Il y a 150 ans, John Stuart Mill dénonçait l'emprise tyrannique de la morale publique sur la vie des individus et affirmait que le principe du préjudice à autrui constitue l'unique critère en vertu duquel l'État peut légitimement interférer avec la liberté individuelle. Près d'un siècle plus tard, en réaction au rapport Wolfenden, Lord Devlin articulait une version de la thèse du moralisme juridique en faveur du maintien de l'interdiction criminelle des pratiques homosexuelles en privé entre adultes consentants. Cette thèse du moralisme juridique a fait l'objet de nombreuses critiques. Selon deux des plus influents philosophes et théoriciens du droit du XXe siècle, Herbert L.A. Hart et Ronald Dworkin, le rôle légitime des valeurs de la communauté, dans la justification de l'intervention coerctive de l'État dans la vie des individus, doit être déterminé du point de vue de la morale critique. Ces débats philosophiques ont profondément influencé le discours judiciaire au Canada. La jurisprudence de la Cour suprême du Canada depuis l'avènement de la Charte témoigne de deux tendances dans l'interprétation et l'application du principe du préjudice lors de l'examen de la légitimité des objectifs législatifs à la première étape du test Oakes. Selon une première approche, qui légitimise souvent un activisme judiciaire, la justification des mesures attentatoires doit reposer sur la démonstration d'un préjudice aux valeurs officiellement reconnues. Selon une deuxième approche, qui préconise plutôt une attitude de déférence envers les choix moraux du législateur, la démonstration d'un préjudice n'est pas un prérequis : l'existence de considérations morales objectives suffit. / 150 years ago, John Stuart Mill denounced the tyrannical hold of public morality on the life of individuals and asserted that the principle of harm to others constituted the sole criterion under which the State may legitimately interfere with individual liberties. A century later, in response to the Wolfenden report, Lord Devlin developed a version of the legal moralism thesis which supported the criminal prohibition of homosexual practices made in private between consenting adults. This thesis of legal moralism has been widely criticized. According to two of the most influent legal philosophers and theorists of the twentieth century, Herbert L.A. Hart and Ronald Dworkin, the legitimate role of community values in the justification of coercive intervention of the State in the lives of individuals must be determined according to the principles of critical morality. These philosophical debates have profoundly influenced the judicial discourse in Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada decisions rendered since the entrenchment of the Charter show two trends in the interpretation and application of the harm principle in the examination of the legitimacy of the legislative objectives at the first stage of the Oakes test. According to the first trend, that often legitimizes judicial activism, the justification of an infringement must rely on the demonstration of a prejudice to values officially recognized. According to the second trend, which favours deference towards the legislator's moral choices, the harm principle is not a requisite: The existence of objective moral considerations suffices.

A presente tese propõe um modelo de injusto penal rigorosamente dualista, assimentendido aquele que, ao lado do desvalor da ação, exija sempre e necessariamente a efetivaocorrência de um desvalor do resultado, consistente na afetação, danosa ou perigosa, da esferade existência de terceiros. A hipótese que conduz a investigação é a de que, mesmo diante dosmovimentos expansionistas do poder punitivo hoje verificados, é possível defender a viabilidade de tal concepção de injusto penal. Para a demonstração dessa hipótese, parte-se domodelo dual de sociedade proposto por Jürgen Habermas, que tem na teoria do agircomunicativo a chave para a proteção do mundo da vida frente aos influxos colonizatóriosprovenientes dos sistemas econômico e político administrativo. A partir desse marco teórico,propõe-se uma releitura de alguns dos conceitos fundamentais da teoria do delito, de modo aconferir-lhes interpretação compatível com a concepção dualista rigorosa de injusto adotada.Por fim, para verificar a plausibilidade da hipótese colocada, tais conceitos fundamentais sãopostos à prova diante de situações teóricas tradicionalmente classificadas como de difícilconciliação com uma concepção de injusto baseada na necessária ocorrência de desvalor doresultado, como é o caso dos crimes de perigo abstrato e dos crimes tentados. / The thesis you have in hands proposes a concept of crime in which wrongdoing and harmfulness must be always combined and considered together as elements of a criminal offense in order to demonstrate the real affectation of third parties. The main hypothesis is that even facing an expansionist tendency toward incarceration and overcriminalization it is still possible to defend the viability of such a concept of crime. With the purpose of demonstrate this hypothesis, the Habermas's dualistic society model and his theory of communicative action are taken as a point of departure and based on them we intend to review some of the elements that compose the concept of criminal offense. Finally, the thesis will be challenged against controversial existing rulings (such as victimless crimes) to verify if their reasoning are compatible with such a dualistic concept of crime, which deny the possibility of existing criminal offenses without harm to others.

A presente tese propõe um modelo de injusto penal rigorosamente dualista, assimentendido aquele que, ao lado do desvalor da ação, exija sempre e necessariamente a efetivaocorrência de um desvalor do resultado, consistente na afetação, danosa ou perigosa, da esferade existência de terceiros. A hipótese que conduz a investigação é a de que, mesmo diante dosmovimentos expansionistas do poder punitivo hoje verificados, é possível defender a viabilidade de tal concepção de injusto penal. Para a demonstração dessa hipótese, parte-se domodelo dual de sociedade proposto por Jürgen Habermas, que tem na teoria do agircomunicativo a chave para a proteção do mundo da vida frente aos influxos colonizatóriosprovenientes dos sistemas econômico e político administrativo. A partir desse marco teórico,propõe-se uma releitura de alguns dos conceitos fundamentais da teoria do delito, de modo aconferir-lhes interpretação compatível com a concepção dualista rigorosa de injusto adotada.Por fim, para verificar a plausibilidade da hipótese colocada, tais conceitos fundamentais sãopostos à prova diante de situações teóricas tradicionalmente classificadas como de difícilconciliação com uma concepção de injusto baseada na necessária ocorrência de desvalor doresultado, como é o caso dos crimes de perigo abstrato e dos crimes tentados. / The thesis you have in hands proposes a concept of crime in which wrongdoing and harmfulness must be always combined and considered together as elements of a criminal offense in order to demonstrate the real affectation of third parties. The main hypothesis is that even facing an expansionist tendency toward incarceration and overcriminalization it is still possible to defend the viability of such a concept of crime. With the purpose of demonstrate this hypothesis, the Habermas's dualistic society model and his theory of communicative action are taken as a point of departure and based on them we intend to review some of the elements that compose the concept of criminal offense. Finally, the thesis will be challenged against controversial existing rulings (such as victimless crimes) to verify if their reasoning are compatible with such a dualistic concept of crime, which deny the possibility of existing criminal offenses without harm to others.

The aim of this paper is to examine how the Swedish political parties the Sweden Democrats (SD), Social Democrats (S), and the Moderates (M) relate to the principle of freedom of expression and the burning of the Quran, which has sparked a Koran crisis as well as a security crisis in Sweden in 2023. The analysis methodology applied in this study is a descriptive idea analysis, which aims to identify values, descriptions, and prescriptions conveyed by the parties during their speeches and debates. The paper also applies three theoretical perspectives:Sociological institutionalism, rational choice institutionalism and John Stuart Mill's harm principle, to explain and evaluate the parties' arguments and positions through institutional factors, rational choice, and moral principles. The study reveals noteworthy disparities in the perspectives of the parties concerning the significance of freedom of expression, the causes and consequences of the Koran burnings, and the appropriate measures to deal with the situation. This research facilitates comprehension of the political discourse and the course of action associated with a contentious and delicate topic that impacts the democracy and security of Sweden.