European Politics
- Thread starter Forostar
- Start date
The Flash
Dennis Wilcock did 9/11
Adding to this,
PKK ended their ceasefire with the state right after HDP was elected into the parliament. That's no coincidence. PKK wants to establish that it's the leading voice for the Kurdish cause and not HDP. It might sound a bit weird but HDP is kind of like a a common enemy for AKP and PKK at the moment, AKP wants HDP to go down because they caused them to lose their majority and PKK wants them down because they want to be the sole leading voice for Kurds.* Because of the nationalist/conservative outlook on this, the more PKK gets violent, the bigger the animosity towards HDP gets, which puts HDP in no man's land. As such the recent comeback of the terrorist attacks actually plays into the hands of both.
*Further proof on this is that PKK supported (and funded) a different Pro-Kurdish party called HÜDAPAR in the recent elections, to make sure the Kurdish vote didn't solely go to HDP. It didn't work, though, voters didn't want to blow the chance of getting HDP into the parliament.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
I can only hope that many, many disagree with this bleak outlook. It you're right, it would mean there is no room for a moderate party in power as long as (other) radical elements exist.
Then again, what is a "party for Turkey", how literal, how high should this strife be?
Beating a radical party in numbers is a good enough start, for me at least, and hopefully for millions of others as well.
I wish people would focus on what still can go better as long as there's a chance. Progress can be made while there are problems, instead of waiting with a start, after the problems are.
Last edited:
The Flash
Dennis Wilcock did 9/11
"Party for Turkey" and the bleak outlook is caused by nationalist/conservative voters who can't seperate PKK and HDP. I don't think they're going away any time soon, they make up about %65-70 of the voters in the country. I wish it could be different as well but yeah, I'm just giving you the harsh truth of the country here.
Like I said, it's a really tricky position HDP is in. Nationalist/conservative people get mad at them for not condemning PKK violence, which I'm sure they would if it didn't have possible negative consequences for them. They're trying to walk that fine line. Just an example, the vast majority of the country would label me as a terrorism-condoner, a PKK symphatizer if they saw me defending HDP here, even though I've been slamming PKK to eternity at the same time. It's just a misguided outlook they have.
Like I said, it's a really tricky position HDP is in. Nationalist/conservative people get mad at them for not condemning PKK violence, which I'm sure they would if it didn't have possible negative consequences for them. They're trying to walk that fine line. Just an example, the vast majority of the country would label me as a terrorism-condoner, a PKK symphatizer if they saw me defending HDP here, even though I've been slamming PKK to eternity at the same time. It's just a misguided outlook they have.
Last edited:
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
This is so fucking stupid
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34580169
French National Front leader Marine Le Pen has appeared in court in Lyon, to answer charges of inciting racial hatred, for comparing Muslims praying in the street to the Nazi occupation.
She made the comments at a rally in the city in 2010 when she was fighting for the leadership of the party.
Ms Le Pen insisted on Tuesday she did not commit any offence.
And the prosecutor called for her acquittal, saying she was not referring to the whole Muslim community.
The National Front (FN) leader had only spoken about a specific number of people and was exercising her freedom of speech, Bernard Reynaud told the court.
The case was originally dropped last year by the Lyon court of appeal but revived by anti-racism groups who made a civil complaint.
Ms Le Pen's anti-immigration and anti-EU message is attracting increasing support in France and her party is hoping to win two French regions in December local elections.
The judge in Lyon will deliver a ruling on the case in December.
Timing of trial
It was during a campaign speech in Lyon in 2010, a few months before she became leader, that Marine Le Pen spoke out about Muslims worshipping in the streets because mosques were full.
"I'm sorry, but some people are very fond of talking about the Second World War and about the occupation, so let's talk about occupation, because that is what is happening here," she told National Front supporters.
"There are no tanks, no soldiers, but it is still an occupation, and it weighs on people."
Outside court on Tuesday she questioned the timing of the trial.
"We're a month away from a regional election and this affair dates back five years," she told reporters.
An opinion poll at the weekend suggested her niece, Marion Marechal-Le Pen, could wrest control of the key southern region of Provence-Alpes-Cote d'Azur (Paca) from the governing Socialists.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34580169
French National Front leader Marine Le Pen has appeared in court in Lyon, to answer charges of inciting racial hatred, for comparing Muslims praying in the street to the Nazi occupation.
She made the comments at a rally in the city in 2010 when she was fighting for the leadership of the party.
Ms Le Pen insisted on Tuesday she did not commit any offence.
And the prosecutor called for her acquittal, saying she was not referring to the whole Muslim community.
The National Front (FN) leader had only spoken about a specific number of people and was exercising her freedom of speech, Bernard Reynaud told the court.
The case was originally dropped last year by the Lyon court of appeal but revived by anti-racism groups who made a civil complaint.
Ms Le Pen's anti-immigration and anti-EU message is attracting increasing support in France and her party is hoping to win two French regions in December local elections.
The judge in Lyon will deliver a ruling on the case in December.
Timing of trial
It was during a campaign speech in Lyon in 2010, a few months before she became leader, that Marine Le Pen spoke out about Muslims worshipping in the streets because mosques were full.
"I'm sorry, but some people are very fond of talking about the Second World War and about the occupation, so let's talk about occupation, because that is what is happening here," she told National Front supporters.
"There are no tanks, no soldiers, but it is still an occupation, and it weighs on people."
Outside court on Tuesday she questioned the timing of the trial.
"We're a month away from a regional election and this affair dates back five years," she told reporters.
An opinion poll at the weekend suggested her niece, Marion Marechal-Le Pen, could wrest control of the key southern region of Provence-Alpes-Cote d'Azur (Paca) from the governing Socialists.
CriedWhenBrucieLeft
Meme Only Account
That's racism for you.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
The fast changes that are happening in Germany are frightening.
- - - - - - -
http://www.dw.com/en/outrage-over-concentration-camp-quip-at-pegida-speech/a-18793051
... Inflammatory speech
The media's attention was particularly drawn to a 25-minute speech by the German-Turkish writer Akif Pirincci, otherwise known for a cat-based crime fiction series and a libertarian blog called "The Axis of Good," which has often been accused of racism.
Pirincci's extraordinary and occasionally vulgar ramble, all read from notes, included references to refugees as "invaders," politicians as "gauleiters against their own people," Muslims "who pump infidels with their Muslim juice" and a threat that Germany would become a "Muslim garbage dump."
After the crowd responded with shouts of "resistance, resistance," Pirincci said, "Of course there are other alternatives - but the concentration camps are unfortunately out of action at the moment." The crowd applauded and laughed at that, though they eventually called on the writer to stop after his speech continued for another 20 minutes.
State prosecutors in Dresden said on Tuesday that they would be investigating Pirincci's remarks, on suspicion of hate speech. ...
- - - - - - -
Also check this out:
DW reporter Jaafar Abdul Karim went to Dresden to report on the xenophobic PEGIDA rally. On the anniversary of the movement against the "Islamization of the West," the mood was tense - and then Jaafar was attacked.
http://www.dw.com/en/jaafars-video-blog-3-pegida-demonstration-in-dresden-turns-violent/av-18793075
- - - - - - -
http://www.dw.com/en/outrage-over-concentration-camp-quip-at-pegida-speech/a-18793051
... Inflammatory speech
The media's attention was particularly drawn to a 25-minute speech by the German-Turkish writer Akif Pirincci, otherwise known for a cat-based crime fiction series and a libertarian blog called "The Axis of Good," which has often been accused of racism.
Pirincci's extraordinary and occasionally vulgar ramble, all read from notes, included references to refugees as "invaders," politicians as "gauleiters against their own people," Muslims "who pump infidels with their Muslim juice" and a threat that Germany would become a "Muslim garbage dump."
After the crowd responded with shouts of "resistance, resistance," Pirincci said, "Of course there are other alternatives - but the concentration camps are unfortunately out of action at the moment." The crowd applauded and laughed at that, though they eventually called on the writer to stop after his speech continued for another 20 minutes.
State prosecutors in Dresden said on Tuesday that they would be investigating Pirincci's remarks, on suspicion of hate speech. ...
- - - - - - -
Also check this out:
DW reporter Jaafar Abdul Karim went to Dresden to report on the xenophobic PEGIDA rally. On the anniversary of the movement against the "Islamization of the West," the mood was tense - and then Jaafar was attacked.
http://www.dw.com/en/jaafars-video-blog-3-pegida-demonstration-in-dresden-turns-violent/av-18793075
I'm all for inflammatory speech and never for jailing someone for inflammatory speech. Here we go again. Some people here do not believe in absolute freedom of speech. Some people do.
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
.. neither was them locking up anyone with opposing views who may have spoken out against them
... I'll add, the Nazis clearly did a bit more than speaking their mind, they murdered people (an actual act) ... same with the USSR (among other states). In plenty of cases for nothing more than presenting an opposing view.
... I'll add, the Nazis clearly did a bit more than speaking their mind, they murdered people (an actual act) ... same with the USSR (among other states). In plenty of cases for nothing more than presenting an opposing view.
CriedWhenBrucieLeft
Meme Only Account
I'm genuinely curious bearfan, do you think people should be able to say what they want, for example, on this forum; and the mods should just do nothing? No banning, etc?
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
When one party is much bigger than the other, it's easy to predict which one gets locked up or murdered.
Hate made them kill. Hate can be seeded. People can be set up against minority groups. Do you agree that this is dangerous?
If you truly believe that some speeches can have a terrible consequence, you rather not tolerate it if you see that danger. If you don't believe in evil, you just say someone has an opinion.
My problem with your reasoning is that you don't mention the danger. You think the nazi propaganda was no more harmful than an opinion by someone saying Jews are allowed to work and live here as any other?
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
That is pretty different ... the forum is essentially private property. It would be no different than if I disagreed with someone'sactions at my house, I could tell them to get the hell out and not come back. A government cutting off the right of free expression and threatening a penalty for it (and face it, just going to trial is a penalty in time and money defending ones self regardless of the final verdict) is an entirely different manner than you cannot post here about Iron Maiden or come over to my house.
CriedWhenBrucieLeft
Meme Only Account
Is it? This forum is viewable online to absolutely anyone; it's hardly private in the way you describe. Should, for example, the mods tolerate racism from one member directed at another? If you believe in absolute freedom of speech, which I think you do, then the answer to this would logically be yes.
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
Nazi propaganda (at least after 1933) was state propaganda and the state limiting the expression of others. Prior to 1933, they said plenty of hateful things for sure, but there were no death camps at that point and you had a government unwilling to uphold their own laws against beatings, murder, etc.
Flash forward decades later, the debate now is immigration. If you think it is a good thing for the EU to accept more/some immigrants , you should be able to come up with a better argument than "lock up those who disagree". It is intellectually lazy and dangerous as hell. You cannot always count on a government to be on the same side you are on, one day it could easily be your opinion that is banned .. that is what is dangerous.
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
It is private in the sense that it is a voluntary forum, my membership here is not driven by where I was born/where I live. Maidenfans is not going to threaten me with jail or fine me if I post the setlist without spoiler tags.
There is no penalty beyond, I cannot post here anymore.
Freedom of speech is generally seen as freedom from government. People can choose to associate with whomever they want.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
Bearfan:
Do you agree with restricting someone's voice (banning) out here because it can be harmful, but not in the real world? This forum is part of the real world as well. This forum, is based on certain norms of the real world. Real people can be hurt by (e.g.) racist comments, and it's not tolerated.
Before nazi propaganda (by law) the ideology (opinions) started to have its effect. How else did it come into power? It didn't just happen within one second. You think that, back then, the growing uttered hate vs (e.g.) Jews was no more harmful than an opinion of the time by someone saying Jews are allowed to work and live here as any other.
Refugees have already been attacked in Germany, and several other countries.
Unhealthy hateful idea => unhealthy hateful speech => (mass) anger => (mass) violence
Restricting the hateful speech can help to keep down the violence. Punishing violence should also be done, but then it's often too late for victims.
Besides, at some point, the violence could be tolerated. At least, that happened in examples of the dark past.
Unhealthy hateful speech => unhealthy hateful idea => (mass) anger => (mass) violence
Restricting hateful speech can also have a positive effect on unhealthy hateful ideas (meaning a decrease). The less nonsense people hear, the less they are thinking (about) it, or agreeing with it, or coming into action. (We know how indoctrination works)
Do you agree with restricting someone's voice (banning) out here because it can be harmful, but not in the real world? This forum is part of the real world as well. This forum, is based on certain norms of the real world. Real people can be hurt by (e.g.) racist comments, and it's not tolerated.
Before nazi propaganda (by law) the ideology (opinions) started to have its effect. How else did it come into power? It didn't just happen within one second. You think that, back then, the growing uttered hate vs (e.g.) Jews was no more harmful than an opinion of the time by someone saying Jews are allowed to work and live here as any other.
It depends on how harmful the opinion is. We know all to well how unpleasant views led to mass killings. Let's see if you are willing to delve deeper into the nature of the opinion.
Refugees have already been attacked in Germany, and several other countries.
Unhealthy hateful idea => unhealthy hateful speech => (mass) anger => (mass) violence
Restricting the hateful speech can help to keep down the violence. Punishing violence should also be done, but then it's often too late for victims.
Besides, at some point, the violence could be tolerated. At least, that happened in examples of the dark past.
Unhealthy hateful speech => unhealthy hateful idea => (mass) anger => (mass) violence
Restricting hateful speech can also have a positive effect on unhealthy hateful ideas (meaning a decrease). The less nonsense people hear, the less they are thinking (about) it, or agreeing with it, or coming into action. (We know how indoctrination works)
Last edited: