European Politics

LooseCannon: in respect to history --it honestly isn't an issue at all. Nobody actually cares, I don't think, about what happened even 50 years ago. This is very much (as it should be) all about now. It's about many, many things; but mostly current.
 
An interesting article about Europe and the US when it comes to personal freedom. I think this hits the nail square on the head (some things are better in Europe, some better in the US) Hopefully some day, all involved can take the best features from one another

I would be interested to see if anyone agrees with what happened in the portion I bolded towawards the end of the article.


Earlier this month, the French General Assembly voted to make France the ninth European nation to recognize same-sex marriages. Many Americans will take this, along with the more tolerant treatment of drugs and prostitution, as further evidence of Europe’s social liberalism. But European liberalism has its limits. The continent’s tolerance is highly selective, and it often excludes particular demographics, unpopular or distasteful opinions, and certain preferences in education.

In a 2009 referendum Swiss voters approved a constitutional ban on new minarets being built. The ban was supported by just over 57 percent of voters. Elsewhere in Europe, Muslims are viewed with suspicion. A poll from last January shows that 74 percent of French citizens believe that “Islam is incompatible with French society,” while in the U.K. less than 25 percent of people believe that Islam is compatible with British society. InHungary, a discriminatory 2011 law has made it harder for a congregation to register as a religious organization: Of the 362 religious organizations previously recognized, only 14 still have the same standing. The others are no longer eligible for state funding and—more troubling from a libertarian point of view—their schools are no longer officially accredited. Not just Muslims but Methodists, Pentecostalists, Jews, Buddhists, and Hindus have been affected by the change. The law was struck down by Hungary’s Constitutional Court but was later integrated into a controversial amendment to the constitution.Since April 2011, for example, France has banned clothing that covers the face, restraining the rights of the women who want to wear either a niqab or a burqa. Belgium has a similar law on the books. These laws were largely motivated by a growing Muslim population, a demographic change that has fueled the growth of movements to limit immigration from predominantly Islamic countries.
In the continent where the Holocaust took place it is perhaps not surprising that there are infringements of free speech for those who deny, trivialize, or glorify Hitler’s genocide against the Jews. Austria, Belgium, Germany, and Poland, among other nations, have laws restricting speech that denies, trivializes, or glorifies the Holocaust, and in some instances other atrocities, such as those committed by the Soviet Union in Lithuania and Poland. But as offensive and historically illiterate as such speech is, it is hardly tolerant to restrict it.
Germany, one of the countries where Holocaust denial is illegal, also limits the freedom of parents to teach their children as they see fit. Homeschooling is illegal in Germany, promptingone family, the Romeikes, to flee to Tennessee seeking asylum. Germany isn’t alone: Homeschooling is outlawed or severely restricted in several Eastern European and Balkan countries.
Perhaps the most recent and noticeable attack on free speech in Europe has been in the U.K. After a phone hacking scandal hit some British newspapers, the Leveson Inquiry was established to examine journalistic ethics in the U.K. and to make recommendations. Thankfully, the British government will not be implementing the body’s suggestions that a new independent press regulator be introduced and underpinned by statute. Yet all three major British political parties supported an alternative plan for a press regulator last month that would introduce a code of “standards” and a new regulatory body. Whatever the outcome of the Leveson Inquiry, the press can look forward to a more restricted future, all thanks to hysteria generated by outrage over practices that were already illegal under British law.
Meanwhile, British citizens can get in trouble for saying the wrong thing on social media. Last year an unpleasant university student was sentenced to 56 days in jail for a racist tweet directed at a soccer player. Another student was spared a jail sentence for a similar offense after pleading guilty.
Even where European countries are socially liberal, public opinion isn’t as uniform as American stereotypes suggest. The French legalization of same-sex marriage was met with violent protests in Paris, and before the vote the hashtag #IlFautTuerLesHomosexuels (“Homosexuals Must Be Killed”) was trending on Twitter in France.
So yes, there are many ways that Europe is freer than the U.S. The Portuguese drug policy would be a vast improvement over America’s, and we could learn a lot from the Dutch laws on prostitution too. But when it comes to free speech and school choice—and, in France and Belgium, the freedom to choose your clothes—Americans have it better. Even on drugs and gay marriage, recent polling data indicates that Americans are catching up to European attitudes. As those changing attitudes become changing laws, Europe may lose its reputation as the land of tolerance.
Click to expand...


http://reason.com/archives/2013/04/30/europes-selective-liberalism
 
As interesting as that was, I've seen better written posts on this website.

The whole Twitter issue is a problem with the authorities failing to recognize (or more probably, accepting) what people's relationship to posting/tweeting actually is i.e. they define it as public & a form of publishing; people regard it as talking online. Either way, if you racially abuse someone, be it verbally, online, or in any other context, why would this not be treated as offensive? If it's also illegal, one would also expect the law to act too, assuming it's aware of it. It's coming back to this whole nonsense of ultimate "freedom" of speech. You do (in a sense) have total freedom of speech; just don't expect the law not to take an interest though, if it involves law breaking...
 
But to answer your question: Yeh, I don't think it's particularly acceptable to have people racially abusing folk on Twitter. Should he have gone to prison? Depends on context, what was said, past history, consequences of actions, etc etc. Purely in comparison to other offences it would appear to be pretty harsh.
 
Really, I think it is pretty insane to put someone in jail for saying something ... I really do not care what he said ... but for just saying something. It seems incredible that he should even be fined much less imprisoned.
 
Twitter is written word, so in the UK at least it's legally classed as published material, the same as newspapers, magazines, official reports, business or personal letters, or in fact any written material destined for a third party. It's subject to various publishing laws, including the laws of libel (civil not criminal), Contempt of Court by publication, and potentially hate speech and public order laws too.
That said, Twitter and Facebook are often ignored by the law in practice, because they're not treated as reliable sources of information or bona fide newsgatherers.
The exceptions tend to be where posts are seen as causing serious offence or distress to the general public, and are therefore public disorder. Someone was jailed for insensitive comments relating to a child's murder, and someone else was jailed for provocative and insensitive (he claims they were political) comments about several British soldiers killed in Afghanistan.
Speculation about forthcoming or ongoing court cases via social media could well land you in trouble for Contempt of Court, as it could cause serious prejudice to the case. People do it a lot, and judges tend to tell juries to ignore the comments, but there are prosecutions from time to time.
 
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
In a sense I agree with you. But surely you see the other side of the argument?
Click to expand...

I understand that someone making offensive posts should not do so and they are probably drunk/not nice people/or both ... but in the grand scheme of things, who cares. Words cannot do harm. I recall the old "sticks and stones" argument many were raised with.

It devolves democracy when we give the power to authorities to prevent people from speaking their minds. To me that is so much more important that someone getting offended.
 
Brigantium said:
Twitter is written word, so in the UK at least it's legally classed as published material, the same as newspapers, magazines, official reports, business or personal letters, or in fact any written material destined for a third party. It's subject to various publishing laws, including the laws of libel (civil not criminal), Contempt of Court by publication, and potentially hate speech and public order laws too.
That said, Twitter and Facebook are often ignored by the law in practice, because they're not treated as reliable sources of information or bona fide newsgatherers.
The exceptions tend to be where posts are seen as causing serious offence or distress to the general public, and are therefore public disorder. Someone was jailed for insensitive comments relating to a child's murder, and someone else was jailed for provocative and insensitive (he claims they were political) comments about several British soldiers killed in Afghanistan.
Speculation about forthcoming or ongoing court cases via social media could well land you in trouble for Contempt of Court, as it could cause serious prejudice to the case. People do it a lot, and judges tend to tell juries to ignore the comments, but there are prosecutions from time to time.
Click to expand...


Let me ask you this, if a traditional publication (some newspaper or magazine) published something deemed as racist by whoever deems what is racist do you honestly think (law aside) that the publication should be held criminally liable?
 
Sticks and stones indeed.
Ideas and opinions have no power in and of themselves. They are only given power by person who hears them.
Many are hateful, ignorant, ridiculous, some are even reprehensible.
Those should be answered with reason, humour, ridicule or scorn, not jail time.
 
And, again, I agree mckindog. I think someone early said --better these people are out there & visible (with their views) than pushed underground where we can't see them & hear them. Still, would it not be better if they chose not to voice them at all?

Quite a lot of people, for example, who express racists views don't seem to be drawing this from any actual intellectual, thought-out, foundation i.e. they are simply saying things which are racist. Personally I think they pick most of this "casual" racism up from what other people (particularly parents) say (--as opposed to what others do.) If they (the parents for example) just didn't bother saying these things themselves (as many now do, being sensible enough to recognise that it's not acceptable to do so) maybe their children would grow up not having heard any racism. They're then less likely to parrot these things out. And so it goes on. Words & what people say are very important. You might think that right now stopping people expressing these views isn't stopping them thinking them. Correct. But at least we, firstly, don't need to hear them; and, secondly, they don't influence others. Gradually these ill-informed views are seen & heard less. Is this not a good thing? (--assuming you accept the rationale.)

bearfan said:
It devolves democracy when we give the power to authorities to prevent people from speaking their minds. To me that is so much more important that someone getting offended.
Click to expand...
I'm not entirely sure what this means. We vote people into government to make decisions for us. Yes/no?
 
bearfan said:
Let me ask you this, if a traditional publication (some newspaper or magazine) published something deemed as racist by whoever deems what is racist do you honestly think (law aside) that the publication should be held criminally liable?
Click to expand...

I don't agree with over-restriction of the press, being in that industry myself, but if traditional mainstream newspapers were very clearly fuelling actual race hate through distortion, or advocating violence against a particular race, I'd agree with it being treated as an offence. I don't think that was the sort of situation you were talking about, anyway. Several national newspapers are regularly accused of being more generally racist, but have never been prosecuted as far as I know. It's up to readers to buy the paper or walk away and save their money, in my opinion.

Mine was reported to police for supposedly inciting race hate against gypsies by reporting on a landowner evicting travellers, but police didn't take any further action. As with all criminal legal matters, police and the Crown Prosecution Service - rightly or wrongly - will decide if it's genuinely in the public interest to pursue it. They're the ones who decide what's racist, initially. They have a degree of autonomy from the Government in making these decisions.

You're completely right about there being a real difference between legally-recognised personal freedom in Britain (I can't speak for the rest of Europe) and the US. We don't have a full written constitution which completely enshrines rights and freedoms. We have a legal system based on a system formalised in 1066, and amended over the last millennium by Acts of Parliament to include further rights and restrictions, with the rest open to precedents set by decisions made in law courts. EU law is also binding and can override British law. Your average social media user doesn't know the law as it can be applied to web publication.

The Tweet in question, as far as I know, wasn't strictly an issue of social comment perceived as racist. It was a personally-directed attack on someone, which used a particularly offensive term of abuse. If you went up to someone in the street and did the same, or shoved a letter through their or their neighbour's door, you'd be guilty of racially-aggravated harassment. It's not purely a publication issue. Personally I'd just have let Twitter deal with him, but if the individual victim felt he was being harrassed, he had a strong case.

I do think the jailing of people for offensive (non racist) comments on Facebook was stretching the law, however - that was a knee jerk reaction to public opinion.
 
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
Gradually these ill-informed views are seen & heard less. Is this not a good thing?
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. They may just be drawn underground and in some ways given more power by being banned.


CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
I'm not entirely sure what this means. We vote people into government to make decisions for us. Yes/no?
Click to expand...

That is the governing side of democracy, a more important part, IMO, is the ability of the citizens to express whatever views they wish and those views be debated in a public forum. Now, you can say that someone just throwing out a racial comment does not advance debate and you are probably right, but I think in many ways this is going too far to the point where people discuss actual policy and are dismissed or shouted down by the PC police as "racist/homophobe/nazi, etc" or in days past "gay/communist/traitor" .

It stifles legitimate debate and in even in the case of someone just throwing out an insensitive comment, what is the real harm?
 
A local newspaper recently published a racist letter essentially detailing perceived flaws of our Aboriginal culture.
They were hit with a barrage of protests inside and outside their office and became the scandal of the day for many larger media outlets and on social media. They also lost two major advertising accounts.
To me, this was a far more appropriate response than an arrest. Free speech takes care of free speech, no need for state involvement.

Ironically, many of those who used free speech to successfully address this situation also want to see it removed from the people who say things to offend them. I can't believe they fail to see the dangerous slippery slope they are on.
 
Wow, that's real citizen responsibility! I don't see many people here openly protesting about something like that. Protesting in person, rather than by letter of complaint, is usually seen as sticking your neck out too far at best, and at worst, condemned as civil disobedience. A small protest against racism risks being met by a far right counter-protest, too.
 
You know, I think any newspaper that posts racist things shouldn't be attacked - as long as they allow both sides to discuss their points of view. And if they pick a side through editorials that are racist? Sure, go for it, but otherwise, papers have a duty to publish letters from people.
 
LooseCannon said:
You know, I think any newspaper that posts racist things shouldn't be attacked - as long as they allow both sides to discuss their points of view. And if they pick a side through editorials that are racist? Sure, go for it, but otherwise, papers have a duty to publish letters from people.
Click to expand...


That is a whole other issue where there is no state involvement, but people and organizations self censor to the point where they often say nothing for fear of offending anyone
 
In response to my earlier point bearfan --I agree that driving unacceptable views "underground" can be counter-productive. It is good to have these things out & have healthy debate. Totally agree. However, it doesn't always play out quite so well in reality. In reality, I don't see a lot of debates (particularly in the media) as healthy; quite a lot of it is ill-informed (--on both sides). And, regardless of who is deemed to win or lose these public debates (as in the example above, that mckindog cites, with the aboriginal debate), I'm not terribly sure that the party "in the wrong" has actually modified their views, as a consequence of the backlash. If they haven't, how useful has this debate & protest actually been?

But to return to my original (specific) point (while accepting what you say, above, in regard to open/public debate & the airing of views, regardless of how offensive they are) --I actually, very narrowly, meant the influence of what people say (& behave) on others; particularly parents on children. I just meant, since racism has no actual factual or intellectual foundation (i.e. in the superiority of one race over the other, etc), most people who foster racist views probably wouldn't have independently arrived at them (in fact, I'm suggesting they haven't really thought that much about them); not without the overwhelming influence of what their parents/peers have said while they were growing up. If they (the parents) had just kept these views to themselves (in respect to interacting with their children) their kids probably wouldn't grow up to be racists. The only reason I'm fleshing this armchair theory out (for a second time!, sorry...) is because I really can't see any other reason why one would independently come to the conclusion that someone of one colour is any less of a human being than someone of a different colour. These views, to me, seem (in the most part) rooted in upbringing.

As for "people and organizations self censor to the point where they often say nothing for fear of offending anyone" --this is a problem. But at least, at its root, it's about considering what others think; which doesn't seem a bad starting point, before one speaks, types, etc. If more people did this, we wouldn't need laws & the authorities to step in i.e. more/better/smarter self-censorship.
 
is because I really can't see any other reason why one would independently come to the conclusion that someone of one colour is any less of a human being than someone of a different colour. These views, to me, seem (in the most part) rooted in upbringing.
Click to expand...

I am not so certain of that ... people see people that are different than them and will reach their own conclusions absent any external forces. There are certainly people who carry on these bad family traditions, but I am sure there are also those who come from families who do not espouse racist views
 
Ahhh, maybe we're coming back to what we were referring to earlier. If it's not solely to do with upbringing, then what does influence illogical, false, & offensive views? You'd agree one factor is reading/hearing the views of others i.e. the influence of others? Particularly those who shout loudest; those with influence; those people who folk look up to; organisations viewed as presenting "the facts" (not opinion) e.g. the press. Would you accept that it's not helpful for these kind of people to espouse, for example, racist views?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top