European Politics

Words don't attack people, people attack people. People caught actually attacking someone should be arrested for assault. But I will ask what would you propose to do about it, based on the samples I gave above, what would you propose happens and do you think restricting speech has a result on actions and if so, do you see any benefit in having the speech out in the open versus underground cells? Germany restricts Nazi speech, but they seems to have neo Nazi groups still and they still attack people. My belief is that the restriction makes it worse, the "forbidden fruit" aspect attracts disaffected people and the ban makes then be more and more secretive.
 
bearfan said:
Words don't attack people, people attack people. People caught actually attacking someone should be arrested for assault.
Click to expand...
That doesn't happen so easily in a culture where most police officers would be anti gay as well.
Violence against gays is tolerated.

Check what happened to a heavy case of hatespreading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Fourqaan_mosque
The Al-Fourqaan mosque is a salafi Islamic mosque in which is part of Al-fourqaan Islamic Center in Eindhoven, Netherlands.

The mosque received media attention since 2005 for its jihadist imam Eisha Bersham from Bosnia. Intelligence service AIVD classified him as a threat to national security, and minister for integration and immigration Rita Verdonk responded by banning him from the country as an 'unwanted foreigner'. Initially an Amsterdam court ruled that the imam could stay,but on 27 April 2007 the Council of State finally ruled Bersham would be banned from the Netherlands for the next ten years.
 
I would explain it as there being bad people in the world and some people that will do others harm for being different. But to turn it around a bit, if this was 30 years ago, it would be the exact opposite .. the speech that people would want to eliminate and regulate would be speech that was anything seemingly tolerant of gays and we would not be where we are today. You cannot eliminate rights for the entire population based on some bad actors (who again should be arrested if they are causing physical harm to others ... if that is not happening because a government is letting this kind of behavior slide, then it is an entirely different set of issues)
 
Forostar said:
That doesn't happen so easily in a culture where most police officers would be anti gay as well.
Violence against gays is tolerated.

Check what happened to a heavy case of hatespreading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Fourqaan_mosque
The Al-Fourqaan mosque is a salafi Islamic mosque in which is part of Al-fourqaan Islamic Center in Eindhoven, Netherlands.

The mosque received media attention since 2005 for its jihadist imam Eisha Bersham from Bosnia. Intelligence service AIVD classified him as a threat to national security, and minister for integration and immigration Rita Verdonk responded by banning him from the country as an 'unwanted foreigner'. Initially an Amsterdam court ruled that the imam could stay,but on 27 April 2007 the Council of State finally ruled Bersham would be banned from the Netherlands for the next ten years.
Click to expand...


I do not know anything about this inman .. but there are certainly some restrictions on speech .. plotting terrorism would certainly be one ... deporting non citizens is also a good option. The same with anti gay forces, if they are heard planning an actual attack, sure that can be stopped.
 
The right to be protected against discrimination. Now that is something.

What if some of the following laws were implemented in the Balkan or Eastern Europe.... would we have less discrimination? And violence? No fucking orthodox priest would get away with doing what he did under these laws.

Netherlands
  • Article 137c, part 1 of Wetboek van Strafrecht prohibits insults towards a group because of its race, religion, sexual orientation (strait or gay), handicap (somatically, mental or psychiatric) in public or by speech, by writing or by a picture. Maximum imprisonment one year of imprisonment or a fine of the third category.
  • Part 2 increases the maximum imprisonment to two years and the maximum fine category to 4,when the crime is committed as a habit or is committed by two or more persons.
  • Article 137d prohibits provoking to discrimination or hate against the group described above. Same penalties apply as in article 137c.
  • Article 137e part 1 prohibits publishing a discriminatory statement, other than in formal message, or hands over an object (that contains discriminatory information) otherwise than on his request. Maximum imprisonment is 6 months or a fine of the third category.
  • Part 2 increases the maximum imprisonment to one year and the maximum fine category to 4,when the crime is committed as a habit or committed by two or more persons.
  • Article 137f prohibits supporting discriminatory activities by giving money or goods. Maximum imprisonment is 3 months or a fine of the second category.
 
The whole thing you posted states that.

prohibits insults towards a group because of its race, religion, ....

then the rest shows what type of jail time is associated with that offence.


If you really arrested anyone based on this
Part 2 increases the maximum imprisonment to two years and the maximum fine category to 4,when the crime is committed as a habit or is committed by two or more persons.
Click to expand...

How many people in bars would be arrested for calling someone an Irish (or insert any ethnicity here) bastard ... you will need to be building a lot of jails
 
You may find this interesting:
http://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDMQFjAB&url=http://www.ru.nl/publish/pages/552245/havingaantidiscriminationlawijsl.pdf&ei=RqeWUaGcHeTT0QXs_oC4BQ&usg=AFQjCNFKCbxR8jqF9w4I1URZ0clwOrFwEA&bvm=bv.46751780,d.d2k&cad=rja

The effects and limits of anti-discrimination law in The Netherlands

6. Conclusion
Almost everyone we interviewed agreed with the principle of equal treatment. Nevertheless, the general effects of anti-discrimination legislation are limited. In particular situations and in some branches of industry, application of the Act gives rise to problems, or the Act is neglected altogether. It is hard to isolate the general
effects of the Equal Treatment Act from other relevant factors, e.g. the rising education of women and ethnic minorities, growing number of part-time workers, changing patterns in family life, increasing shortages in labour, and the growing duration of residence in The Netherlands of immigrants. The general effects of the
anti-discrimination legislation are probably rather limited and support existing social processes of emancipation.

The general effects of the legislation may be indirect. Publicity of the legislation, the Commission and judgements by the Commission may contribute to the social acceptance of the principle of equal treatment, and the idea that discrimination should not be allowed. In the long run, these ideas will spill over to, for instance, personnel management, without actors perceiving this as an effect of the legislation. These diffuse effects are hard to demonstrate, however.

The special effects are concentrated in the few hundred cases the Equal Treatment Commission deals with every year. Discrimination is not always recognised as such and it is very hard for an employee and even for a trade union or works council to challenge discrimination by the employer or colleagues.

In general, the support for equal treatment is high. However, knowledge of specific legal provisions is deficient. It seems that people agree with the general notion of equality and therefore presume that their own behaviour is in accordance with the law. Implementation of equal opportunity laws in organisations may be prevented by lack of knowledge and information about legal requirements, existing routines and traditional ways of doing things within organisations, and expected costs of compliance. The enforcement of Dutch anti-discrimination legislation is left mainly to individual victims of discrimination, who have to take action to enforce the law. This is hampered by inadequate knowledge about the legal rules, inadequate support and expert legal assistance, and possible victimisation of complainants.

The limited impact of the legislation is explained by the choice of the legislator to let victims enforce the law, the rather passive attitude of the Equal Treatment Commission, and the limited actions undertaken by interest organisations of the beneficiaries. Only anti-discrimination bureaus regard it as part of their task to enforce compliance with anti-discrimination legislation. Despite the extensive legal protection against discrimination, some discriminatory practices are persistent.
 
I am not sure what this has to do with speech, it seems more geared towards anti-discrimination laws which usually involve things like housing, employment, etc .. which is I do not think anyone argues with. It is one thing to say I do not like a certain group of people, to take action against them (like refusing to rent a house based on race) is clearly wrong and should be illegal
 
Discriminating remarks. That is speech. But as you read, the legislation has it's limits, and practical problems.
 
I think banning and taking steps against discrimination is fine and should be done. Against remarks, it is difficult to enforce, it will never be enforced evenly, and it really opens up a the possibility for a ton of abuse and quickly leads to the reduction of legitimate debate as people redefine discriminatory speech wider and wider
 
Foro, you are venturing on a very, very dangerous avenue here. Freedom of Speech is the ground stone of democracy. Limiting it means limiting political freedom.

Banning discrimination is fine, and it's something that is done in any reasonable country. But if you take somebody's right away to publicly say that he personally does not like homosexuality, that is something else.

So, you say, can everybody just walk around and cover hateful words as personal opinions and go around offending people? I'm afraid they can. But, you say, this speech inspires people to be violent. Perhaps it does. But there are people in countries like Finland or Germany, which do not have much of a record with homophobic violence in recent times, who voice their opinions also, and they don't inspire that kind of hatred. How come?

First of all, Freedom of Speech means that if you don't like an opinion, you have every right in the world to speak out against it and voice your opinion, too. Bring out better arguments. If people march against homosexuals, start a counter-protest. See if you can gather a greater crowd.

Next, the problem is education. People need to be educated about homosexuality, so they can expose stupid opinions for what they are.

Third, the influence of undemocratic organisations on education and public opinion must be diminished in order for a democracy to work. As long as people cheer for a pope or a patriarch who says homosexuality is a sin, I'm afraid this opinion will be shared.

If you start restricting Freedom of Speech, even with the best of intentions, you are opening the floodgates for further restrictions. Freedom of Speech is an absolute, and without it, democracy does not work.
 
Perun said:
But, you say, this speech inspires people to be violent. Perhaps it does. But there are people in countries like Finland or Germany, which do not have much of a record with homophobic violence in recent times, who voice their opinions also, and they don't inspire that kind of hatred. How come?
Click to expand...
Hard to say. Perhaps there isn't as much religious fanatism?

But what could be done about priests provoking people so much that they run out and clash with a pro-homo demonstration?
Perun said:
If people march against homosexuals, start a counter-protest. See if you can gather a greater crowd.
Click to expand...
I hope so. It will take decades and dozens of violent anti-gay marches, and I hope they'll still go on.

It's sad that it takes long in countries where only small minorities dare to be open about homosexuality.
 
Well, Nigel Farage visited Edinburgh and all hell breaks loose. Students find elements of his party racist and he finds that the Scottish National Party treated him racist. They were anti-British, anti-English etc.

The stupid thing is that it was just a student protest who disagree with UKIP. Farage got what he wanted:
Major attention.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-22566183
Any other opinions?
 
I knew you'd bring this up Forostar! :D

Farage said the demonstrators were "deeply racist" & "yobbo, fascist scum". He then proceeded to hang up during a live interview with BBC Radio Scotland babbling about sensing the same hate (in the line of questioning) as he had witnessed in Edinburgh. UKIP don't have any elected representatives in the Scottish Parliament. Scotland doesn't want to leave Europe. And Scotland doesn't get so exorcised about immigration. Someone shouted "you know as much about Scotland as you do about flying" (referring to his plane crash); which was amusing. And, one of the men arrested (showing a "total hatred of the English") was English.

Read this article (& comment, if you can be bothered) Forostar. MacWhirter always puts forth some sensible, interesting opinion.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/what-does-farage-factor-mean-for-us.20392786
 
Excellent article Cried. Very insightful. It touches some questions I had.

Do you agree with me that, if the UK will hold a referendum to go out of the EU, that this could actually be used as an additional argument for Scotland to go out of the UK?

To be more blunt: Let's get out of this sinking ship before it's too late. That is: if you want to stay in the EU.

I wonder how this works:
And what about Europe – how could Scotland stay in if England pulls out?
Click to expand...
 
The Independence vote is next year though (2014); with the E.U. "in/out" referendum, the Conservative Party propose putting to the British people, scheduled for 2016/17 --as the article mentions. So if the Independence vote (which is first) comes back yes, Scotland will have to negotiate it's own relationship with Europe anyway i.e. application to the E.U. (Or at least, so it's assumed --nobody really knows.) But if you mean, what will happen if the Scottish people vote no and (later) the UK votes to leave Europe, then --who knows? Not much is being said, by either camps, of what will happen to Scotland if the vote comes back no i.e. will we still grind on to "devo max" &/or into a sort of federalist UK. But, yes, the UK could vote to leave (including Scotland) --which would (apparently) be against Scottish public opinion. (Therefore, in answer to your last question: it couldn't --assuming it was still part of the UK & the UK had voted to leave.) I just can't imagine the UK voting to leave though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top