NationStates Jolt Archive

Colport in its infinite wisdom has submitted a resolution to ban hate groups in the UN member states... Please puruse this resolution and add your endorsement so that it may be voted upon in the General Assembly

thats right, i hate hate groups!
they should be banned
its members publicly executed!

Impossible to define. It is written in the koran to not trust Jews or Christians... so technically that makes Islam a hate group... you're resolution would ban Islam.... which is a violation of "freedom of religion". There is no way we'd support this. Ontop of that .. if people want to hang out with like minded mental midgets and pontificate about their hatred for some group ... let them. Just make sure they are allowed to do so in a public manner so all people can see what fools they really are.

If you were to ban said groups... they would be forced underground where their message would gain favour... as people would assume there must be some conspiracy to keep their views silent.

OK, I have a feeling this is turning into the new "ban nukes!" resolution...a retarded idea that pops up every few days or so.

Anyone who wishes to prevent individuals from associating with others who share their beliefs is a vile cretinous scumbag. Any nation authoring a proposal to that effect that gets passed will be made to answer to the military might of the Republic of G Bugles.

Link to proposal: http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=an%20end%20to%20hate

Text of proposal follows...

An End To Hate



Category: Moral Decency; A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.
Strength: Strong

Proposed by: Colport


Description: Whereas the nations of the United Nations have noted a strengthening in the ranks and boldness of hate groups,

Whereas the ignorance and cruelty espoused by these practical cults have led to war in the past,

Whereas these hate groups constitute a clear and present danger to the citizens of the world and foster terrorism, domestic and international,

The United Nations hereby bans Hate Groups from its member nations.


Voting Ends: Sat Apr 17 2004

Oh, yes! I've been waiting for an oppurtunity like this for ages! When do we start? Who's first? Can we start with the Jews? Or maybe the people who hate rapists? Yeah, rapists are people, too -- anyone who hates rapists and murderers and terrorists should be banned.

Whatever "banned" means. Does that mean we exile them or execute them? And just what constitutes a "hate group?" Or shall we just shoot anyone on sight if we think they might belong to such a group? What about groups which merely dislike certain other groups? Where do we draw the line? Is it when they mention the concept of "banning" the hated group from society? Cuz oh, boy, that would be ironic.

This resolution could be summed up with the mentality of "Intolerance will not be tolerated," which just makes me sad. Freedom of speech means freedom of speech and just happens to be one of the most central precepts of any civilized society.

So I suppose the first hate group we should ban would be Colport.... as they have proven to be an anti-hate group hate group.

This proposal would be impossible to enforce even in the absrud event that it was passed into law. Beyond just the logistics, vague wording, excessive limitation of civil and political freedoms, there is a problem with the fundemental idea behind the proposal.

Quite simply put, this problem is that no matter how hard you try there will always be people that hate people. Nothing short of killing every last single sentient being in the world will get rid of hate. Hate is a natural human emotion that can't be destroyed, the very putting forth of this proposal proves this point, hating those who commit acts of hatred is still in itself an act of hatred. Therefore, first an attempt to ban hate would only create more and substantiate the views of those who would start hate groups, and two, thereby make this piece of l egislation copmletely useless as the activities would simply move into the underground. Therefore Caras Galadon beleives that because we wish to lower the power hate has over people we must allow these groups to exist.

If you couldn't follow that the basic idea was that to attempt to ban hate gorups would be the same as an attempt to ban hte emotion of hate which is completely impossible logically makign this proposal completely pointless.

The United Nations and the entire world UN or not should send a message to those who break the sovereign laws of their country that what they are doing is wrong, that they will be caught, and will be punished. However, we also note that feeling a certain way about a group of people/things or a specific person/thing is not in itself a crime.

This issue is really far too complicated to just dismiss by crying "free speech". No society that has ever existed has really had total free speech - are you allowed to shout "fire" in a crowded cinema? Are you allowed to outright lie to destroy someone's reputation, marriage or career? Are you allowed to fabricate stories and pass them off as news? (Well, OK, that last one's pretty widespread, but still...)

There's nothing wrong with stating that a society will accept everything except intolerance. The basis of our society and most liberal democracies is rational argument and informed choice, so it makes sense to protect free speech on issues where some measure of choice can be exercised.

So you can criticise or attack someone on the grounds of their political leanings. Religion, likewise, is fair game. But attacks based on gender, race or sexuality - they're a big no-no and are totally unjustifiable.

Of course, legislating on this issue would still be very tricky - IRL, race-hate laws can be easily worked around by passing racism off as legitimate discussion of, say, the effects of immigration on a society. And stiff penalties for race-hate crimes can have the effect of clouding debate by making it difficult to raise genuine concerns without accusations of racism being flung around.

But dismissing this question because it's against "free speech" is simplistic. Free speech is an unattainable ideal, not a practical rule for societies.

Look .... Murder is murder. killing someone because they are a Bigtopian or killing them because you're in a bad mood has the same end effect. All "hate crime" ideas are nothing more than "Thought Crimes" as you are adding extra punishment for what the perpetrator was THINKING at the time! Rediculous in the extreme.

Down with all of these "thought Crime" concepts the lefties keep trying to manipulate upon the populace to interfere with basic human liberties and create a bland, inoffensive society that's nice to fluffy kitties.

ARGHHH!

There's a difference between manslaughter and murder for a reason: intent. Trying to base a legal system entirely on the effect of actions rather than the motivation behind them is doomed to failure.

That said, this resolution is kind of stupid - hatred-based groups should be banned on a case-by-case basis.

No, this isn't about "thought crimes". No-one, I hope, is taking the pointless and useless step of trying to legislate to prevent hateful thoughts. And nor is it, necessarily, about putting in place more severe penalties for things which are crimes anyway, like murder. It's about specifically legislating to prevent vicious public attacks on ethnic groups or other minorities based purely on their personal identities. If you don't think such attacks are destructive - and I don't just mean "upsetting", I mean causing severe psychological damage, self-mutilation and suicide, as well as provoking violence against those groups - I suggest you get out and talk to the kinds of people who have to suffer such attacks.

Indeed. If you want to legislate solely on the basis of effect, a racially motivated crime is usually more socially damaging than a non-racially motivated one. Hate has an effect on people.

who actually likes hate groups any way all they do is bitch and whine about one single subject. i think they should be executed

Punish criminals for their crimes. There is no need for extra punishment because of a pc concept. Liberals hate conservatives... so should we ban all liberals?

It's a stupid idea.

Liberals hate conservatives... so should we ban all liberals?

It's a stupid idea.

The delegate from Psychotropics seems to be (wilfully or otherwise) misunderstanding the arguments put to him.
There is no such thing as an innate "liberal" or "conservative" - there are merely people who hold liberal ideas or conservative ideas. It's an entirely different issue to whether a person is black or white.

The ministers of East Hackney find conservative ideas contemptible. We are therefore willing to engage in rational debate, based on facts, to oppose and change those ideas whenever they encounter them. We cannot, however, engage a black person in rational debate with the intention of persuading him to become white. His colour is therefore off-limits as a topic of criticism.

I agree, the resolution is poorly thought out and written. The best way to deal with hate groups is to beat them with knowledge, logic, and common sense, which hate lacks.

Colport proclaims to have "infinite wisdom"... maybe that's why they assume the resolution is perfect.

On a different note...

OK, I have a feeling this is turning into the new "ban nukes!" resolution...a retarded idea that pops up every few days or so.

Maybe I'm an idealist leftie hippie, but what's wrong with banning nukes? And that idea is not just a few days old. Many very real contries, cities, and areas have banned nuclear power of any kind, and are doing fine. Beautifully, even

Liberals hate conservatives... so should we ban all liberals?

It's a stupid idea.

The delegate from Psychotropics seems to be (wilfully or otherwise) misunderstanding the arguments put to him.
There is no such thing as an innate "liberal" or "conservative" - there are merely people who hold liberal ideas or conservative ideas. It's an entirely different issue to whether a person is black or white.

The ministers of East Hackney find conservative ideas contemptible. We are therefore willing to engage in rational debate, based on facts, to oppose and change those ideas whenever they encounter them. We cannot, however, engage a black person in rational debate with the intention of persuading him to become white. His colour is therefore off-limits as a topic of criticism.

So killing gays would not fall under your definition of hate crime because homosexuality is not a race ?

Can't you see the obvious slippery slope of these half baked ideas? Hate Crime legislation is pathetic.

So killing gays would not fall under your definition of hate crime because homosexuality is not a race ?

See my post earlier in the thread. You have no choice over your sexuality; ergo, it's lumped in with race as out-of-bounds to criticism.

So killing gays would not fall under your definition of hate crime because homosexuality is not a race ?

See my post earlier in the thread. You have no choice over your sexuality; ergo, it's lumped in with race as out-of-bounds to criticism.

Ahhh ... but you are mistaken. Where is the absolute scientific proof that you are born gay ?

You'll never find it because it dosen't exist

Ahhh ... but you are mistaken. Where is the absolute scientific proof that you are born gay ?

You'll never find it because it dosen't exist

Not as yet, anyway. The origins of sexuality are uncertain - could be genetics, could be upbringing, could be a little of both. But the one thing it certainly isn't is a personal choice.

All they gay people I know say they were born that way. Why would you chose to be something that would cause you so much trouble?

Ahhh ... but you are mistaken. Where is the absolute scientific proof that you are born gay ?

You'll never find it because it dosen't exist

Not as yet, anyway. The origins of sexuality are uncertain - could be genetics, could be upbringing, could be a little of both. But the one thing it certainly isn't is a personal choice.

Ok... so understanding that it is not proven... how can you say in any way that gayness falls into the same catagory as race while political ideology does not? There is the exact same ammount of scientific proof that one is born gay as there is for one being born a liberal

Wow, that's silly. There is no way politics are inscribed in your genes.

There is the exact same ammount of scientific proof that one is born gay as there is for one being born a liberal

Really? Let's see it, then...

While there is good reason to believe sexual orientation is.

The jerk's point is obvious. There is no proof that gayness is genetic just as there is no proof that liberalism is genetic.

You give special status to the minority at the expence of the majority by only defining a few groups who recieve special legal treatment based on genetics. That is unfair and illogical.

There is no proof that gayness is genetic just as there is no proof that liberalism is genetic.

But on the other hand, you can argue someone round from being a conservative to being a liberal. I defy you to try arguing a gay person straight... various Christian fundamentalist groups have tried it and it causes horrendous psychological problems. At the very least.

Who are you talking about? Define 'you', 'majority' and 'minority' please?

There is no proof that gayness is genetic just as there is no proof that liberalism is genetic.

But on the other hand, you can argue someone round from being a conservative to being a liberal. I defy you to try arguing a gay person straight... various Christian fundamentalist groups have tried it and it causes horrendous psychological problems. At the very least.

But it has happened. So it is possible... just as it is possible to give a liberal enough logic to become a libertarian :P

Who are you talking about? Define 'you', 'majority' and 'minority' please?

You = The Lawmakers

Majority = the majority in your nation

Minority = whatever minorities are in your nation that you feel deserve special rights above and beyond everyone else

Some minorities need 'special legal treatment' to be treated the same as everyone else. I myself am disabled, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, which you could call special legal treatment, gives me the same access to things, not anything more than anyone else. no one except the majority gets anything special from legal action. except, arguably, affirmative action, which, in most cases, is illegal.

Some minorities need 'special legal treatment' to be treated the same as everyone else. I myself am disabled, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, which you could call special legal treatment, gives me the same access to things, not anything more than anyone else. no one except the majority gets anything special from legal action. except, arguably, affirmative action, which, in most cases, is illegal.

Well... I would never view the "americans with disabilities act" as special rights. It just gives physical access to the disabled that they otherwise might not have. It's more of a gaurantee of not giving special rights to the non-disabled.

Affirmative Action is rediculous legislation because it is racist in it's very nature.

And, hence, illegal. There aren't any laws which give unfair priveleges to minorities that I can think of. That would be hard to do in a democracy.

And, hence, illegal. There aren't any laws which give unfair priveleges to minorities that I can think of.

There shouldn't be... to the majority of the minority. All people must be treated exactly the same under the eyes of the law. Hate Crime legislation violates that very principle.

Well... I would never view the "americans with disabilities act" as special rights. It just gives physical access to the disabled that they otherwise might not have. It's more of a gaurantee of not giving special rights to the non-disabled.

So what, precisely, is the difference between that and affirmative action? In practice, for instance, non-black people already have special rights over black people in that all the odds, from inherited wealth to old-boy networks to tacit racism, are already stacked their way. How can redressing those odds be racist?

And, hence, illegal. There aren't any laws which give unfair priveleges to minorities that I can think of.

There shouldn't be... to the majority or the minority. All people must be treated exactly the same under the eyes of the law. Hate Crime legislation violates that very principle.

Ah, now I see what you were getting at. That makes sense. Still something wrong with it, I'm sure I'll figure it out. :wink:

We'll note that incitement to racial / religious hatred laws are equally applicable against members of any race, be they a minority or a majority. We'd regard a violently racist minority as harshly as a violently racist majority.

True, true, there it is! The answer that was coming to me, eventually. Haha.

Anyone could be considered a hate group ...how would we define the rules for what is hate and what isn't. Because of this gray area I will not support this Orwellian legislation. Lets just respect each others right to believe what we want O.K.? Even if those beliefs repulse us. People are going to believe what they want to anyway. :D

I don't believe in 'letting' people believe absolutely anything. If someone believes something flawed, why not explain to them why it's wrong? If we all live on different sides of the wall, nothing will change.

I don't believe in 'letting' people believe absolutely anything. If someone believes something flawed, why not explain to them why it's wrong? If we all live on different sides of the wall, nothing will change.

Sorry for the double-post! The forum is acting up again.

I don't believe in 'letting' people believe absolutely anything. If someone believes something flawed, why not explain to them why it's wrong? If we all live on different sides of the wall, nothing will change.

Well ... you obviously never majored in epistemology :P Reason I say that ... it is nearly impossible to prove a given though wrong if it is based on any form of rational reasoning. (as opposed to empirical reasoning)...... that said, Freedom of Speech is the cure... by actually arguing it out instead of "banning" ideas... they can be shown to be flawed

it is nearly impossible to prove a given though wrong if it is based on any form of rational reasoning.

Yeah, and what do you get from that? Basic laws of mathematics? Hell, you don't even get induction. Reeeeally useful.

it is nearly impossible to prove a given though wrong if it is based on any form of rational reasoning.

Yeah, and what do you get from that? Basic laws of mathematics? Hell, you don't even get induction. Reeeeally useful.

Exactly my point. Therefore you cannot ban these concepts.....

You can't ban concepts. You can ban their expression.

Seriously. You've seen how entrenched discussions in the forums can get. Why do you think that free speech is going to enable the shining light of reason to reach out and convert a firebombing neo-Nazi into a good citizen when what you call reason doesn't convert the considerably less dogmatic people on any given thread?

First, racism and the like is bad. That's no good. But I don't believe the government should legislate speech unless it is absolutely necessary.

This issue is really far too complicated to just dismiss by crying "free speech".

No, no, it's really not. Freedom of speech has only one meaning. Some of the only acceptable limitations are those which prevent a clear and present danger from arising. Shouting out "Fire!" in a small, crowded building can create such a danger in the form of a veritable stampede. Shouting out "I hate the ACLU!" does no such thing.

No society that has ever existed has really had total free speech - are you allowed to shout "fire" in a crowded cinema? Are you allowed to outright lie to destroy someone's reputation, marriage or career? Are you allowed to fabricate stories and pass them off as news?

Exceptions which ultimately have little or no bearing to this discussion.

There's nothing wrong with stating that a society will accept everything except intolerance.

Ah, but there is. The statement runs in circles and ironically attacks itself -- you must tolerate the intolerant, else you are being intolerant yourself.

The basis of our society and most liberal democracies is rational argument and informed choice, so it makes sense to protect free speech on issues where some measure of choice can be exercised.

Exactly. I can either call you stupid or I can choose not to. Choice.

So you can criticise or attack someone on the grounds of their political leanings. Religion, likewise, is fair game. But attacks based on gender, race or sexuality - they're a big no-no and are totally unjustifiable.

To you, perhaps, they are unjustified, but that's just the thing -- do we really want the government to tell citizens what they can or cannot believe? What is or is not true? What they can or cannot believe? What they can or cannot be? Whom they can or cannot associate with? No. These are choices and powers which are expressly reserved for the people themselves.

It's about specifically legislating to prevent vicious public attacks on ethnic groups or other minorities based purely on their personal identities.

Really? Where in the proposal does it say that? There is no definition of "hate group," there is no information on what qualifies an individual or group as hateful. You may well be debating a worthwhile point, but I do not believe that you are debating a worthwhile proposal.

If you don't think such attacks are destructive - and I don't just mean "upsetting", I mean causing severe psychological damage, self-mutilation and suicide, as well as provoking violence against those groups - I suggest you get out and talk to the kinds of people who have to suffer such attacks.

And if you don't think limiting freedom of speech can have nearly identical results on a larger scale, I suggest you learn your history a tad better.

The ministers of East Hackney find conservative ideas contemptible. We are therefore willing to engage in rational debate, based on facts, to oppose and change those ideas whenever they encounter them. We cannot, however, engage a black person in rational debate with the intention of persuading him to become white. His colour is therefore off-limits as a topic of criticism.

I appreciate that you're at least better about it than most. But while you're at it, do you plan to ban discrimination based on hair color? Myself, I don't find blondes particularly attractive; what would you plan to do about that? As far as I can tell, it's the same thing -- the women can't change their true hair color. Sure, they can dye their hair -- but you would say that it does not change their identity, and while it is uncommon, it is possible to dye one's skin just the same.

You have no choice over your sexuality; ergo, it's lumped in with race as out-of-bounds to criticism.

I agree with you that sexual orientation is not a choice. I would challenge any fool who believes it is to change their orientation as an act of free will and tell me how it goes. Even if someone somehow manages that, they would then only have proven themselves to be bisexual.

So what, precisely, is the difference between that and affirmative action? In practice, for instance, non-black people already have special rights over black people in that all the odds, from inherited wealth to old-boy networks to tacit racism, are already stacked their way. How can redressing those odds be racist?

Here's where a lot of people get stuck. Using race to determine anything is racist. You're trapped by your own terms. The only way for you to logically save affirmative action is to accept that, in some situation, racism may apparently be acceptable -- not many people are willing to do that, and so they either live with their dualisms or decry affirmative action. Personally, I believe that it may well have been a necessary shock treatment, but I believe that its usefulness may be nearing or perhaps even beyond an end.

We'll note that incitement to racial / religious hatred laws are equally applicable against members of any race, be they a minority or a majority. We'd regard a violently racist minority as harshly as a violently racist majority.

Yet you still judge based on race (or religion, but I don't believe that's our emphasis). Cannot two white men hate each other? Cannot two black women hate each other? Why does "hate" have to cross a racial line? Don't such laws only encourage and reinforce seperation, and by seperation, discrimination?

I don't believe in 'letting' people believe absolutely anything. If someone believes something flawed, why not explain to them why it's wrong? If we all live on different sides of the wall, nothing will change.

There's a difference, though, between debating someone to attempt and prove them incorrect and banning their thoughts outright. Banning of thoughts and belief is very dangerous ground, everyone at least has to concede that. I don't believe this proposal is worded carefully enough, and if for no other reason, I don't plan to support it.

Seriously. You've seen how entrenched discussions in the forums can get. Why do you think that free speech is going to enable the shining light of reason to reach out and convert a firebombing neo-Nazi into a good citizen when what you call reason doesn't convert the considerably less dogmatic people on any given thread?

So long as the Nazi doesn't resort to violence, what need is there to eliminate him or her?

et you still judge based on race (or religion, but I don't believe that's our emphasis). Cannot two white men hate each other? Cannot two black women hate each other? Why does "hate" have to cross a racial line? Don't such laws only encourage and reinforce seperation, and by seperation, discrimination?

Yes, they can hate each other, but there's a qualitative difference between hating someone personally and hating them because of their race, gender, or sexuality.

Races exist. It would be silly for us to believe that if the law pretends they don't exist the problem will sort itself out. Acknowledging the existence of different races is not intrinsically racist, just as acknowledging the existence of different sexes is not sexist.

Well, I did say at the start this was a knotty issue...

This issue is really far too complicated to just dismiss by crying "free speech".

No, no, it's really not. Freedom of speech has only one meaning. Some of the only acceptable limitations are those which prevent a clear and present danger from arising. Shouting out "Fire!" in a small, crowded building can create such a danger in the form of a veritable stampede. Shouting out "I hate the ACLU!" does no such thing.

I'm not sure that really answers the issue. Allowing outright racist/sexist/homophobic/whatever groups a public platform could be argued to create a danger inasmuch as it creates a climate of hate and fear.

No society that has ever existed has really had total free speech - are you allowed to shout "fire" in a crowded cinema? Are you allowed to outright lie to destroy someone's reputation, marriage or career? Are you allowed to fabricate stories and pass them off as news?

Exceptions which ultimately have little or no bearing to this discussion.

My point was that the freedom of speech is not absolute, which it isn't. And I continue to believe that these exceptions are relevant - the point I'm making is that you have to set the limits of acceptable public discourse somewhere.

There's nothing wrong with stating that a society will accept everything except intolerance.

Ah, but there is. The statement runs in circles and ironically attacks itself -- you must tolerate the intolerant, else you are being intolerant yourself.

That seems like a problem of semantics rather than anything major. But I'll come back to it tomorrow, when my brain's working a bit better...

So you can criticise or attack someone on the grounds of their political leanings. Religion, likewise, is fair game. But attacks based on gender, race or sexuality - they're a big no-no and are totally unjustifiable.

To you, perhaps, they are unjustified, but that's just the thing -- do we really want the government to tell citizens what they can or cannot believe? What is or is not true? What they can or cannot believe? What they can or cannot be? Whom they can or cannot associate with? No. These are choices and powers which are expressly reserved for the people themselves.

Well, yes. But first off let's not draw an artificial line between "the government" and "the people" - the government belongs to the people, at least in East Hackney, and if they don't want to hear these things in public it's up to them. And I'll reiterate that the kind of thing I'd have in mind would be purely about banning expression of views. It's pointless to even try to ban thoughts. But you can take them into account when judging actions, as Rehochipe mentioned earlier.

It's about specifically legislating to prevent vicious public attacks on ethnic groups or other minorities based purely on their personal identities.

Really? Where in the proposal does it say that? There is no definition of "hate group," there is no information on what qualifies an individual or group as hateful. You may well be debating a worthwhile point, but I do not believe that you are debating a worthwhile proposal.

Ah, yes. Should have clarified. I'm not talking about this proposal, which I think is too vague to support at present. I was trying to make general points, partly in case anyone (else, not me) wants to write something more detailed, partly for the sheer hell of it.

If you don't think such attacks are destructive - and I don't just mean "upsetting", I mean causing severe psychological damage, self-mutilation and suicide, as well as provoking violence against those groups - I suggest you get out and talk to the kinds of people who have to suffer such attacks.

And if you don't think limiting freedom of speech can have nearly identical results on a larger scale, I suggest you learn your history a tad better.

Did you have a particular real-life example in mind? As far as I'm aware, most western societies have laws in place against race hatred.

The ministers of East Hackney find conservative ideas contemptible. We are therefore willing to engage in rational debate, based on facts, to oppose and change those ideas whenever they encounter them. We cannot, however, engage a black person in rational debate with the intention of persuading him to become white. His colour is therefore off-limits as a topic of criticism.

I appreciate that you're at least better about it than most. But while you're at it, do you plan to ban discrimination based on hair color? Myself, I don't find blondes particularly attractive; what would you plan to do about that?

Mmm. Good question. This is where we get out of principle and into pragmatism. Fact is that, despite the odd whinge to the contrary from ginger-haired people (hello, Mick Hucknall), there's no outright discrimination, publicly voiced hatred or what-have-you based on hair colour. Things like jokes you have to judge in context, not in isolation - jokes about blondes aren't indicative of anything particularly dangerous or damaging, jokes about ethnic minorities are...sometimes. Sometimes they're harmless.

Erk. As for the affirmative action thing... I'll come back to that tomorrow, my brain's failing. But it's a tangent from the original issue, anyway.

I agree, the resolution is poorly thought out and written. The best way to deal with hate groups is to beat them with knowledge, logic, and common sense, which hate lacks.

Colport proclaims to have "infinite wisdom"... maybe that's why they assume the resolution is perfect.

On a different note...

OK, I have a feeling this is turning into the new "ban nukes!" resolution...a retarded idea that pops up every few days or so.

Maybe I'm an idealist leftie hippie, but what's wrong with banning nukes? And that idea is not just a few days old. Many very real contries, cities, and areas have banned nuclear power of any kind, and are doing fine. Beautifully, even

For about seven months, banning nukes (which any rational analysis will quite clearly point out that it IS a retarded idea) was brought up every three or four days in the NS UN. Lately, the hate crime/hate group bs has been doing the same.

Well, yes. But first off let's not draw an artificial line between "the government" and "the people" - the government belongs to the people, at least in East Hackney, and if they don't want to hear these things in public it's up to them.

But do "the people" own the OTHER people, who might not care if they hear those things in public? Unless you are a proponent of slavery (which most who believe in absolutely retarded ideas such as this one are; they're simply too intellectually dishonest to admit it), then "the people" don't get to make decisions for other people or restrict their actions as long as they do not cause physical harm to the person or property of unwilling participants.

Incidentally, the notion that government--any government, regardless of its construction--is somehow synonomous with "the people" is completely absurd unless you believe, as Murray Rothbard explained it, that "any Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; instead, they must have "committed suicide," since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and, therefore, anything the government did to them was voluntary on their part.".

Now, now, I hate all people equally and without discrimination, what does this mean for me ?

:wink:

- The Rep of Komokom.

Now, now, I hate all people equally and without discrimination, what does this mean for me ?

:wink:

- The Rep of Komokom.

Well ... it makes you overly qualified to be the High Court Judge of Psychotropics :)

"This thread is open for flamebait. Now locked." Why is it when someone anti-white posts it's fine but when someone proud of who they are posts it's closed? Oppresive Liberal dictatorship is what this is.

If you don't think such attacks are destructive - and I don't just mean "upsetting", I mean causing severe psychological damage, self-mutilation and suicide, as well as provoking violence against those groups - I suggest you get out and talk to the kinds of people who have to suffer such attacks.



Honestly, Hackney, I've had such attacks((Actually several)) aimed at me and I don't find them destructive, not even upsetting. Mind I may be an exception to such a rule ((mind we're talking strictly about verbal, physical violence is out of the scope of what I will debate as it is illegal under existing law regardless)). But my own point is that just because these attacks have to potential to be harmful they also provide useful information about the people giving them as well. But this is all sort of tangent isn't it? Back to topic...


The basis of our society and most liberal democracies is rational argument and informed choice, so it makes sense to protect free speech on issues where some measure of choice can be exercised.


Exactly, someone can choose to express hateful thoughts, and at the same time we as people have the choice to listen or not to listen, question these views, or to just accept them, and to let these bigoted and possibly false views distrub us or not allow them to do so. There is conceivably a choice involved in any point in the chain of the expression of hate.


The ministers of East Hackney find conservative ideas contemptible. We are therefore willing to engage in rational debate, based on facts, to oppose and change those ideas whenever they encounter them. We cannot, however, engage a black person in rational debate with the intention of persuading him to become white. His colour is therefore off-limits as a topic of criticism.

Another point I hadn't thought of. How can one possibly attempt to engage in rational debate based on facts something which is not expressed or open forum for debate? This sorta goes with the next quote so plase take them together?


Seriously. You've seen how entrenched discussions in the forums can get. Why do you think that free speech is going to enable the shining light of reason to reach out and convert a firebombing neo-Nazi into a good citizen when what you call reason doesn't convert the considerably less dogmatic people on any given thread?

That's in itself a good point but, even if I don't convince Mr. firebombing Neo-Nazi that he is wrong, if in doing so I convince someone else that was perhaps listening that the Nazi views are not correct then something posotive has still been accomplished. If no one is listening to what you say why does it matter if you say it?


I'm not sure that really answers the issue. Allowing outright racist/sexist/homophobic/whatever groups a public platform could be argued to create a danger inasmuch as it creates a climate of hate and fear.

Well, yes it sure might. However, puts it in the public light where intelligent can be had and perchance convince enough people that the racist/sexist/homophobic/whatever platform is wrong and that they shouldn't do it.


Now, now, I hate all people equally and without discrimination, what does this mean for me ?

I have too much respect for you to answer that truthfully.

Anyway, forgive any nation name misspellings up there, I hand typed the quotes...Not to mention it is a bit after 2 in the morning where I am. Anyway let me summarize by saying that thre are many shades of light and dark resides in many many places and it is drastically important to tread creafully. And also, since we agree that it is impossible to ban a thought, we should instead put our focus and preventing the spread of those thoughts. While this may be a way of doing so, I do'nt support it for those reasons, I would rather acheive the end through education and the promotion of tolerance, as said previously by someone else and essentially myself in my first post, intolerance of intolerance is still intolerance which creates more of the problem rather than less of it.

Errm.. Addendum, that's not realy on topic so feel free to skip. Does anyone besides me find the whole thing more than a little ironic? Some of us are emphatically defending the right of people to attempt to degrade, insult, and otherwise deamean us?

"This thread is open for flamebait. Now locked." Why is it when someone anti-white posts it's fine but when someone proud of who they are posts it's closed? Oppresive Liberal dictatorship is what this is.

Huh? Where, who, when, on the what now ? :?

- The Rep of Komokom.

P.S. "Oppresive Liberal dictatorhip" ?

(Snigger, heh heh heh, yeah, okay, what-ever you say :wink: )

As old JS Mill put it, if you hand out a leaflet condemning grain prices in the high street, that's fine. If you hand it out to an group of malcontents outside the house of a grain merchant, that's another.

Slander and libel are crimes for a damn good reason: that is, they actively damage their target. Perjury's also illegal, because it damages the integrity of the legal system. Telling the wrong guy state secrets is illegal, because it damages the State. And so on. To sum up: it's legitimate to ban instances of 'free speech' in circumstances where allowing it is damaging. We consider racism particularly damaging to society in general. End of story.

That's in itself a good point but, even if I don't convince Mr. firebombing Neo-Nazi that he is wrong, if in doing so I convince someone else that was perhaps listening that the Nazi views are not correct then something posotive has still been accomplished. If no one is listening to what you say why does it matter if you say it?

And in the meantime maybe somebody else has been won over by the other guy. Ideas don't necessarily spread on the basis of rationality.

Another point I hadn't thought of. How can one possibly attempt to engage in rational debate based on facts something which is not expressed or open forum for debate?

That was precisely Hackney's point. There's no purpose to allowing racist ideals being up for debate, because the debate itself is destructive. Hatred isn't a rational standpoint; it's invective. Abuse targeted at a black man isn't meant to argue him out of being black; it's meant to hurt him.

In any case, what we ban isn't debate, but incitement. You're free to express your ideas, as long as it doesn't constitute encouraging other people to act on them. As for those who have committed crimes: we distinguish between crimes committed in the heat of passion and those committed as a result of premeditation differently, because we consider the motive behind one worse than the motive behind another. Racial hatred is no different.

Your dogma of universal tolerance is simplistic; a genuine commitment to tolerance is automatically a commitment against intolerance. Tolerance is not the same as being laissez-faire.

Inciting a riot, or a crime against people is a crime. You cannot ban a group because you think they *might* do something. That's Fascist.... and that's exactly what these anti-hate group legislations do. As I have said before... in the Koran itself it specifically states in Chapter 9: The Immunity:

9.30: And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!

And in Chapter 5: The Dinner Table:

5.33: The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement.


So according to all of the arguments defending the idea of banning hate speech or hate groups... you would have to ban Islam. By doing so you violate the freedom of religion. Our argument of universal tollerance is not simplistic.... but your arguments of limiting freedoms is fascist!

Will someone explain to me why banning neuclear weapons is bad?

Will someone explain to me why banning neuclear weapons is bad?

Well... the basic logic of why the UN nations could never do such a thing is this... the nations which are not members of the UN could still produce them... ergo the balance of power would be in the favour of rougue nations

Will someone explain to me why banning neuclear weapons is bad?

Well... the basic logic of why the UN nations could never do such a thing is this... the nations which are not members of the UN could still produce them... ergo the balance of power would be in the favour of rougue nations

Ha ha ha, and I bet every person who ever used the "It'll protect us from rogue nations attacking us with them" argument just stopped, where-ever they are, and kicked them-selves, heh heh heh. :)

- The Rep of Komokom, RMoS.

Hooray for a damn fine thread. This may surprise some readers... Ecopoeia has adopted a position somewhat contrary to that taken by East Hackney and Rehochipe.

We're very wary of 'liberal intolerance'. In Ecopoeia, freedom of speech is sacrosanct (freedom of thought is inherently beyond legislation in our view). As a starting point, one may express your views - however loathsome to others - without fear of reprisal for the act of expression itself. However, it is entirely within reason that a party that considers itself wronged/offended/slandered/abused by said expression may then have recourse to judicial process. If damage is claimed and is accepted as having been inflicted by the courts, then reprisals may follow. This being Ecopoeia, the chief punishment may be regarded by some as having to sit through endless fluffy discussions about the reasons for being nice.

We appreciate the danger of claims bottle-necking the legal system. Fortunately we are yet to experience this problem.

G Bugles: "But do "the people" own the OTHER people, who might not care if they hear those things in public? Unless you are a proponent of slavery (which most who believe in absolutely retarded ideas such as this one are; they're simply too intellectually dishonest to admit it), then "the people" don't get to make decisions for other people or restrict their actions as long as they do not cause physical harm to the person or property of unwilling participants.

I disagree that physical harm is the only aspect that should be considered here. Mental harm is an equally valid consideration. Also, if there are people who 'might not care if they hear those things in public', then they do not necessarily need to be considered when deciding whether or not to legislate on the issue. It's like an abstention vote.

Individual freedom is not boundless when it impinges on the freedoms of others. And this will always be the case.

Maya Toitovna
Speaker for Home Affairs

In practice, for instance, non-black people already have special rights over black people in that all the odds, from inherited wealth to old-boy networks to tacit racism, are already stacked their way. How can redressing those odds be racist?

I have inherited no wealth.

And as for the cards already being stacked for me for being white, I'm going to pay the full cost of a state-run college for college because I'm white.

Were I a minority, with my GPA and extra-curriculars, I would go for nearly nothing.

You cannot legislate morality. It does not work, although that doesn't seem to keep people from trying.

The US battles with abortion are a good example. Some are for it some against. With each change of government, we see some new wrinkle trying to undo what the last guy did.

You can't change people's minds by changing laws. "Laws do not persuade merely because they threaten." -Seneca

This is not unlike my 'ban racism' proposal I submitted a while back, and it seems to fail in the same ways. A lack of definition of what makes a group an 'hate group' and as was pointed out with my proposal "When does a pro-green group become an anti-red group"

The freedom of speech is an unalienable right of a person. An bill or legislation to censure will be vehemently opposed by Oggidad. Peoples right to speak is their own, no matter what a small minded sect of individuals who disagree with what they say might believe. If we accept this censureship bill, how long until we are in an orweillian nightmare, "1984" style?

Dude, what if the Nazis really were as powerful as Neo? We'd all be screwed!

That resolution makes no sense. If you hate, hate groups, then you are in essence in a hate group yourself.

The way i see it, by previously stated lack of a definition for hate group, you can't ban groups of people that oppose other groups of people. we live in a competitive world, and though some people take that too far, where do you draw the line? Rather than banning hate-groups, the penalty for hate-crimes should be increased. you can't prosecute a person for hating another person, but you can prosecute him for committing murder or assault against that person. if a jury finds that a person has committed a crime because of a prejudice or deep-seated hatred, the penalty should be more severe.

The way i see it, by previously stated lack of a definition for hate group, you can't ban groups of people that oppose other groups of people. we live in a competitive world, and though some people take that too far, where do you draw the line? Rather than banning hate-groups, the penalty for hate-crimes should be increased. you can't prosecute a person for hating another person, but you can prosecute him for committing murder or assault against that person. if a jury finds that a person has committed a crime because of a prejudice or deep-seated hatred, the penalty should be more severe.

Why ? Why is it more wrong to kill because of a prejudice as opposed to general hatred of that individual?

Why ? Why is it more wrong to kill because of a prejudice as opposed to general hatred of that individual?

While I'm uncertain that the end justifies the means, I believe the rational would be to create an extra incentive for groups inspiring, promoting, or directly sponsoring hate-violence to avoid behavior that encourages violence.

I believe the intention of this discussion is to inhibit or create a negative reinforcement type incentive for those who would seek to intimidate a *group* of individuals through violence. This attempt at marginalizing a faction _should_ be considered a separate crime. But, I believe that simply tacking on extra punishments is a completely ineffective way to solve the problem.

Perhaps, more explicit and practical measure would be to enact a resolution that restricts certain sorts of violence or fear tactics against other groups. Any sort of "hate-crime" legislation must adhere to the TYPE of violence and related activities committed. Monetary links to those who perpetrated acts (if there is a relation to a violence supporting group--if a branch of Islam, neo-nazis, KKK, christian conservatives, whatever supports violent activities, their activities should be monitored and policed--violence is INEXCUSABLE.)

In many ways, it is compatible with much anti-terrorism legislation. The wording of such would have to be extremely precise for the Jovian states to approve, however, as the long-term ramifications of imprecisely worded legislation could prove catastrophic.

For what it's worth, it is arguable that ALL killings are hate crimes. Most crimes are perpetrated more easily if the individual _committing_ the act has a negative perception of the victim.

(Example: In most wars, nations usually make a concerted effort through information disemination to dehumanize the opposing nation's people to lower one's own soldier's natural inhibitions to killing.) In general, a perp MUST have a dehumanized perception (prejudice) to commit an act of extreme violence against a victim.

On increasing punishment for 'hate crimes' -- Reason no effective incentive! Therefore legislation is useless.
Punishment, shouldn't necessarily be increased for the individuals who perpetrate a crime (the punishment for murder is usually maximally stringent--you can't kill a person more than once (if death penalty applies) and how much legitimacy do 2 back to back life sentences really have in the context of the fact that one lives but a single life).

Ultimately, when making a proposal, one must consider the effect of the legislation and whether it will have the desired result.

Why ? Why is it more wrong to kill because of a prejudice as opposed to general hatred of that individual?

While I'm uncertain that the end justifies the means, I believe the rational would be to create an extra incentive for groups inspiring, promoting, or directly sponsoring hate-violence to avoid behavior that encourages violence.

I believe the intention of this discussion is to inhibit or create a negative reinforcement type incentive for those who would seek to intimidate a *group* of individuals through violence. This attempt at marginalizing a faction _should_ be considered a separate crime. But, I believe that simply tacking on extra punishments is a completely ineffective way to solve the problem.

Perhaps, more explicit and practical measure would be to enact a resolution that restricts certain sorts of violence or fear tactics against other groups. Any sort of "hate-crime" legislation must adhere to the TYPE of violence and related activities committed. Monetary links to those who perpetrated acts (if there is a relation to a violence supporting group--if a branch of Islam, neo-nazis, KKK, christian conservatives, whatever supports violent activities, their activities should be monitored and policed--violence is INEXCUSABLE.)

In many ways, it is compatible with much anti-terrorism legislation. The wording of such would have to be extremely precise for the Jovian states to approve, however, as the long-term ramifications of imprecisely worded legislation could prove catastrophic.

For what it's worth, it is arguable that ALL killings are hate crimes. Most crimes are perpetrated more easily if the individual _committing_ the act has a negative perception of the victim.

(Example: In most wars, nations usually make a concerted effort through information disemination to dehumanize the opposing nation's people to lower one's own soldier's natural inhibitions to killing.) In general, a perp MUST have a dehumanized perception (prejudice) to commit an act of extreme violence against a victim.

On increasing punishment for 'hate crimes' -- Reason no effective incentive! Therefore legislation is useless.
Punishment, shouldn't necessarily be increased for the individuals who perpetrate a crime (the punishment for murder is usually maximally stringent--you can't kill a person more than once (if death penalty applies) and how much legitimacy do 2 back to back life sentences really have in the context of the fact that one lives but a single life).

Ultimately, when making a proposal, one must consider the effect of the legislation and whether it will have the desired result.

it's unjust

Hate is unneccesary but mandatory part of a society. We should onyl discourage them, yet people are free to choose

Bootai-Bootai gives its full support to this poorly-written, purile, extremely vague bill that can be applied to whatever group expresses an opinion on everything. To enforce this bill, we will release a happy drug into our atmosphere that forces everyone to think only happy thoughts (and, as a side effect, renders bovine impotent.)

Bootai-Bootai gives its full support to this poorly-written, purile, extremely vague bill that can be applied to whatever group expresses an opinion on everything. To enforce this bill, we will release a happy drug into our atmosphere that forces everyone to think only happy thoughts (and, as a side effect, renders bovine impotent.)