NationStates Jolt Archive

So, I've been hearing about various EU policy considerations, namely concerning the swastika and the possibility that it might be banned. And, so I've heard some of the various arguements relating to it, and I really don't like the concept of such behavior.

As such, I think a useful method to figure out a reason for or against such a symbol and the abolition thereof, I have decided to create something that lacks any emotional attachment.

What I'd like to do is start a thread where, using a hypothetical symbol, I made it in paint, and we'll call it the Kriesmond. Why? Because it's a nice arbitrary name.

http://img192.exs.cx/img192/8595/kriesmond7ir.jpg <-Kriesmond

The Kriesmond is associated with various vague negative connotations, yadda yadda yadda. Whatever you view to be vague, negative connotations, that's what the people who used the Kriesmond did.

So, here goes, convince me.

*pops some popcorn*
*sits back and waits for the show to start*

This'll be good.

Oh no... Oh god, no...

While we're here... Can I have some popcorn?

Oh no... Oh god, no...

While we're here... Can I have some popcorn?
sure, I'm trying to see something...

So, I've been hearing about various EU policy considerations, namely concerning the swastika and the possibility that it might be banned. And, so I've heard some of the various arguements relating to it, and I really don't like the concept of such behavior.


What I'd like to do is start a thread where, using a hypothetical symbol, I made it in paint, and we'll call it the Kriesmond. Why? Because it's a nice arbitrary name.

http://img192.exs.cx/img192/8595/kriesmond7ir.jpg <-Kriesmond

The Kriesmond is associated with various vague negative connotations, yadda yadda yadda. Whatever you view to be vague, negative connotations, that's what the people who used the Kriesmond did.

So, here goes, convince me.
If said kriesmond, upon being displayed, rallied with, and celebrated, by said users, evoked such strong feelings in minorities and the general population and explicitly recalled the negative occcurances that acompanied its rise to popularity to such a degree that serious societal discord, and even violence were threatened, then I would say that some sort of restriction on its use would be justified.

Of course, in the case of the swastika, the "vague negative connotations" you speak of were the murder of millions of innocent people and a totalitarian regime of brutality. And in many countries in the EU, the groups using it are indeed hate-filled and violent, so I think that restrictions, if not a total ban, are not outside the realm of reasonable government regulation.

If said kriesmond, upon being displayed, rallied with, and celebrated, by said users, evoked such strong feelings in minorities and the general population and explicitly recalled the negative occcurances that acompanied its rise to popularity to such a degree that serious societal discord, and even violence were threatened, then I would say that some sort of restriction on its use would be justified.

So, if most of the people vehemently don't like it, then ban it? Wouldn't said groups rally anyways? Or would you bar them from rallying as well? How far are you willing to go? Perhaps keep the people who hold such beliefs on watch lists? After all, this is in the name of public safety and the general peace.

And if violence is a potential result why not just interpose police between the two groups (in the event of a protest) or punish those who commit said crimes, and not just ban a symbol?

And, for the purposes of this debate, please leave real world symbols out of your descriptions, although, if you want to equivocate said symbol with they Kriesmond, you can just do it in your head.

So, if most of the people vehemently don't like it, then ban it? Wouldn't said groups rally anyways? Or would you bar them from rallying as well? How far are you willing to go? Perhaps keep the people who hold such beliefs on watch lists? After all, this is in the name of public safety and the general peace.

And if violence is a potential result why not just interpose police between the two groups (in the event of a protest) or punish those who commit said crimes, and not just ban a symbol?
Valid points, all; I'm really not sure. It seems to me that huge rallies of Kriesmond-weilders on a particular sensetive day, in front of a particularly sensetive location, border on hate-crime, and should be....well, I dunno, not encouraged.
The question is whether the existing laws concerning incitement of hate are sufficient to deal with the dubious symbol-weilders. If their actions are explicit enough to constitute an offence under existing laws, than they should clearly be prosecuted individually, but should they be allowed to exist as groups with said dubious motives in the 1st place? Initially, I'd be inclined to say no on a moral level (personal predjudice included) but on a pragmatic level, maybe I'd be inclined to say freedom of speech, right to congregate, and leave it at that. Tough

perhaps the more important question is should it ever be illegal to hold and publicly admit to holding a set of views... provided of course you don't commit illegal acts based on those views.

Valid points, all; I'm really not sure. It seems to me that huge rallies of Kriesmond-weilders on a particular sensetive day, in front of a particularly sensetive location, border on hate-crime, and should be....well, I dunno, not encouraged.
The question is whether the existing laws concerning incitement of hate are sufficient to deal with the dubious symbol-weilders. If their actions are explicit enough to constitute an offence under existing laws, than they should clearly be prosecuted individually, but should they be allowed to exist as groups with said dubious motives in the 1st place? Initially, I'd be inclined to say no on a moral level (personal predjudice included) but on a pragmatic level, maybe I'd be inclined to say freedom of speech, right to congregate, and leave it at that. Tough
Starting to see my point...at least in a way...

I'll toss out another point

Okay, let's say that someday in the future the a group that comes to power finds the symbol associated with your group to be offensive. Your group has never actually done anything wrong, but this group still finds your symbol to be offensive. This group, using the precedent of the Kriesmond, which is admittedly a despicable symbol, bans the symbol of your group in the name of public peace.

perhaps the more important question is should it ever be illegal to hold and publicly admit to holding a set of views... provided of course you don't commit illegal acts based on those views.
Basically, we're deciding if publicly proffessing those views in blantant enough a way constitutes acting on those views, and thus be prosecutable (word?) or if they actually need to deface something, kill someone, or whatever, before being noticed by the legal system

Basically, we're deciding if publicly proffessing those views in blantant enough a way constitutes acting on those views, and thus be prosecutable (word?) or if they actually need to deface something, kill someone, or whatever, before being noticed by the legal system
I for one believe that once someone does the actual acts of killing, defacing, whatever, then the full force of law enforcement should come crashing down on them.

But I really don't see why we should restrict someone's beliefs like that. The precedent set is dangerous.

I for one believe that once someone does the actual acts of killing, defacing, whatever, then the full force of law enforcement should come crashing down on them.

But I really don't see why we should restrict someone's beliefs like that. The precedent set is dangerous.
I definately see that the precedent could be restricting and open the door to all sorts of political corectness suits, until we were copletely sterilized of distinguishing symbols; however there's a definate difference between some group claiming to find my sybmbol offensive and a symbol with concrete historical context being actively used to re-ignite those same sentiments. That distinction can be legislated, can't it?

To be honest, I'm not the best person to debate this with, I tend to be convinced pretty easily if someone's arguments make sense and are written in good English. And this issueis always so ambiguous in my mind, I tend to go back and forth on it. Somebody come help!!