European Politics

WTF
http://www.france24.com/en/20150118...ould-be-punished-says-hollande-charlie-hebdo/

Several Algerian police officers were injured in clashes with protesters in Algiers after rioting broke out at the end of an anti-French demonstration. Similar protests have erupted in Senegal, Mauritania, Mali and several other Muslim countries.

Asked on Saturday about those who burned the French tricolour, Hollande said: "They have to be punished. Because when it happens in France, it's intolerable – but it is also intolerable abroad."

"I'm thinking of countries where sometimes they don't understand what freedom of expression is because they have been deprived of it. But we have supported these countries in their fight against terrorism," said Hollande as he toured a market in Tulle, south-central France, where he was once mayor.

Hollande emphasised that France was committed to upholding the value of "freedom of expression", saying it was "non-negotiable".
 
EDIT: I am not responding to your "WTF" post above; ain't read that yet.

You say "It is sad when we come to the point when someone thinks offending someone is worth withholding publication or the expression of an idea". Why do you assume these people think this? I already said:
The phrase(s) "was wrong to publish", "unacceptable", and "went too far" are open to quite a lot of interpretation.... So they personally think it was wrong/unacceptable/went-too-far? This doesn't equate, necessarily, to them being opposed to freedom of speech (if that's what you're edging towards suggesting), or thinking that publishing these pictures should have been then, or should be now, banned or made illegal
Click to expand...
Do you not accept that a person can hold to both these views? I personally do not know why it was necessary to publish these cartoons. This is just my view. It does not therefore follow that I think they should have been legally compelled to not publish them i.e. banned from publishing them. One can hold to both these views. Yes/no?

That aside, the idea &/or motive behind why someone chooses to insult someone else, does, I'm afraid, matter; at least to me. For a start, it's simply of interest: why is this being done? Beyond that: it puts the issue in context. Understanding this doesn't necessarily support any particular view; it just informs. Why would this not be deemed important?
 
You are right, it is open to interpretation. My interpretation of "unacceptable", "too far", "wrong to publish" is that it should not have been published. I do not think I need to know what is necessary to publish, there is so much out there that I think the world could live without, but I am not opposed to it existing.

Their motives might have an impact on me wanted to read a particular publication/author or not .. but it really does not affect my view of it's right to exist.
 
Our local Pegida offspring have held their second demo in Oslo. A massive 90 people showed up :D

And they had company. The anarchist group "Blitz" staged a counter-demonstration together with some old Mao/Stalin lovers who call themselves "New SOS Racism". The latter was formed by central people of SOS Racism Norway after the organization went bankrupt. The leadership owe the state millions that they have been granted based on forged member lists.

We really saw the crème de la crème of the society out in the streets tonight.
 
Dr. Eddies Wingman said:
Our local Pegida offspring have held their second demo in Oslo. A massive 90 people showed up :D
Click to expand...

The Berlin offshoot had around 100 participants today, the Dresden original was officially banned due to terror threats.

It's not exactly a German export I am particularly proud of.
 
No, Germany have quite a few export articles that are better.

I see that the thread has had a lot of discussion on freedom of speech since the terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo. I'll give my two cents on that as well.

In terms of what the law should say: I think everything, bar blatant hate speech, should be allowed. In other words, drawing insulting cartoons - fine. Maybe not a wise thing to do, but nothing the authorities should have a say in.

Another thing I have observed, is that the last time (in 2006), hardly any Norwegian muslims spoke up in favour of freedom of expression. Those who spoke, spoke against the publications of the Muhammed cartoons. This time, several (including some who are seen as rather conservative) have spoken up and said things to the effect of "personally I feel insulted by the cartoons of Charlie Hebdo, but they should have the right to publish them".

On a side note:

Jonas Gahr Støre, leader of the Norwegian Labour Party, was our minister of foreign affairs back in 2006. Since the recent Paris attacks, he has received a lot of flak for how he handled the situation back in 2006, where he basically apologized to the whole Muslim world on behalf of Norway, talked about "extremists on both sides" after Norwegian and Danish embassies all over the Middle East had been set on fire, and most embarassingly of all: staged a press conference where the chief editor of a small Christian magazine, who had published the cartoons, more or less had to take the blame for the whole situation. Despite the fact that several major newspapers had also published them. Guess that editor was a convenient scapegoat.
 
A political earthquake. I hear they don't want to pay back debts to Europe, nor will EU and IMF control be welcome anymore.
 
Key points .. 10.89% of 3 year bonds. Holy crap, most people have credit cards with lower interest rates than that.

===========

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-30977714

The troika of lenders that bailed out Greece - the European Union, European Central Bank, and International Monetary Fund - imposed big budgetary cuts and restructuring in return for the money.

But Mr Tsipras said: "The troika for Greece is the thing of the past."

However, Mr Dijsselbloem, the Dutch finance minister and chairman of the Eurogroup, told reporters on arriving in Brussels for a meeting of finance ministers: "The most important thing is that if you remain in the eurozone you stick to the rules we have. That's true for all countries.

"There has been a lot of easing of the debt already. In the coming years the interest for Greece will be very low. They get a lot of time to pay back loans so the question is whether more has to be done there," he said.

The euro briefly fell as low as $1.1088, the lowest level against the dollar in more than 11 years, but in mid-morning trading was 0.4% higher at $1.125.

The euro had already been under pressure following last week'sannouncement of a new stimulus programme by the European Central Bank.

Yields on Greece's 10-year government bonds rose 19 basis points to 8.95%, but are still below the level before last week's ECB stimulus programme was announced.

However, yields on three-year bonds rose much more sharply, up 68 points to 10.89%. The rise reflects investors' concerns about short-term risks of a debt restructuring over the coming months.

===skipped some stuff

Michael Hewson, chief market analyst at CMC Markets, said: "Tsipras's comments don't appear to leave any room for doubt as he stated that the troika and the bailouts belong to the past,.

"You can be almost certain that these negotiations will be watched carefully by the anti-austerity movements in Spain, Portugal, Italy and France to see what measures if any Greece is able to get out of EU politicians to deal with the problem of Greece's debt, and the terms of the bailout programme."

The UK Chancellor, George Osborne, urged all sides to "act responsibly" in any forthcoming negotiations over Greece's bailout terms. He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that he understood why, with the Greek economy in trouble, voters were "looking for other answers".

But he warned that Syriza's election promises to spend more on public services and slow the pace of cuts were unlikely to work. "If you take at face value all the things that the new Greek government has promised, including big increases in public expenditure, I think that will be very difficult to deliver," he said.
 
This new government could be a great opportunity. If it negotiates reasonably and uses its leverage wisely, it could transmit the message that national interests are not contradictory to the Euro.
 
Perun said:
This new government could be a great opportunity. If it negotiates reasonably and uses its leverage wisely, it could transmit the message that national interests are not contradictory to the Euro.
Click to expand...


Given its campaign promises, if they try to accomplish 25% of them I think it shoots all negotiations in the foot.

Statements like this are not helpful, and of course patently false
======================
"Greece leaves behind the austerity that ruined it, leaves behind the fear, leaves behind five years of humiliation, and Greece moves forward with optimism and hope and dignity," he told the crowd.

Syriza's pledges to try to get some of Greece's colossal debt written off and roll back unpopular austerity measures appealed to exasperated members of the electorate -- even if they potentially jeopardize Greece's place in the eurozone. The election could lead to a dramatic showdown with the debt-laden nation's lenders.

===========================

and ignore the reality

============================

According to data released by Eurostat, the Greek public debt increased to 176% of the country’s GDP during the third quarter of 2014, from 171% in the same quarter of 2013.

Public debt within the Eurozone stood, on average, at 92.1% of GDP in the third quarter of 2014, compared to 91.1% in the third quarter of 2013.

Meanwhile, in the EU28, public debt reached 86.6% of GDP, while a year ago it stood at 85.3%.

Regarding Greece, the country’s public debt reached 176% of GDP during the third quarter of 2014, amounting to a total of 315.5 billion euros, while during the second quarter, the debt stood at 177.5% (317.5 billion euros) and 171% (317.7 billion. euros) in the third quarter of 2013.

Greece recorded the highest public debt rate in the EU in the third quarter of 2014, followed by Italy (131.8%), Portugal (131.4%) and Ireland (114.8%).

The lower debt rate was recorded in Estonia (10.5%), Luxembourg (22.9%) and Bulgaria (23.6%).
 
Fact is, Greece was pushed to the limits. You can't have any further austerity measures there because there's nothing left to save on. It's not the Euro or the EU's fault - it was the establishment of the past 40 years. But what are you going to do? Should Greece get a government that lets its own people starve?
 
You are right, it was the fault of short sighted pandering policies for decades and decades that caused the problem. Minus any significant structural reforms , like raise the retirement age, restructure down benefits for people under a certain age to levels which meet the reality of what the Greek economy can produce, they are hosed.

Embarking on spending programs, when they have no money is not a wise move. Markets already have little faith they will be able to pay back the bonds they need to fund these projects.

What these guys seem to be saying is "we want to restructure (or just flat out cancel) our debt to the EU, remove austerity restrictions, and continue the same policies that got us into this mess to start with"
 
Their coalition partners, the Independent Greeks (from Wikipedia)

=======================

Economically, the party is focused on the rejection of the loan agreement between Greece, the EU and the International Monetary Fund.[13] Party leader Kammenos has proclaimed a "national awakening and uprising," and has stated that Greece had fallen victim to an "international conspiracy".[14] In a 2012 speech, Kammenos said Greece was now a "laboratory animal" in an austerity experiment conducted by the IMF and EU, who "used the public debt as a means of control."[17]

The party campaigns for lifting the immunity against prosecution of ministers, parliamentarians, and officials who bear the blame for the crisis, and then make them accountable. It calls for the protection of national sovereignty, for German war reparations (for the invasion and occupation of Greece in the Second World War), for cancelling the memorandum which it deems illegal, and for building Greece anew.[14]

The party has announced that it will start working to create a patriotic Democratic Front, the aim of which would be to save "Greece from the neo-liberal avalanche."[18]

As for social policy, Independent Greeks stand in opposition to immigration [19] and multiculturalism,[20][21] supporting the banning of squats and the development of a Christian Orthodox oriented education system.[22]
 
From an extremely blunt standpoint, I'm ecstatic about the elections in Greece. Full support for politicians that oppose nationalism, conservatism and clergy.
 
Last edited:
What a horrible idea ... let's make Facebook and Google be the police.

===================

http://www.goodgearguide.com.au/art...odgearguide.com.au&utm_medium=rhs_latest_news

French president François Hollande wants to hold social media companies accountable for hate speech spread on their services.

Social networks should be held responsible for what their users say online by the creation of a new European legal framework, he said in Paris on Tuesday.

Hollande referred to "well-known large operators" without naming them -- but companies such as Facebook, Google and Twitter are typically the target of such remarks.

They should be subject to sanctions in case of a breach of the proposed rules, Hollande said, adding that he plans to present a draft law to fight racism and anti-Semitism to the French government by the end of February, including proposals for measures to curb hate speech on the Internet.

Google declined to comment on his proposals, while Twitter and Facebook did not immediately responded to a request for comment.

Hollande unveiled his plans during a memorial service for Jews deported in World War II, after the Union of French Jewish Students (UEJF) and the Union of Former Deportees launched a new campaign against Holocaust denial on social networks.

Such companies "cannot close their eyes" and will be considered an accomplice in the transmission of hate messages, Hollande said.

He also referred to the series of killings earlier this month that began at the offices of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo and ended with a shoot-out at a kosher supermarket.

Since those shootings, calls to clamp down on social networks have become louder. European Union justice and home affairs ministers for instance issued a statement after the attacks in which they said it is essential to stem online terrorist propaganda in a close cooperation with ISPs.

Though such a measure could be illegal, the ministers are set to talk about how to implement anti-terror measures such as this in Riga on Thursday and Friday. There, they will also discussplans to force Internet firms to hand over encryption keys to EU law enforcement as well as a revised European Commission plan to collect and store passenger flight data for up to five years to help law enforcement track down terrorists.

Putting a lid on what people can say or post on social media is not only a strategy favored by European countries. Facebook for instance was forced to block some content in Turkey this weekend after a court ordered a ban on material that it considered insulting to the Prophet Muhammad.
 
Don't they already self-regulate in line with political pressure? Not so much about hate speech, but I remember Facebook becoming a lot stricter on anti establishment type comments after David Cameron talked about compulsory regulations for social media - partly around terrorism/extremism and as partly in their media crackdown. Strong criticism of the monarchy goes down particularly badly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top