Cornwell though did not retreat from his criticism of the pope’s post-war reticence to discuss the era and appeared still to regard the documents he’d quoted and the events he described as evidence of anti-Semitism.

An example of how the book enraged Pius XII’s Praetorian Guard was the brief controversy about the cover, the allegation being there had been a “constructive manipulation” of the image used on the hardback copies of the US edition, the argument being the juxtaposition of the title “Hitler’s Pope” with the photograph of him leaving the presidential palace in Berlin implied the image dated from March 1939, the month Pacelli was elected Pope.  To add to the deception, it was noted the photograph (actually from 1927) had been cropped to remove (1) one soldier of the guard obviously not in a Nazi-era uniform and (2) the details identifying an automobile as obviously from the 1920s.  Whether any reader deduced from the cropped image that the pope and Führer (the two never met) had just been scheming and plotting together isn’t known but the correct details of the photograph were printed on back flap of the jacket, as in common in publishing.

Pius XII giving a blessing, the Vatican, 1952.  The outstretched arms became his signature gesture after his visit to South America in 1934.  Pius XI (1857–1939; pope 1922-1939), even them grooming his successor, appointed him papal legate to the International Eucharistic Congress in Buenos Aires and his itinerary included Rio de Janeiro where he saw the Redēmptōre statue (Christ the Redeemer) which had been dedicated three years earlier.    

That storm in a tea cup quickly subsided and people were left to draw their own conclusions on substantive matters but it was unfortunate the sensational stuff drew attention from was a genuinely interesting aspect explored in the book: Pacelli’s critical role in the (re-)creation of the papacy and the Roman Curia as a centralized institution with absolute authority over the whole Church.  This was something which had been evolving since Pius IX (1792–1878; pope 1846-1878) convened the First Vatican Council (Vatican I; 1869-1870) and under subsequent pontificates the process had continued but it was the publication of Pacelli’s codification of canon law in 1917 which made this administratively (and legally) possible.  Of course, any pope could at any time have ordered a codification but it was only in the late nineteenth century that modern communications made it possible for instructions issued from the Vatican to arrive within days, hours or even minutes, just about anywhere on the planet.  Previously, when a letter could take months to be delivered, a central authority simply would not function effectively.  It was the 1917 codification of canon law which realised the implications of the hierarchical theocracy which the Roman church had often appeared to be but never quite was because until the twentieth century such things were not possible and (as amended), it remains the document to which the curia cling in their battles.  Although, conscious of the mystique of their two-thousand year history, the Holy See likes people to imagine things about which they care have been unchanged for centuries, it has for example been only sine the codification that the appointment of bishops is vested exclusively in the pope, that battle with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) still in an uneasy state of truce.

Blasphemy

Blasphemy (pronounced blas-fuh-mee)

(1) Impious or profane utterance or action concerning God or sacred things.

(2) An act of cursing or reviling God.

(3) In Judaism, pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton (the Hebrew name of God transliterated in four letters as YHWH or JHVH and articulated as Yahweh or Jehovah) in the original (and then forbidden) manner instead of using a substitute pronunciation such as Adonai.

(4) In theology, the crime of assuming to oneself the rights or qualities of God.

(5) Irreverent behavior toward anything held sacred, priceless etc.

(6) In law, also called blasphemous libel, the crime committed if a person insults, offends, or vilifies the deity, Christ, or the Christian religion (now, in many jurisdictions effectively, if not technically, almost extinct although prosecutions continue in some countries (Malaysian, Mauritania, Bangladesh, Sudan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Egypt etc).

1175-1225: From the Middle English blasfemye & blasphemie, from the early thirteenth century Old French blasfemie (blasphemy), from the Ecclesiastical Latin blasphēmia, from the Ancient Greek βλασφημία (blasphēmía) (speaking ill, impious speech, slander; profanity), from βλασφημέω (blasphēméō) (to slander).  The origin of the first element of the word is uncertain, possibly related to blaptikos (hurtful) although blax (slack (in body and mind) or stupid) is an alternative and some etymologists suggest as link with the root of the Latin malus (bad, unpleasant), from the primitive Indo-European root mel-.  Phēmē (utterance) is from the primitive Indo-European root bha- (to speak, tell, say).  The medieval Church Latin was blasphemare, which in Late Latin also meant "revile, reproach", hence the sense of blame which was picked up by both Canon and secular law.  In the Old Testament, the word actually applied to a more specific crime, against the reverence for Jehovah as ruler of the Jews, comparable to treason.  Unfortunately, there’s no verified evidence the Islamist militant Osama bin Laden (1957–2011) ever spoke or wrote the quote attributed to him: “It was a blasphemy for men to walk on the Moon”.  Blasphemy, blasphemer & blasphemousness are nouns, blaspheme, blasphemed & blaspheming are verbs, blasphemous is an adjective and blasphemously is an adverb; the noun plural is blasphemies.

Blasphemy and attempted blasphemy

Lindsay Lohan in Aqua drawstring silk shirt, vest & blouse with silver crown of thorns accessory (actually a necklace) by Belgian designer Ann Demeulemeester (b 1959), Purple magazine, Spring Summer 2010 edition.  In the west, if it involves Christianity, it's difficult now to be blasphemous.  There was a time, not that long ago, when the "crown of thorns" alone would have been enough to offend and if not, adopting a "crucifixion pose" would certainly have done it.  By the twenty-first century, such things attract barely a comment, even reverend and right reverend gentlemen now silent.

In Australia, although there’s been no successful prosecution for a hundred-odd years, the common law crime of blasphemy technically still exists in some Australian states and territories; abolished by statute only in Queensland, Tasmania and Western Australia (the so-called “code states” which (beginning with Queensland in 1899) adopted a codified system of criminal law) and by common law in Victoria.  Where it exists, it operates not as a general law to prevent vilifying or inciting hatred against people on the basis of their religion but is a specific, special legal layer protecting God and Christian doctrine from non-deferential commentary and Christian religious sensibilities from offence.  In Australia, the crime of blasphemy protects only Christianity; it remains lawful to blaspheme against other religions although other laws do offer some protection in some circumstances.  Blasphemy can be committed by speech, writing, art or other form of communication; the old technical distinctions do not apply.

Cardinal George Pell (1941-2023) performing a ritual.  Within the Roman Curia (a place of Masonic-like plotting & intrigue and much low skulduggery), Cardinal Pell's nickname was “Pell Pot”, an allusion to Pol Pot (1925–1998, dictator of communist Cambodia 1976-1979) who announced the start of his regime was “Year Zero” and all existing culture and tradition must completely be destroyed and replaced.

In 1997, while Archbishop of Melbourne, Cardinal George Pell lodged a writ in the Supreme Court of Victoria seeking a an injunction preventing the National Gallery of Victoria (NGV) from displaying a work of art, the argument being the work was blasphemous.  Despite the archbishop’s efforts, the Supreme Court declined injunctive relief, the judge noting that as a point of law,  in Australia, the crime of blasphemy no longer existed and while a decision of the Victorian Supreme Court applies only within state boundaries, it would almost certainly be found persuasive by courts in other Australian states.  That obviously extends only to secular law and the Roman Catholic Church is not restricted from dealing with charges of blasphemy under its own rules but its sanctions are limited to stuff like denying blasphemers Holy Communion or, ultimately, excommunication.  The days are gone of blasphemers being burned at the stake after some days of enduing the most horrible tortures.

The Christian churches have, since the Enlightenment, become something of a target for those seeking some form of "shock-value" to draw attention to their product (fashion line, music video, political campaign et al) but in the West, the utility of the approach has in recent years been devalued as societies have become increasingly secular and any growth in observance has tended to be non-Christian.  Even in the US where, unlike Europe and the rest of the English-speaking world, religiosity is still demographically significant, the Supreme Court (USSC) has taken a "black-letter law" view of the First Amendment to the constitution which provides (1) that Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise and (2) protects freedom of speech, the press and assembly.  This has operated to mean people generally (within the limits of other laws) have the right to practice religion, not practice it at all or say what they wish about religion (limited only by other laws such as defamation).  As a general principle, in the West, the offence of blasphemy no longer exists except perhaps as an abstraction in English constitutional law in certain matters pertaining to the office of sovereign and the Church of England but its now doubtful any modern secular court would handle such things as offences of blasphemy and given the nature of the contemporary church, probably few ecclesiastical tribunals would agree to explore the idea.  Modern Anglicans don't mind being accused of heresy but quake in fright at the idea they might be thought "non-inclusive".

Thy neighbor’s ass.

To most in the secular West, the terms “blasphemy” and “heresy” probably sound archaic although they remain fixtures in figurative use in sport, popular culture and such.  However, in the Roman Catholic Church they remain matters of significance, the latter even handled by canon law.  Although misleading, a way to illustrate the difference is to regard blasphemy as a sin against God while heresy is an offence against faith (technically against the church but according to the Holy See they’re the same thing).  Rome regards blasphemy as any speech, action, or thought which discloses one’s contempt, disrespect, or irreverence toward God, Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, the saints or anything treated as sacred.  Perhaps surprisingly (given how it’s handled in other jurisdictions), in the narrow technical sense, blasphemy is not explicitly defined in the 1983 Code of Canon Law (CIC) and instead is considered a grave sin and evidence of it can be used as evidence when considering specific offenses which are codified.  Once can commit blasphemy by cursing God, mocking sacred rites or publicly insulting the Eucharist and historically “taking the name of the Lord in vain” was the best known injunction against the habit.  In the King James Version of the Bible (KJV, 1611) it was written as: “Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain” and was in most translations the second of the Ten Commandments in Judaism and Christianity, handed down to man by God.  In the unforgiving Old testament (Exodus 20:7 & Deuteronomy 5:11) it’s reinforced by the injunction: “Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.” and that it appears so high in the list of ten (only: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” precedes it) does suggest it may have been thought a more critical matter than someone coveting their neighbor’s ass (tenth and last).  Not being mentioned in canon law, dealing with the offence varies on a case-by-case basis and while excommunication is now rare, depending on severity or recidivism, there can be canonical penalties, especially if there’s any whiff of scandal (ie bad publicity).

Heresy is different in that it’s codified in Canon 751 of the 1983 CIC as: “the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith.”  That obviously casts a wide judicial net but, since the major revision of the CIC in 1917, the most commonly cited examples have been (1) denying the divinity of Christ, (2) rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity or (3) refusing to accept papal infallibility (although of the latter there’s much de facto tolerance by virtue of papal infallibility being now something implied rather than invoked (which, in the narrow technical sense, has happened only once in the last 150-odd years)).  As students of the modern church have noted, there’s much heresy going on (indeed, for some bolshie priests it seems to be a calling) but despite Canon 1364 stating a heretic is subject to latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication (meaning they are excommunicated without and need for a formal declaration), the sanction is now rarely invoked.  These days, it seems to be excommunicated for heresy, the offense needs to be both serious and repeated.

Door not ajar: The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith where blasphemy and heresy are deracinated.

Contrasting that, the vagueness of “blasphemy” means it is available as charge for offences which don’t have to fall within defined criteria.  In other words, quite what blasphemy is can be up to the Inquisitor (the Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF)) and in that sense Vatican justice can be seen as something like “the length of the chancellor’s foot” in Medieval England.  That doesn’t mean it’s quite like the apocryphal “unspecified offences” and the closest comparison is probably the CCP’s (Chinese Communist Party) 寻衅滋事 (Picking quarrels and provoking trouble) that can be used to secure a conviction when, inconveniently, no law appears to have been broken.  One heresy which can have consequences short of excommunication is a defiance of what is the core rule of the framework on which the church is built: obedience to the chain of command.  Structurally, the Roman Catholic Church operates on the Führerprinzip (leader principle) best known from the German Nazi state that was the Third Reich (1933-1945) and what that means is as the bishops must obey the pope, so priests must obey their bishop.  In practice of course there’s long been a bit of drift from this and most offences are dealt with by (1) ignoring them, (2) pretending they never happened or (3) rationalizing them as something else but if a malcontent’s conduct becomes so defiantly egregious it starts to frighten the horses, Rome will act.

Condemned blasphemer the former Father Pavone in MAGA (Make America Great Again) cap, fulfilling his broadcast media commitments, Orlando, Florida, February 2024.

Frank Pavone (b 1959 and still head of the organization Priests for Life (a US-based anti-abortion collective) despite having been laicised (defrocked) in 2022), found himself in the Inquisitor’s sights because of what was described by the Vatican as: “blasphemous communications on social media” and “persistent disobedience” of his bishop although the communiqué didn’t specify which was thought more heinous.  Ominously, a letter from the papal nuncio (the Holy See’s ambassador) to the US bishops made it clear there is no mechanism available to lodge an appeal.  Ordained in 1988, the former Father Pavone had been investigated by his then-diocese of Amarillo, Texas, for having in 2016 placed an aborted fetus on an altar and posting a video of it on two social media sites but what seems to have most disturbed Rome was him being one of those “meddling priests” who involved himself less in the spiritual and more in the earthly, posting frequently to decry crooked Hillary Clinton (b 1947; US secretary of state 2009-2013) and extol the virtues of Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021 and since 2025), almost always on the basis of their respective positions on abortion.  Mr Pavone remained defiant after being defrocked, comparing his fate to that of the unborn children he vowed to continue to defend: “So in every profession, including the priesthood, if you defend the #unborn, you will be treated like them!  The only difference is that when we are “aborted”, we continue to speak, loud and clear.”  Even defrocked, he wasn’t without clerical support, one bishop calling then President Joe Biden's (b 1942; US president 2021-2025) advocacy for abortion rights “evil”, tarring Rome with the same brush: “The blasphemy is that this holy priest is canceled while an evil president promotes the denial of truth & the murder of the unborn at every turn, Vatican officials promote immorality & denial of the deposit of faith & priests promote gender confusion devastating lives...evil."  Despite explicit instructions, Mr Pavone continues to present himself as a priest.

Elsewhere, blasphemy seems alive and well.  It's a most sensitive issue in Pakistan which has a Muslim majority (97%) population although the blasphemy laws still in use were introduced in 1860 under the Raj, the British creating the offence to supress the religious and communal violence between the Hindus and Muslims (the areas which now constitute Pakistan and Bangladesh then part of India).  The Pakistan Penal Code was later amended by military ruler General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq (1924-1988; President of Pakistan 1977-1988) and disrespecting Prophet Muhammed or desecrating the Holy Quran are capital offences punishable by death.  However, although the death penalty has occasions been imposed by courts, it seems none of the sentences have been carried out (although executions have happened in what are essentially blasphemy cases but the convictions have been recorded as "terrorism"), but thousands of convicted blasphemers remain in prison and there's much to suggest there are many instances of what is a form of "protective custody" sheltering people from what would likely be a deadly retribution.  There have been thousands of formal complaints over recent decades and dozens of killings, many before the cases reached court and, contrary to what seems to be the impression in the West, Christians are not the most frequent targets (although their cases do attract the most publicity), most of the accused being from the minority sects of Islam.   Judicial authorities admit the laws are widely misused as a device with which to pursue personal vendettas or exert leverage in commercial disputes but judges need to be cautious, one high court judge in 1997 murdered in his chambers after acquitting two Christians accused of blasphemy; the accused murderer was acquitted because no witness was prepared to provide evidence for the prosecution.

Modern capitalism can also be blasphemous in Pakistan.  As part of the CCP's "Belt & Road" project, the Chinese-funded Dasu hydropower project in north-western Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province is under construction and the senior engineer (a Chinese national) was accused of blasphemy after commenting on the “slow pace of work” during the holy month of Ramadan, when Muslims fast from dawn to sunset.  According to a police official (who agreed to speak only on the condition of anonymity), “...the labourers said they were fasting but denied that work had slowed down, which led to an exchange of heated words” with the supervisor and “...later, the labourers accused the engineer of making blasphemous remarks”.  This induced a protest by some 400 members of the local population, one of who filed a written complaint.  The police later issued a statement confirming a “...Chinese national has been taken to a safe place as a precautionary measure”.  It's expected the CCP will arranged to have the engineer recalled to China and replaced with one who has undergone what would in the West be called "culturally appropriate training.

Indonesia is the world’s largest Muslim-majority nation and in 2023, a court imposed a two year sentence on a 33 year old woman who was convicted of blasphemy because she posted on TikTok a clip of the reciting a Muslim prayer before eating some crispy pork skin.  According to the Holy Quran, flesh from pigs is regarded as haram (from the Arabic: حَرَام, (ḥarām) (forbidden) and thus under Islamic law not permissible as food for Muslims.  The offence alone might have attracted some sanction but the fact it amassed literally millions of views on the social platform was regarded as exacerbatory on the basis it “spread information that was intended to incite hate or individual or group enmity based on religion”.  In additional to the custodial sentence, the court ordered her to pay a fine of 250 million rupiah (then US$16,250).  The significance of the use of social media has been cited as one of the reasons that in recent years there has been an increase in blasphemy cases in the country, something which has impacted Indonesia’s reputation for moderation, more matters coming to the attention of those most anxious to ensure a strict interpretation of Islamic law is maintained.  In recent years notable cases have included (1) charges of both blasphemy and hate speech against the head of an Islamic boarding school which permitted men and women to pray alongside each other and women to  preach become preachers, (2) arrests after a chain of bars ran a promotion offering free beer (also haram) for patrons named Mohammed and (3) an 18-month jail sentence imposed on ethnic Chinese Buddhist woman convicted of blasphemy because it was alleged she said a nearby mosque’s loudspeakers were too loud.

There are complaints Indonesia's blasphemy laws are being co-opted to target minority groups and dissenters and that this contravenes certain international obligations in relation to respect and protection for freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief, freedom of opinion and expression but not even senior politicians are exempt: in 2017 a former governor of Jakarta (a Christian) received a two year sentence for blasphemy and even some of those who admitted the charges probably were "politically motivated", nevertheless agreed his words were "blasphemous against Islam" and the sentence should stand although, in a most unusual manoeuvre, the prosecutor's office appeal the verdict on the basis it was too severe and the one year sentence they had requested was more appropriate.  The Supreme Court rejected the appeal.

The matter of blasphemy has of late been much discussed in Sweden following some instances of Quran burning as a protest against Islam (definitely haram in this context although many imams do list "respectful, ceremonial burning" as an acceptable way of handling the destruction of severely damaged copies of the Quran).  Swedish law has neither a statute which explicitly prohibits the burning or desecration of the Quran (or any other other religious texts) or any blasphemy laws.  Given Sweden's reputation for tolerance and moderation, it surprises many that as late as the nineteenth century blasphemy was considered a serious crime in Swedish law and in some circumstances a capital offence and repeal wasn't sudden, the wording gradually relaxed in line with the country's increasing secularization and by 1970, when the last reference was removed from the books, there hadn't been a prosecution for decades and most probably assumed the laws had long ago been repealed.  For all sorts of reasons however, the Quaran burning is not thought helpful and the authorities would rather those with a axe to grind would just write letters to the editor.  The police have indicated that if necessary they'll used the nation's hate speech laws which prohibits incitement against groups of people based on race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity.