NationStates Jolt Archive

I understand that these days the notion of 'patriotism' is pretty much unfashionable in most countries in the West (certainly in Europe) and it puzzles me as to why? European countries have a great deal to be proud of and it does not make sense to me, as an historian (University of Nottingham, MA), as to why European countries refuse to preserve a sense of admiration for their past?

This is particularly true in Germany and the UK, I have found. Ever since 1997 there has been a very racially/politically correct biased on learning which has meant the 'British Empire' is presented in a light which is even more anti-imperialistic than it would be in the USA or Ireland. It really is strange, and in my opinion ridiculous that people overlook the positive sides of something and say "In today's trendy modern world it's just bad". I'm not saying the Empire was good, just that it clearly wasn't all bad. It just seems really ingnorant to me! Germany seems to he ashamed of its past (especially the Nazis) to extent which it doesn't even teach the period properly in schools? I mean what it is? Surely the 'shame' felt by a few people in government is not felt by everyone? Surely this is eroding away the benefits of an education?

I suppose my question isn't just about the recession of patriotism, but why it is that we're not 'expected' to be patriotic outside a football match without someone having a bit of a tantrum. In the USA, you're allowed to fly your flag so why are you not in England without being branded a racist?

Why has this all happened?

for some nations, such as germany, it can be that they are ashamed of their past. also, with the EU, some countries are kind of cautious to do so, in that they might look anti-european. another is that, with the image percieved by the rest of the world, they dont want to look like america is.

So people just like where they live....

It isn't much (Recently) to pround about being british... Except being current World Rugby champions...

So people just like where they live....

It isn't much (Recently) to pround about being british... Except being current World Rugby champions...

Hmm, you see that's what I mean. People forget what great things the country has done in the past. How good its military is, that it's the seat of parliamentary democracy etc. People have been engineered by their educations, I think.

Except being current World Rugby champions...
I wont go there....

*dons the wallaby jersy*

The british Empire was a great achievement yes.

But I'm not pround. We Wiped out the aboringines (Sp?) in Australia, and murder Thousands of natives, exploited the Slave trade...

It was a shamefull time. Our wealth was built on the blood of innocent people...

I wont go there....

*dons the wallaby jersy*

That is a true fact though...

Hmm, you see that's what I mean. People forget what great things the country has done in the past. How good its military is, that it's the seat of parliamentary democracy etc. People have been engineered by their educations, I think.
i am an australian, and i am proud to be an australian. that being said, i dont go on and on about how good australia is, because i am respectful not to ram it down other peoples throats. the last time a nation was driven by so much patriotism was germany in the 1930's, and a BBC head was fired for comparing the current level of patriotism in america to it.

The british Empire was a great achievement yes.

But I'm not pround. We Wiped out the aboringines (Sp?) in Australia, and murder Thousands of natives, exploited the Slave trade...

It was a shamefull time. Our wealth was built on the blood of innocent people...

We wipes them out? I believe the Australians did. We murdered thousands of Natives, but our Imperialism was comparitively kind especially when you look at the French model. We didn't 'murder' them, it's called war. Plus, the Americans had more slaves than us and abolished it long after...could be argued they were the ones who sustained the trade through supply and demand.

i am an australian, and i am proud to be an australian. that being said, i dont go on and on about how good australia is, because i am respectful not to ram it down other peoples throats. the last time a nation was driven by so much patriotism was germany in the 1930's, and a BBC head was fired for comparing the current level of patriotism in america to it.

Yes, you can go too far...but I hate this thing of being ashamed of one's country. Plus, the BBC is controlled by the government. Blair is an unusual case, and he abuses his power...so he fired the BBC head for speaking something along the lines of the truth. That's Blair being an idiot for you.

We wipes them out? I believe the Australians did. We murdered thousands of Natives, but our Imperialism was comparitively kind especially when you look at the French model. We didn't 'murder' them, it's called war. Plus, the Americans had more slaves than us and abolished it long after...could be argued they were the ones who sustained the trade through supply and demand.
that would be the the first 'australians', who were still british subjects.
history lesson: Australia didn't actually become a country till 1901.

that would be the the first 'australians', who were still british subjects.
history lesson: Australia didn't actually become a country till 1901.

I believe it was going on until way after 1901, up until the 1960s wasn't it? Similar to America...and I believe racism is still rampant and 'abboes' as they are affectionately called are second class citizens

I believe it was going on until way after 1901, up until the 1960s wasn't it? Similar to America...and I believe racism is still rampant and 'abboes' as they are affectionately called are second class citizens
yes, there was the 'stolen generation' issue, where aboriginal babies were taken from their families. but then again, it wasnt as bad as the spanish in south america. i generally think that people are patriotic, hell some immigrants to here still carry out their ethnic wars, it is just that not everyone is 'in your face' about it. i mean, here, you dont really see it till you have sporting compertions. then, you can tell which are the aussie supporters by the most hated cry in the world ;)

yes, there was the 'stolen generation' issue, where aboriginal babies were taken from their families. but then again, it wasnt as bad as the spanish in south america. i generally think that people are patriotic, hell some immigrants to here still carry out their ethnic wars, it is just that not everyone is 'in your face' about it. i mean, here, you dont really see it till you have sporting compertions. then, you can tell which are the aussie supporters by the most hated cry in the world ;)

Who actually cares about sport anyway? How is it important?

Het, I can't even say my nation is great. :rolleyes:

i am an australian, and i am proud to be an australian. that being said, i dont go on and on about how good australia is, because i am respectful not to ram it down other peoples throats. the last time a nation was driven by so much patriotism was germany in the 1930's, and a BBC head was fired for comparing the current level of patriotism in america to it.

That may be because the comparison is inaccurate, not some deep-dark-conspiracy. Patriotism seems higher, because of all the media glitz attatched to it... but compared with earlier periods last century (particularly the 1940's through to around 1964) Patriotism in America is still lower than previously demonstrated.
The current "Flag Fad" can be compared to 1976 during the Bicentennial-it's a great big shallow fad. ONLY 52% of voters approved the current administration.
By way of comparison, Hitler's administration enjoyed a much broader and more deeply entrenched support (He never had to stand directly for elections-his party had to DOMINATE the Reichstag for him to hold the Chancellorship-that's "Utter Dominance" without dissidence. Even Republicans dissent and hold different views than the RNC.)

One of the things you have to remember, is that a lot of people still feel guilty about the treatment American Soldiers were given when they returned from Vietnam during the early 1970's-it was quite bad enough for them to be sent somewhere by a leadership that had no intention of letting them succeed (LBJ used modern communications to issue direct orders to Platoon Leaders from the white-house. That much central oversight is bad if you're fighting just about anyone, and worse if you're up against insurgents), combined with a basic betrayal of faith by said government (Agent Orange, "Expanding" the draft to include people of... lesser intelligence), capped with a humiliating defeat (americans don't like losing). Only to come home to protestors that treat you like an animal or a monster, employers that won't hire "War Criminals" (even though you weren't a Lt. Calley or other thug) and a media that portrays you as a borderline psychopath for having been unlucky enough to be sent.

So...is there cultural guilt that's being compensated for? Hell yeah there is! The "Flag Waving" is skin-deep in America. By contrast, the Nazis Pwnd the German People in overwhelming numbers-to the point that they were willing to send their underage sons to fight for the Fuhrer (Hitler Youth formations were present, and fought fanatically, in France during Operation Overlord and Market Garden).

After the War, and the Nuremburg trials, the German people "Woke Up" and realized they'd been supporting a monster who destroyed their country and corrupted their culture. Of COURSE they're ashamed! Any rational person would be.

I think the original question here needs closer examination, however-a LOT of Brits are NOT unpatriotic-they love their nation just fine, even if they disagree with their current Leaders, and several times, I've come across news items of British citizens resisting laws meant to facilitate assimilation into the Franco-German Economic Hegemony (also known as the European Union), including greengrocers who insist on using "Imperial" standards even while Metric measurements are mandated By LAW. You don't find Patriotism in large doses anywhere but in front of a camera. It's little things. Most people have better things to idolize their time with than Rallys, Parades, or other, worthless, crap.

Patriots do not support Leaders-that's Sycophants that do that, they Love their Country, warts and all, and the best of them try to change things without destroying it. By that standard, I think you would find it hard to locate unpatriotic Europeans outside of a few University Think-Tanks, Weird Political Parties, and possibly the Parlaiments...possibly.

I understand that these days the notion of 'patriotism' is pretty much unfashionable in most countries in the West (certainly in Europe) and it puzzles me as to why? European countries have a great deal to be proud of and it does not make sense to me, as an historian (University of Nottingham, MA), as to why European countries refuse to preserve a sense of admiration for their past?

This is particularly true in Germany and the UK, I have found. Ever since 1997 there has been a very racially/politically correct biased on learning which has meant the 'British Empire' is presented in a light which is even more anti-imperialistic than it would be in the USA or Ireland. It really is strange, and in my opinion ridiculous that people overlook the positive sides of something and say "In today's trendy modern world it's just bad". I'm not saying the Empire was good, just that it clearly wasn't all bad. It just seems really ingnorant to me! Germany seems to he ashamed of its past (especially the Nazis) to extent which it doesn't even teach the period properly in schools? I mean what it is? Surely the 'shame' felt by a few people in government is not felt by everyone? Surely this is eroding away the benefits of an education?

I suppose my question isn't just about the recession of patriotism, but why it is that we're not 'expected' to be patriotic outside a football match without someone having a bit of a tantrum. In the USA, you're allowed to fly your flag so why are you not in England without being branded a racist?

Why has this all happened?

It is a mystery to me only, being one of the few patriotic Britons left in my country. The only national thing everyone supports is the bloody football team and as we all know English football is a sport for yobs, played by yobs and watched by yobs.

Your point about the St.George flag is quite true (althoug I myself am a Briitsh patriot rather than an English one) - I heard a tale on the radio about how a pub was froced by the brewery to do St. Patricks Day celebrations (depite the fact that no one was Irish) but yet the same brewery forbade St.George's Day celebrations because it was seen as 'nationalistic'.

Unfortunately in Europe the politcally correct brigade have so much influence in government they can effectively quash any active patriotic sentiment from either the government or official events.

I think patriotism is a bizarre, unlogic thing.

Just because I've been accidentally born in a certain country I have to love it highly and wave its flag (which is another bizarre thing) and sings hymns over it?

I think not.

I could have been born somewhere else. That makes me better why? I have to be proud of what? Something that happened long before I was born? I wasn't involved, so why would I be proud of it? It's not my merit that certain things in the past of my country have happened. I have no reason to be proud of it.

It's bizarre.

The country I was born in is just... a country. One of many. It's already a pretty abstract thing. I like where I live, but I could live some 400 kilometers northwest, and I think I'd still like it, even though I wouldn't be in "my" country anymore. But being proud? Oh please...

Bizarre.

The british Empire was a great achievement yes.

But I'm not pround. We Wiped out the aboringines (Sp?) in Australia, and murder Thousands of natives, exploited the Slave trade...

It was a shamefull time. Our wealth was built on the blood of innocent people...

And your problem with that is............

Of course we did, but we also severed the slave trade, saved the world from Nazi Germany, and Imperialist Germany in two world wars. We brought countless inventions into the world including the industrial revolution, in my opinion the Empire has done far more good to the world than evil. But I have no morals so meh.

Who actually cares about sport anyway? How is it important?
i think it is because the players represent their country, on an international level. it is kind of like going to war, so to speak, to prove which country is best, and it can bring out a large amount of patriotism. hell, some countries have gone to war because of a sporting compertition.

(Well, for the Brits to be proud anyway)

1: The steam engine
2: Iron
3: Penicillin

However, although I am quite patriotic, I don't think any of the above are DIRECTLY related to the UK. Someone else would have got there eventually if we hadn't. But we were first! (So there!)

Patriotism doesn't give you something back. So why bother? If I want to piss off some people from another country I start praising mine - nice concept NOT.

one thing aussies can be proud of: the fridge!

(Well, for the Brits to be proud anyway)

1: The steam engine
2: Iron
3: Penicillin

However, although I am quite patriotic, I don't think any of the above are DIRECTLY related to the UK. Someone else would have got there eventually if we hadn't. But we were first! (So there!)

Empire, Language, Literature, Parliamentary Democracy...need I go on?

To me it's more interesting to consider if we can be patriotic and agree that the way forward is to have one state world.

I really think the main problem with the world IS that there hasn't ever been one huge country. Patriotism could lead to nationalism if its taken too far.

Empire, Language, Literature, Parliamentary Democracy...need I go on?

First programmable computer too :D

Empire, Language, Literature, Parliamentary Democracy...need I go on?
i find the one in bold kind of interesting since they dont spell most words the same as most of the english-speaking world.

I really think the main problem with the world IS that there hasn't ever been one huge country. Patriotism could lead to nationalism if its taken too far.
i think that could be where the problem lies. most of europe is in a transitional phase atm from individual nations to European.

As I have already stated, I am British and I am fervently proud of the British Empire and its liberal attempts to spread civilisation around the world. It is probably one of the few empires in the history of man kind that actually used its time in control to improve the lives of natives.

British people have a lot to be proud of.

As I have already stated, I am British and I am fervently proud of the British Empire and its liberal attempts to spread civilisation around the world. It is probably one of the few empires in the history of man kind that actually used its time in control to improve the lives of natives.

British people have a lot to be proud of.

But we raped, pillaged, and tortured too, we were very nasty to allot of natives, BR PROUD!

*mutters insults at the Boers*

I understand that these days the notion of 'patriotism' is pretty much unfashionable in most countries in the West (certainly in Europe) and it puzzles me as to why? European countries have a great deal to be proud of and it does not make sense to me, as an historian (University of Nottingham, MA), as to why European countries refuse to preserve a sense of admiration for their past?

This is particularly true in Germany and the UK, I have found. Ever since 1997 there has been a very racially/politically correct biased on learning which has meant the 'British Empire' is presented in a light which is even more anti-imperialistic than it would be in the USA or Ireland. It really is strange, and in my opinion ridiculous that people overlook the positive sides of something and say "In today's trendy modern world it's just bad". I'm not saying the Empire was good, just that it clearly wasn't all bad. It just seems really ingnorant to me! Germany seems to he ashamed of its past (especially the Nazis) to extent which it doesn't even teach the period properly in schools? I mean what it is? Surely the 'shame' felt by a few people in government is not felt by everyone? Surely this is eroding away the benefits of an education?

I suppose my question isn't just about the recession of patriotism, but why it is that we're not 'expected' to be patriotic outside a football match without someone having a bit of a tantrum. In the USA, you're allowed to fly your flag so why are you not in England without being branded a racist?

Why has this all happened?
I dunno about the UK. But in Germany our beloved 68er elites try and make it look like German history starts in 1933. If somebody steps out of line they are branded as extreme-right and anti-democratic by default. Most people however stopped believing the propaganda. Thats why they come up with new laws to suppress it on a nearly annual basis.

That's the basic concept of patriotism: I am proud of my country, other's are proud of their country but I have more reasons to be proud of mine.

Our wealth was built on the blood of innocent people...
Show me one civilization, any civilization, that got wealthy without conquest and bloodshed.

Show me one civilization, any civilization, that got wealthy without conquest and bloodshed.

Switzerland.

Perhaps is one of the many stages of maturity?

Realizing that all of their pride and power achieved only misery and conflict will make all SANE people shrink back, turn inward, and focus on keeping themselves and their loved ones happy.

Once they re-learn what it is to live simply and well, they can extend themselves once again into the world, this time as a partner, not a conquerer.

The old saying "Pride cometh before the fall." comes to mind. Those who are blinded by pride and arrogance stumble into problems. Those who spend all of their time looking up tend to trip on things. European caution and patriotism reflect their shared past and experiences, and how they chose to deal with their own mistakes.

Switzerland.
Sorry. But even the Swiss conquered territories.
http://history-switzerland.geschichte-schweiz.ch/
Look at 1291-1515.

Show me one civilization, any civilization, that got wealthy without conquest and bloodshed.
Luxembourg.

Switzerland.
good answer

Sorry. But even the Swiss conquered territories.
http://history-switzerland.geschichte-schweiz.ch/
Look at 1291-1515.

Yes, and Switzerland got wealthy and rich by conquering them. :rolleyes:

Luxembourg.
Luxemburg was a great power in the 1300's. Their rulers were counts of Brandenburg, kings of Bohemia, emperors of Germany. And we know how peacefull that period was.

Hmm, you see that's what I mean. People forget what great things the country has done in the past. How good its military is, that it's the seat of parliamentary democracy etc. People have been engineered by their educations, I think.

you shouldnt be proud of having a good military. if a murderer came up to you and said "look at me! ive killed an entire city of people!" you wouldnt congratulate him, would you? the ability to kill lots of people at once isnt a good thing.

to be patriotic you need to be proud of everything your country had done. you cant select bits of history to be proud of and forget everything else, it doesnt make sense.

The concept of patriotism in Europe has been deluded a bit by:

a) Our long history: We have been here for so long, done so much, that we don't think about our nations that much.. we take our nationality and culture for granted, earned and hard fought throught the ages.

b) Europe is going, well, European. That generates a bit of a division, at least for pro-Europeans like me: Should i be a Portuguese Patriot and support the EU because it will be good to my nation, or should i be a EU Patriot, because the EU will be good to my nation? Its a loophole.

c) We are fairly peaceful and democratic, there is no need to appeal to the national pride to win something else than a soccer match, because we havent fought in anything lately that was worth it.. i mean, after two world wars, current conflicts just seem small brawls, not worth being patriotic about.

Let's just ask more precisely: Which civilization/nation got rich and wealthy without mass-slaughtering civilians in the name of their nation? :)

I am patriotic, but I'm not British: I'm ENGLISH!!!!

"I vow to thee my country", or "Land of hope and glory" should be our national anthem though.

We wipes them out? I believe the Australians did. We murdered thousands of Natives, but our Imperialism was comparitively kind especially when you look at the French model. We didn't 'murder' them, it's called war. Plus, the Americans had more slaves than us and abolished it long after...could be argued they were the ones who sustained the trade through supply and demand.


We stopped the slave trade because it stopped being profitable.

The Australians around this tome were practically British anyway.

As I have already stated, I am British and I am fervently proud of the British Empire and its liberal attempts to spread civilisation around the world. It is probably one of the few empires in the history of man kind that actually used its time in control to improve the lives of natives.

British people have a lot to be proud of.

You call gunning down thousands of Zulu's with maxium guns, when they are trying to defend there freedom 'an improvement'?

Or when India decided it didn't want to be ruled by Britain, and revolted, so the British wiped whole towns an improvement?

I am patriotic, but I'm not British: I'm ENGLISH!!!!

"I vow to thee my country", or "Land of hope and glory" should be our national anthem though.

True

You call gunning down thousands of Zulu's with maxium guns, when they are trying to defend there freedom 'an improvement'?

Or when India decided it didn't want to be ruled by Britain, and revolted, so the British wiped whole towns an improvement?

Without wishing to start too big a row, Indian development ground to a halt once we left, it's only been the last 5 years that they have really got going.

Remember, while we were there we kept the peace in the (now) pakistan border region, the fights were going on before we turned up.

You call gunning down thousands of Zulu's with maxium guns, when they are trying to defend there freedom 'an improvement'?

Or when India decided it didn't want to be ruled by Britain, and revolted, so the British wiped whole towns an improvement?

Poor child. Mind has clearly been effected by the liberal and socialist propaganda of the 1960s that did portray the Empire as evil. Fortunately more modern studies have revealed this not to be the case.

Very well, but the fact is India didn't want to be taken over.

Our only motives were Money, and spreading Christianity.

We acheived this by destroying tradition believes, theft, murder and unfair trade.

'I'll trade 5 beads for that slave'
'What a bargain!'

Poor child. Mind has clearly been effected by the liberal and socialist propaganda of the 1960s that did portray the Empire as evil. Fortunately more modern studies have revealed this not to be the case.

No it hasn't...

It happened.

We stopped some evils, and started Worse ones.

Let's just ask more precisely: Which civilization/nation got rich and wealthy without mass-slaughtering civilians in the name of their nation? :)

America really didn't slaughter massive amounts of civilians... in comparison to how how the other dominant world powers achieved their power.

You could argue the slave trade was a slaughter, but that doesn't hold much water, because there is no economic logic to "mass slaughter" of free workers. (I'm not justifying it, just answering the question)

Another arguement would be the A-bomb, but America was already "rich and wealthy" during World War II. I believe it had the largest GDP per capita by 1910, before WW I.

In Europe this pride usually take the form of nationalism, and in the past we have fought two world wars over such foolish notions. There is no reason to bring it back, unless of course you want the armies of darkness to roam the earth once more.

Patriotism is the virtue of the wicked.

I am patriotic, but I'm not British: I'm ENGLISH!!!!

"I vow to thee my country", or "Land of hope and glory" should be our national anthem though.

I was born in England but I dont call myself English. I prefer to be British becuase it means you belong to a far greater thing. Britain could never achieved what it did if England was just there - without the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish, England would have been another two bit, measely seperatist state. Pretty much the way its heading now, if people like you and the Welsh/Scottish nationalists get their way. Then we'll be an island of two bit states, none of whom will do half as well as when we were all united.

America really didn't slaughter massive amounts of civilians... in comparison to how how the other dominant world powers achieved their power.

You could argue the slave trade was a slaughter, but that doesn't hold much water, because there is no economic logic to "mass slaughter" of free workers. (I'm not justifying it, just answering the question)

Another arguement would be the A-bomb, but America was already "rich and wealthy" during World War II. I believe it had the largest GDP per capita by 1910, before WW I.

So your ignoring the money brought in by europe before the war?

America really didn't slaughter massive amounts of civilians... in comparison to how how the other dominant world powers achieved their power.

You could argue the slave trade was a slaughter, but that doesn't hold much water, because there is no economic logic to "mass slaughter" of free workers. (I'm not justifying it, just answering the question)

Another arguement would be the A-bomb, but America was already "rich and wealthy" during World War II. I believe it had the largest GDP per capita by 1910, before WW I.

OMG!!!

How about the Native americans????!!!!

No it hasn't...

It happened.

We stopped some evils, and started Worse ones.

Yes it has. Believe me, read some modern books on the subject and cleanse your mind of such foolish notions. I would recommend Dr. Fergusons Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World as an excellent, wide minded approach to the Empire.

[i]

After the War, and the Nuremburg trials, the German people "Woke Up" and realized they'd been supporting a monster who destroyed their country and corrupted their culture. Of COURSE they're ashamed! Any rational person would be.



I don't think that is entirely correct.
True, the German people "woke up" after the war, they were told the truth about their former government and were shown the cruelties (people were forced to visit concentration Camps and so on), but I don't think too many of them felt ashamed.
They were deeply shocked and to some extend traumatised but the majority didn't relate to what they saw and heard. Somebody else had been doing that, not they themselves. They soon came to see themselves as victims of the same system, forced to obey orders and to do as they were told without asking too many questions.
When you talk to Germans from the war generation, this is what you will hear most of the time. Very very few are taking responsibility.
It actually is the first post-war generation that started asking questions, that wanted to know what had happened and how it the German people and the rest of the world could let it happen, how it could have been prevented... but I never found shame in any of them either. They are of course not proud of their past and tend to feel uneasy about patriotism, but they themselves can't be blamed for anything, they weren't even born yet.
I finished school in Germany in 1995, and I can tell you that the nazi period was taught extensively and very objectively.
My own generation tends to feel detached from this period of time. It happened before our parents were born. It was incredibly terrible and horrifying, but to us - to me - it shows of what artrocities humans are possible, it is not restricted to Germany.
Although I find it very hard to cope with the fact that I don't know what either of my grandfathers were doing during the war. They took loving care of me when I was a child, but I will never know if they were mass-murderers.

I'm not ashamed for being German, but I don't see why I should be proud of a bunch of people who happened to be born in the same place and talk the same language. To be honest, I never quite understood the concept of pariotism

Norwegians are a bit patriotic, I suppose. We decorate our Christmas trees with flags, which shocks my English boyfriend. :) Every 17th of May all the children in Norway parade with flags. (http://www.kalvag.no/Kalvag%2017%20mai%201.jpg). I think this is nice, and much nicer than military parades, as many countries have on their national day. I never thought of it as being patriotic, but I suppose it is... We are proud of our mountains and friendly culture... we're a bit worried to be patriotic though, it's not seen as polite, I think. :)

Yes it has. Believe me, read some modern books on the subject and cleanse your mind of such foolish notions. I would recommend Dr. Fergusons Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World as an excellent, wide minded approach to the Empire.

It did do good, yes.

But At what cost?

I advise you to read on book on how the British Empire acheived these changes.

I understand that these days the notion of 'patriotism' is pretty much unfashionable in most countries in the West (certainly in Europe) and it puzzles me as to why? European countries have a great deal to be proud of and it does not make sense to me, as an historian (University of Nottingham, MA), as to why European countries refuse to preserve a sense of admiration for their past?

This is particularly true in Germany and the UK, I have found. Ever since 1997 there has been a very racially/politically correct biased on learning which has meant the 'British Empire' is presented in a light which is even more anti-imperialistic than it would be in the USA or Ireland. It really is strange, and in my opinion ridiculous that people overlook the positive sides of something and say "In today's trendy modern world it's just bad". I'm not saying the Empire was good, just that it clearly wasn't all bad. It just seems really ingnorant to me! Germany seems to he ashamed of its past (especially the Nazis) to extent which it doesn't even teach the period properly in schools? I mean what it is? Surely the 'shame' felt by a few people in government is not felt by everyone? Surely this is eroding away the benefits of an education?

I suppose my question isn't just about the recession of patriotism, but why it is that we're not 'expected' to be patriotic outside a football match without someone having a bit of a tantrum. In the USA, you're allowed to fly your flag so why are you not in England without being branded a racist?

Why has this all happened?

As a historian I would have thought you would try to maintain an objective viewpoint rather than being skewed by patriotism.



If you want people everywhere to be as patriotic as they are in the USA, you're going to be disappointed. I would say that the USA is the exception rather than the rule these days. They have patriotism rammed down their throats on a daily basis from a very early age, almost like some kind of psychotic dictator would do, so it's not surprising that they are patriotic. Or, as I like to call it, 'insanely patriotic'.
People in European countries are not compelled to do so, though. I think people in the UK are more patriotic than you give them credit, though.

But my question, is why is it particularly important to be 'proud' of your country? There is no need for it in modern times. Countries are just political boundaries with a flag in the middle. It's the people inside them who accomplish things.

As a historian I would have thought you would try to maintain an objective viewpoint rather than being skewed by patriotism.



If you want people everywhere to be as patriotic as they are in the USA, you're going to be disappointed. I would say that the USA is the exception rather than the rule these days. They have patriotism rammed down their throats on a daily basis from a very early age, almost like some kind of psychotic dictator would do, so it's not surprising that they are patriotic. Or, as I like to call it, 'insanely patriotic'.
People in European countries are not compelled to do so, though. I think people in the UK are more patriotic than you give them credit, though.

But my question, is why is it particularly important to be 'proud' of your country? There is no need for it in modern times. Countries are just political boundaries with a flag in the middle. It's the people inside them who accomplish things.

One of the very few things I admire about America is the patriotic attitude they have. They need to have something like that here in Britain - history lessons based on British history, saluting the British flag in registration etc etc.

Could anybody just define patriotism? Is it just flag waving and anthem singing? Or do you have to be convinced that your country ist the best in the world and tell that everybody else, whether they want to hear it or not? Or are we talking I'm-willing-to-die-for-my-country-no-questions-asked-partiotism?

One of the very few things I admire about America is the patriotic attitude they have. They need to have something like that here in Britain - history lessons based on British history, saluting the British flag in registration etc etc.

Why?

Could anybody just define patriotism? Is it just flag waving and anthem singing? Or do you have to be convinced that your country ist the best in the world and tell that everybody else, whether they want to hear it or not? Or are we talking I'm-willing-to-die-for-my-country-no-questions-asked-partiotism?

I always just though it was love for your country. I do not love my country without question - I take note of its faults and past wrongdoings. Often the best way to view it is that the country isnt doing bad things, the government in charge is.

Why?

Because patriotism can be a very good thing indeed when it comes to uniting a populace. It also brings an end to political apathy something Europe is suffering from at the moment because its people dont care anymore, only themselves.

Because patriotism can be a very good thing indeed when it comes to uniting a populace. It also brings an end to political apathy something Europe is suffering from at the moment because its people dont care anymore, only themselves.

No it won't. Only 50-odd% of Americans voted last year. And they were less united than supporters at a football match.

I always just though it was love for your country. I do not love my country without question - I take note of its faults and past wrongdoings. Often the best way to view it is that the country isnt doing bad things, the government in charge is.

How do you know which country is your's? I was born in Austria, grew up in Germany, lived in Canada and am now living in Ireland. I like them all more or less, though none of them are perfect of course... But I wouldn't call myself patriotic.
To be honest, I feel more proud of Europe than of any of the countries. I think the European union is on a cultural level the biggest achievement of the last century

How do you know which country is your's? I was born in Austria, grew up in Germany, lived in Canada and am now living in Ireland. I like them all more or less, though none of them are perfect of course... But I wouldn't call myself patriotic.
To be honest, I feel more proud of Europe than of any of the countries. I think the European union is on a cultural level the biggest achievement of the last century

Lets face it the EU is never going to succeed and thank God for it.

OMG!!!

How about the Native americans????!!!!

1 About 80% of the Native Americans that died, did so from disease.

2. Most of the Native American that were killed physically, died in battle(not civilans, they were mad that colonists were on their land, and that they kept screwing them over in trade agreements) Of course many women and chilrdren were killed by jackasses, but that is the exception, as in most wars.

3 AMERICA as a country really didn't care about the Native Americans, because by the time it was founded, the British Empire had already quelled any problem that they would have cased to America. Remeber, a majority of Native American tribes supported America in the Revolutionary War, because they were also mad at Britain.

Lets face it the EU is never going to succeed and thank God for it.

Why?

One of the very few things I admire about America is the patriotic attitude they have. They need to have something like that here in Britain - history lessons based on British history, saluting the British flag in registration etc etc.

it sickens me to hear someone saying that. if i was told to salute the flag i would point blank refuse. i would refuse to sing "god save the queen" (unless it were the sex pistols version, of course), to stand at the anthem and the rest of that nonsense. if they introduce swearinig oaths to the UK, the queen and aprliament, i will refuse. if they introduced that stuff, i would walk the streets burning the flag.

1 About 80% of the Native Americans that died, did so from disease.


That's like saying that 60% of the inmates of German concentration camps died of hunger and disease...

it sickens me to hear someone saying that. if i was told to salute the flag i would point blank refuse. i would refuse to sing "god save the queen" (unless it were the sex pistols version, of course), to stand at the anthem and the rest of that nonsense. if they introduce swearinig oaths to the UK, the queen and aprliament, i will refuse. if they introduced that stuff, i would walk the streets burning the flag.

Have you heard of the saying "you don't appreciate what you haven't earned"?
Others earned you your rights to do what you state with thier lifes, That it means something to them should mean something to you.

it sickens me to hear someone saying that. if i was told to salute the flag i would point blank refuse. i would refuse to sing "god save the queen" (unless it were the sex pistols version, of course), to stand at the anthem and the rest of that nonsense. if they introduce swearinig oaths to the UK, the queen and aprliament, i will refuse. if they introduced that stuff, i would walk the streets burning the flag.

Really? Unfortunately though many say that, it rarely is the case. If all your peers did it, then most people would play along because of the social pressures. In all my time at school (I am in my last year of sixth form) I have never seen a single person speak out of turn on the basis of political argument. Saying isnt doing. And the Sex Pistols song is a traitorous travesty, the sort of travesty that only rock music can convey.

it sickens me to hear someone saying that. if i was told to salute the flag i would point blank refuse. i would refuse to sing "god save the queen" (unless it were the sex pistols version, of course), to stand at the anthem and the rest of that nonsense. if they introduce swearinig oaths to the UK, the queen and aprliament, i will refuse. if they introduced that stuff, i would walk the streets burning the flag.

Me too, it's a very weird tradition. It will never happen in Norway, though, it brings too many associations to being occupied by Nazi Germany. Norwegian patriotism is very anti-fascist, as it's very connected with celebrating the liberation from the Nazis, I grew up hearing from older relatives how happy we should be to be a free country, all the time.

That's like saying that 60% of the inmates of German concentration camps died of hunger and disease...

I believe intent is a serious issue.

The goal in a concentration camp was to kill the Jews, Catholics, gypsies, etc...

There was no goal in giving the Native Americans diseases. They did live in harmony until the trade disputes. In fact, they were excellent trade partners (and the Empire leeched of thier agreements)

Why?

In Britain, there is so much anti EU feeling, I sincerly doubt they will even manage to get that stupid Constitution ratified in the 2006 Referendum. If the government fails to get through a tiny measure like that, then they will definitely fail to push through full legislative union. Too many people, politicians, meia and business are against the idea.

Have you heard of the saying "you don't appreciate what you haven't earned"?
Others earned you your rights to do what you state with thier lifes, That it means something to them should mean something to you.

no, i quite appreciate what i have, thank you, and recognize others sacrificed themselves for me, for which i am equally thankfull. that does not mean however i should drown my self under a tide of patriotic, because what good would them sacrificing themselves to defend my right to be me be if i just annihilated myself by allowing myself to be consumed by patriotism? i recognize europe is, by and large, the best place in the world to live, but that doesnt mean i should celebrate it. if you had to eat a small amout of poison or a large amout, you wouldnt celebrate eating the small amount, just think "thank fuck i didnt eat that big bit of poison".

i would never swear alleigence because you can never be certain what may be asked. i wouldnt sing god save the queen as i am an anti-monarchist. i wouldnt stand at the anthem because of our nations past crimes.

I understand that these days the notion of 'patriotism' is pretty much unfashionable in most countries in the West (certainly in Europe) and it puzzles me as to why? European countries have a great deal to be proud of and it does not make sense to me, as an historian (University of Nottingham, MA), as to why European countries refuse to preserve a sense of admiration for their past?

This is particularly true in Germany and the UK, I have found. Ever since 1997 there has been a very racially/politically correct biased on learning which has meant the 'British Empire' is presented in a light which is even more anti-imperialistic than it would be in the USA or Ireland. It really is strange, and in my opinion ridiculous that people overlook the positive sides of something and say "In today's trendy modern world it's just bad". I'm not saying the Empire was good, just that it clearly wasn't all bad. It just seems really ingnorant to me! Germany seems to he ashamed of its past (especially the Nazis) to extent which it doesn't even teach the period properly in schools? I mean what it is? Surely the 'shame' felt by a few people in government is not felt by everyone? Surely this is eroding away the benefits of an education?

I suppose my question isn't just about the recession of patriotism, but why it is that we're not 'expected' to be patriotic outside a football match without someone having a bit of a tantrum. In the USA, you're allowed to fly your flag so why are you not in England without being branded a racist?

Why has this all happened?

History. During WWII, we - especially Germans, but pretty much everyone else as well - found out first-hand that waving a flag is not a very good substitute for using a brain, when it comes to international politics. :(

It's not "shame" in such a way, or "anti-patriotism". It's just that patriotism itself is a dangerous thing to allow yourself to be guided by, and that is why it must be constantly questioned.

In Britain, there is so much anti EU feeling, I sincerly doubt they will even manage to get that stupid Constitution ratified in the 2006 Referendum. If the government fails to get through a tiny measure like that, then they will definitely fail to push through full legislative union. Too many people, politicians, meia and business are against the idea.

Er its not tiny, it makes huge power shift from westminster to brussels.

There is loads of stuff that does not fit in with our current political arrangement. It makes no real consessions to us having a monarchy that has to ratify laws.
But then it was drawn up with France, Germany and Italy in mind, so what did we expect.

I do think that we need to head down this route, but the politics of getting it through now should be less important than getting it right.

In Britain, there is so much anti EU feeling, I sincerly doubt they will even manage to get that stupid Constitution ratified in the 2006 Referendum. If the government fails to get through a tiny measure like that, then they will definitely fail to push through full legislative union. Too many people, politicians, meia and business are against the idea.

i admit not kknowing too much about the constitution, as i havent researched it becasue im not even sure i will be allowed to vote on it, so my opinion can be ignored. however, im for it simply because it will piss off the nationalists and fascists no end, which is as good a reason as any.

Er its not tiny, it makes huge power shift from westminster to brussels.

There is loads of stuff that does not fit in with our current political arrangement. It makes no real consessions to us having a monarchy that has to ratify laws.
But then it was drawn up with France, Germany and Italy in mind, so what did we expect.

I do think that we need to head down this route, but the politics of getting it through now should be less important than getting it right.

It wont get through. And if it does, then Im off because the Britain I love wont be around anymore.

i admit not kknowing too much about the constitution, as i havent researched it becasue im not even sure i will be allowed to vote on it, so my opinion can be ignored. however, im for it simply because it will piss off the nationalists and fascists no end, which is as good a reason as any.

There is going to be a Referndum in 2006. It has been officially announced and there are campaigns for both the yes and the no vote. Fortunately it will almost certainly fail because of the innate anti EU attitude of the British people.

It wont get through. And if it does, then Im off because the Britain I love wont be around anymore.

take your friends with you then. the country, europe and the world as a whole would be a better place without right wingers.

There is going to be a Referndum in 2006. It has been officially announced and there are campaigns for both the yes and the no vote. Fortunately it will almost certainly fail because of the innate anti EU attitude of the British people.
well if it is after march i can vote then. yay! im sure it wont fail though.

i admit not kknowing too much about the constitution, as i havent researched it becasue im not even sure i will be allowed to vote on it, so my opinion can be ignored. however, im for it simply because it will piss off the nationalists and fascists no end, which is as good a reason as any.

No it isn't a reason.
IMO; If you wish to make somewhat inflamatory arguments, it would be better to understand the position you are taking, before you can start to see the other persons point of view, which is the reason to have an discussion/argument in the first place.

take your friends with you then. the country, europe and the world as a whole would be a better place without right wingers.

Woudl be better without you bloody socialists trying to destroy the British system and eradicate its culture so you can put us all in your state owned gulags.

take your friends with you then. the country, europe and the world as a whole would be a better place without right wingers.
So far the comments made could be from a right or left winger.
How can you tell?

i admit not kknowing too much about the constitution, as i havent researched it becasue im not even sure i will be allowed to vote on it, so my opinion can be ignored. however, im for it simply because it will piss off the nationalists and fascists no end, which is as good a reason as any.
http://www.unizar.es/euroconstitucion/Treaties/Treaty_Const.htm

Really? Unfortunately though many say that, it rarely is the case. If all your peers did it, then most people would play along because of the social pressures. In all my time at school (I am in my last year of sixth form) I have never seen a single person speak out of turn on the basis of political argument. Saying isnt doing. And the Sex Pistols song is a traitorous travesty, the sort of travesty that only rock music can convey.

Your own post shows the problem with nationalism, it is all about masspsychosis and putting people in boxes so you can set your own box up as the best.
What good have nationalism ever done to Europe, its individual states and the populations thereof? So far nationalistic inspired wars have properly cost the life of about 80-100 million Europeans, a new modern war of the same calibre would properly double that figure. Is it really worth it? Mass movements are stupid by nature, nationalism have done nothing to prove that it is an exception to this rule.

Omfg the British Empire and its imperalism is the worst ever!
You know how much distruction and suffering this "wars" have done?
We can start with the murders in North America, Australia, Africa etc. Its an neverending list of genocides.

And all of this patriotic shit make me sick, im from Sweden but do not walk around in Viking-symbols and admire the attacks, murder and rapes the Vikings did in west and east 1000 years ago. Its nothing to be proud of, although they "built" our country.

In the middle of London you can see monuments over several generals,killers, dictators and so on, and you can see schoolboys and girls honour them (forced or not) on different ways. And why are this monuments built so high up in the air? Its a symbol for that this men were nearer to god than the ordinarie people, saddam hussiens monuments seems quite sympathic in comparing. Sure, study your history but dont glorify and ignore the ugly parts.

"Proud of my country", thats just pathetic, shit the same what country you happend to be born in. And shit the same if it have a glorious history or not (its mostly ugly), what different those it make? Patriots just separtes people from eash other and are 99% racists (or at least believe in races).

Your own post shows the problem with nationalism, it is all about masspsychosis and putting people in boxes so you can set your own box up as the best.
What good have nationalism ever done to Europe, its individual states and the populations thereof? So far nationalistic inspired wars have properly cost the life of about 80-100 million Europeans, a new modern war of the same calibre would properly double that figure. Is it really worth it? Mass movements are stupid by nature, nationalism have done nothing to prove that it is an exception to this rule.

Ah yes but by the nature of democracy, mass movements are the only ones that are ever a success.

Omfg the British Empire and its imperalism is the worst ever!
You now how much distruction and suffering this "wars" have done?
We can start with the murders in North America, Australia, Africa etc. Its an neverending list of genocides.

And all of this patriotic shit make me sick, im from Sweden but do not walk around in Viking-symbols and admire the attacks, murder and rapes the Vikings did in west and east 1000 years ago. Its nothing to be proud of, although they "built" our country.

In the middle of London you can see monuments over several generals,killers, dictators and so on, and you can see schoolboys and girls honour them (forced or not) on different ways. And why are this monuments built so high up in the air? Its a symbol for that this men were nearer to god than the ordinarie people, saddam hussiens monuments seems quite sympathic in comparing. Sure, study your history but dont glorify and ignore the ugly parts.

"Proud of my country", thats just pathetic, shit the same what country you happend to be born in. And shit the same if it have a glorious history or not (its mostly ugly), what different those it make? Patriots just separtes people from eash other and are 99% racists (or at least believe in races).

I am patriotic and I am not racist. Your comments are generalised, inaccurate and full of idiocy. For that reason I am going to ignore you.

No it isn't a reason.
IMO; If you wish to make somewhat inflamatory arguments, it would be better to understand the position you are taking, before you can start to see the other persons point of view, which is the reason to have an discussion/argument in the first place.

it is a reason though, isnt it. on account of it being why im going to do it. im going to look at the constitution proposals soon anyway and make a considered judgement later anyway. for now i think i shall stick to my "because its the opposite of what the bnp want" reason.

It wont get through. And if it does, then Im off because the Britain I love wont be around anymore.

Isn’t the Britain you love rooted in the British people? Does the EU constitutional treaty change the British people over night?

I was born in England but I dont call myself English. I prefer to be British becuase it means you belong to a far greater thing. Britain could never achieved what it did if England was just there - without the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish, England would have been another two bit, measely seperatist state. Pretty much the way its heading now, if people like you and the Welsh/Scottish nationalists get their way. Then we'll be an island of two bit states, none of whom will do half as well as when we were all united.

I aggree completely- I moved with my family to Wales from England, and all's I hear on a daliy basis is "Cymru ir Cymreag" (basically meaning Wales is for the Welsh), It's very nationalistic where I live, and I don't see the point- England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland can all benefit from each other, so why try to separate them and descriminate against each of them? It just breeds hatred. Since moving here, I'm sometimes ashamed to be English. I call myself British, but everyone here says I'm Englinsh- and they see it as a bad thing. I don't like the way it's heading.

So as for patriotism, it's okay in SMALL doses, but it can get out of hand. People like to remember all the achievenments of thier country, but all too quickly forget their mistakes, which just breeds prejudice against other nations.

Now wait just a dang minute! I thought patriotism=USA, colonies yadda yadda yadda! I mean, we all watched that Mel Gibson movie The Patriot, right? He was a USian, right? Didn't that explain everything?
Europeans can't be patriotic because of genetics or ethnicity or something like that, right? ;)

Isn’t the Britain you love rooted in the British people? Does the EU constitutional treaty change the British people over night?

Britain cant be Britain if it doesnt have its own sovereignty. Thats what the EU will take from us. I dont want to be part of The Federal States of Europe (as it will soon become).

Really? Unfortunately though many say that, it rarely is the case. If all your peers did it, then most people would play along because of the social pressures. In all my time at school (I am in my last year of sixth form) I have never seen a single person speak out of turn on the basis of political argument. Saying isnt doing. And the Sex Pistols song is a traitorous travesty, the sort of travesty that only rock music can convey.
right first and formost, sex pistols were punk, not rock. got the important part out of the way there. second, while people at your school may be a school of sheep bleating and marching in time, i and a number of my friend are not. i would do what i said in my statement, and so would a number of others. just because youve never seen anyone do it doenst mean anyone else wouldnt.

Britain cant be Britain if it doesnt have its own sovereignty. Thats what the EU will take from us. I dont want to be part of The Federal States of Europe (as it will soon become).
It's not like anyone forced Britain to join. Quit the opposite.

and also, the sex pistols werent traitors, as they never swore any alleigence, so they cant betray it and become traitors.

I aggree completely- I moved with my family to Wales from England, and all's I hear on a daliy basis is "Cymru ir Cymreag" (basically meaning Wales is for the Welsh), It's very nationalistic where I live, and I don't see the point- England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland can all benefit from each other, so why try to separate them and descriminate against each of them? It just breeds hatred. Since moving here, I'm sometimes ashamed to be English. I call myself British, but everyone here says I'm Englinsh- and they see it as a bad thing. I don't like the way it's heading.

So as for patriotism, it's okay in SMALL doses, but it can get out of hand. People like to remember all the achievenments of thier country, but all too quickly forget their mistakes, which just breeds prejudice against other nations.

Precisely, precisely. Wales, Scotland and England do not have enough industry or people to be a success by themselves - they simply would not be competitive enough.

I think the best sort of patriotism is patriotism with knowledge. If you understand the mistkaes that have been made then you can love your country but you are not loving it unquestionably. Patriotism is great so long as it does not make you blind - for most people it doesnt, despite the generalisations that people on this thread have been making.

right first and formost, sex pistols were punk, not rock. got the important part out of the way there. second, while people at your school may be a school of sheep bleating and marching in time, i and a number of my friend are not. i would do what i said in my statement, and so would a number of others. just because youve never seen anyone do it doenst mean anyone else wouldnt.

I'll believe it when I see it. Peer pressure dicates most things like music and fashion. Why not political opinion? Some time ago I remember one lad saying (when we were discussing relegalising the cane) "If someone tried to hit me with a cane, then I would hit them back". So why all those years ago did no one punch back? Its because of social pressure. If you act out of turn, people shun you and so people fear acting out of turn.

Ah yes but by the nature of democracy, mass movements are the only ones that are ever a success.

The one thing that really makes constitutional democracy a worthwhile form of government, is its tendency to insure the individuals right to be different and say different things. Without this virtue, democratic government turns into a dictatorship of the masses.
Having the government supporting a form of mass psychosis such as nationalism, will only lead to less scepticism towards the political leadership and even more focus on some notion of normality. If you doubt what I say, take a look at the present day US or Europe of the past.

and also, the sex pistols werent traitors, as they never swore any alleigence, so they cant betray it and become traitors.
Being a British citizen means you have sworn allegiance to the Queen and Great Britain.

I'll believe it when I see it. Peer pressure dicates most things like music and fashion. Why not political opinion?

so why is their protests that are unpopular? suffragettes for instance, ridiculed constantly, but they stood up for what they believe in, thats just one example. there are thousand of examples of people being individual all the time. your not bowing to my pressure are you? just like i dont bow to yours. music and fasion dont matter deeply, they dont reflect an individuals basic views on the world, politics does, and people are very defensive about it, as we are all demonstrating now. people do stand up for what they think, no matter what you say.

Being a British citizen means you have sworn allegiance to the Queen and Great Britain.

ah, so birth is a pledge is it? sack of crap. they werent, and i am not, a british subject, which is what we are with a monarch, subjects, not citizens.

EDIT: it is what YOU are with YOUR monarch. not me.

so why is their protests that are unpopular? suffragettes for instance, ridiculed constantly, but they stood up for what they believe in, thats just one example. there are thousand of examples of people being individual all the time. your not bowing to my pressure are you? just like i dont bow to yours. music and fasion dont matter deeply, they dont reflect an individuals basic views on the world, politics does, and people are very defensive about it, as we are all demonstrating now. people do stand up for what they think, no matter what you say.

Some people do. Most don't unless they are lead onwards by a personality more strong than their own.

ah, so birth is a pledge is it? sack of crap. they werent, and i am not, a british subject, which is what we are with a monarch, subjects, not citizens.

EDIT: it is what YOU are with YOUR monarch. not me.

Actually being a British citizen does mean you can be tried for treason. No oath of loaylty has to be taken.

I would advise you to give up your citzenship as it so deeply conflicts with your views.

Some people do. Most don't unless they are lead onwards by a personality more strong than their own.

perhaps, but as you have just said, some do. i would. therfore i would refuse to blindly swear allegience to a man i never met, a woman who i hate, and a nation whose history i am ashamed of.

ah, so birth is a pledge is it? sack of crap. they werent, and i am not, a british subject, which is what we are with a monarch, subjects, not citizens.

EDIT: it is what YOU are with YOUR monarch. not me.

Actually being a British citizen does mean you can be tried for treason. No oath of loaylty has to be taken.

I would advise you to give up your citzenship as it so deeply conflicts with your views.

Some people do. Most don't unless they are lead onwards by a personality more strong than their own.

perhaps, but as you have just said, some do. i would. therfore i would refuse to blindly swear allegience to a man i never met, a woman who i hate, and a nation whose history i am ashamed of.

Britain cant be Britain if it doesnt have its own sovereignty. Thats what the EU will take from us. I dont want to be part of The Federal States of Europe (as it will soon become).

So you are basically saying that Britain is nothing more than a legal concept, meaning that you more or less remove any substance from the concept of being British. To me a nation is rooted in the people, meaning their values, language and costumes. The EU constitution changes neither of these things, so Britain will basically stay the same (in its substance). In fact in my view, American pop culture is a much greater thread to British identity than the EU ever have been and will be.

In Britain, there is so much anti EU feeling, I sincerly doubt they will even manage to get that stupid Constitution ratified in the 2006 Referendum. If the government fails to get through a tiny measure like that, then they will definitely fail to push through full legislative union. Too many people, politicians, meia and business are against the idea.

Britain is not the EU, there's a large number of other countries involved. If Britain wants to keep out of this, that's up to you.

The biggest achievement of the EU from its begining on is stability in Europe. One of my history teacher once told me that my parents generation and my own are the first two generations growing up in Germany in recorded history that didn't see a war in their own country. This is mainly down to the fact that the European Union ended that agaold hatred between France and Germany and brought stability to Central Europe. If this isn't an achievement, I don't know what is. That's a part of European history I'm really proud of

So you are basically saying that Britain is nothing more than a legal concept, meaning that you more or less remove any substance from the concept of being British. To me a nation is rooted in the people, meaning their values, language and costumes. The EU constitution changes neither of these things, so Britain will basically stay the same (in its substance). In fact in my view, American pop culture is a much greater thread to British identity than the EU ever have been and will be.

Britain is defined by its history and its method of government. Our common law, our language, our history , our constitutional monarchy and our Parliament are Britain. Without those Britain would cease to be. And Europe intends to remove those - it has already began to infringe on the common law and Parliament.

Actually being a British citizen does mean you can be tried for treason. No oath of loaylty has to be taken.

I would advise you to give up your citzenship as it so deeply conflicts with your views.

i have.

Britain is defined by its history and its method of government. Our common law, our language, our history , our constitutional monarchy and our Parliament are Britain. Without those Britain would cease to be. And Europe intends to remove those - it has already began to infringe on the common law and Parliament.

with their damn human rights act! bastards! giving people rights indeed! bah.

Britain is not the EU, there's a large number of other countries involved. If Britain wants to keep out of this, that's up to you.

The biggest achievement of the EU from its begining on is stability in Europe. One of my history teacher once told me that my parents generation and my own are the first two generations growing up in Germany in recorded history that didn't see a war in their own country. This is mainly down to the fact that the European Union ended that agaold hatred between France and Germany and brought stability to Central Europe. If this isn't an achievement, I don't know what is. That's a part of European history I'm really proud of

You dont need the EU to do that. A system of co-ordinated defensive pacts like NATO would do that. Trade agreements could do that. What the EU wants to do is systematicaly rob its member states of sovereignty and make one monster state to challenge the US. Thats what drives the French anyway and the EU is a French pact.

i have.
Good luck going abroad then as you need a passport to leave the country. And to have a passport you need citzenship.

Oh and you wont be able to claim benefits either. Or police protection. Or the fire service. Or use to the NHS. Because all of those require British citzenship.

with their damn human rights act! bastards! giving people rights indeed! bah.

The Human Rights Act is a meaningless waste of time for a country that has long respected the human rights of its citizens. All it allows is the abuse of human rights with stupid rulings like ones that favour criminals rather than the innocent victims of crimes. Like Tony Martin, for example, a mad old farmer who shot two burgulars as they were robbing his house. He was convicted of murder (reduced to manslaugther because of Diminished Responsibility) because the Human Rights Act gives criminals the same rights as innocents which means we cant defend our homes.

Good luck going abroad then as you need a passport to leave the country. And to have a passport you need citzenship.

Oh and you wont be able to claim benefits either. Or police protection. Or the fire service. Or use to the NHS. Because all of those require British citzenship.

but why would i want to leave this marvellous country all the europeans are out to destroy? ill just pretend to be one of these illegal asylum seekers. ive hear from the right wing press they get worshipped like gods, with solid gold houses, and new cars, and a legion of purebred english children as slaves.

You don't get protected by the police in Britain if your not a citizen? Damn, I'm an American, and I don't like big government. Even to me that sounds pretty cold.

but why would i want to leave this marvellous country all the europeans are out to destroy? ill just pretend to be one of these illegal asylum seekers. ive hear from the right wing press they get worshipped like gods, with solid gold houses, and new cars, and a legion of purebred english children as slaves.

Irrelevant to the post and just flamebait. Do it again and I will report you to the mods. Now behave like a big boy.

You dont need the EU to do that. A system of co-ordinated defensive pacts like NATO would do that. Trade agreements could do that. What the EU wants to do is systematicaly rob its member states of sovereignty and make one monster state to challenge the US. Thats what drives the French anyway and the EU is a French pact.

You see the EU as many Americans see the UN, one big thing that tries to swallow your freedom.
The EU is a democracy, its politics are made by its members. Everybody is free to leave at all times. As I said before, I'm a German working in Ireland. This has been made possible (or at least a good deal easier) by the EU legistlation giving me the right to work in every member state without requiring special permission. I love the EU

The Human Rights Act is a meaningless waste of time for a country that has long respected the human rights of its citizens. All it allows is the abuse of human rights with stupid rulings like ones that favour criminals rather than the innocent victims of crimes. Like Tony Martin, for example, a mad old farmer who shot two burgulars as they were robbing his house. He was convicted of murder (reduced to manslaugther because of Diminished Responsibility) because the Human Rights Act gives criminals the same rights as innocents which means we cant defend our homes.

as i type this im trembeling with rage at you. firstly, they were running away from his house, so it wasnt whilst robbing it. dont try and change history. second, we can defend our homes, it says resonable force. ie force that is reasonable. so if a guy is trying to kill you, you can kill him in defence. what you cant do is if someone who through no fault of their own is forced by circumstance into robbing you is in your house, you cant knock them out, hamstring them, poke thier eyes out with a poker, cut out their tongue, burn out their ears, cut of their nose and torture them in your cellar for ever. the human rights act gives humans rights, it doesnt select special humans out for special treatment. you are a human, ergo you have human rights. i could go on for hours on this but cant be arsed wasting my typing on this subject when i have to debate it all the time anyway in the real world.

You don't get protected by the police in Britain if your not a citizen? Damn, I'm an American, and I don't like big government. Even to me that sounds pretty cold.

some rights are bound to citizenship. Not citizenship of any particular country, but citizenship as such. If you don't have citizenship of anywhere, you're in fact a very unprotected person. What do you think foreign embassies are dealing with most of the time? Helping their fellow-citizens abroad, if they run into some kind of trouble

Irrelevant to the post and just flamebait. Do it again and I will report you to the mods. Now behave like a big boy.

no more irrelevant or flamebaitish than telling me to be a big boy. do it again and i will report you to the mods because i cant stand robust criticism.

You see the EU as many Americans see the UN, one big thing that tries to swallow your freedom.
The EU is a democracy, its politics are made by its members. Everybody is free to leave at all times. As I said before, I'm a German working in Ireland. This has been made possible (or at least a good deal easier) by the EU legistlation giving me the right to work in every member state without requiring special permission. I love the EU

I have nothing against certain aspects of the EU. The trade benefits (right to work, right to move goods etc) and the defensive benefits are fine. Whats wrong is the attempt to force legislative and judicial union on member states. I dont want my legal system overruled by foreigners who I have not elected. Simple as.

By the way, the EU is not democratic. We elect Members of the EU Parliament who have absolutely no influence. They can suggest things to the commission (only suggest not demand) and have minor influence of some of the more minor budgets. The Commissioners control it all and they are certainly not democratically elected - they are just friends of their respective government.

You see the EU as many Americans see the UN, one big thing that tries to swallow your freedom.
The EU is a democracy, its politics are made by its members. Everybody is free to leave at all times. As I said before, I'm a German working in Ireland. This has been made possible (or at least a good deal easier) by the EU legistlation giving me the right to work in every member state without requiring special permission. I love the EU

I don't think most Americans complain about the UN because they think it infringes on our freedoms. Most of us just don't like it because we think it's a giant waste of money. Besides, most Americans know that the UN doesn't have any real power, especially over the US. (The League of Nations had real power, and that's why we didn't join it)

From what I've read about the EU, I gather that it actually has power once you agree to join. I'm pretty sure that if the Americas tried to get an AU or something of that nature, in which other people would have say over our laws, Americans would go nuts.

The Commissioners control it all and they are certainly not democratically elected - they are just friends of their respective government.

So... friends of your government as well, right?

I have nothing against certain aspects of the EU. The trade benefits (right to work, right to move goods etc) and the defensive benefits are fine. Whats wrong is the attempt to force legislative and judicial union on member states. I dont want my legal system overruled by foreigners who I have not elected. Simple as.

By the way, the EU is not democratic. We elect Members of the EU Parliament who have absolutely no influence. They can suggest things to the commission (only suggest not demand) and have minor influence of some of the more minor budgets. The Commissioners control it all and they are certainly not democratically elected - they are just friends of their respective government.

we will still have full sovereignty if we join the constitution though, as we can leave at any time, and get rid of their laws. so, you will still be able to be told what to do by people youve never met but, by jove, are british.

im proud to be english, and no EU leader is going to stop me!

im proud to be english, and no EU leader is going to stop me!

they wont introduce a law saying "all men, women and children who are proud to be british must be thrown into the death furnace, mwahahahaha!". your nationalisms safe. dont worry, the nasty foreign man cant bother you.

I'm very proud to be British.

I fervently beleive that while our country has its faults, it maintains the perfect balance of propriety, fun, socialism, capitalism and culture in the world.

In this country the standard of living is high, if you are sick you will be treated, if you are unemployed you will be supported while you attempt to find work. I think sometimes that people should be prouder of our nation beyond things such as sporting acheivements.

I'm not just proud of our country at present however. Britain and the British Empire was the basis for the greatest powers of the modern world. Even if you are not proud of many of the things the empire has done, you must be proud of the fact that the western world would not be the same without it.

as i type this im trembeling with rage at you. firstly, they were running away from his house, so it wasnt whilst robbing it. dont try and change history. second, we can defend our homes, it says resonable force. ie force that is reasonable. so if a guy is trying to kill you, you can kill him in defence. what you cant do is if someone who through no fault of their own is forced by circumstance into robbing you is in your house, you cant knock them out, hamstring them, poke thier eyes out with a poker, cut out their tongue, burn out their ears, cut of their nose and torture them in your cellar for ever. the human rights act gives humans rights, it doesnt select special humans out for special treatment. you are a human, ergo you have human rights. i could go on for hours on this but cant be arsed wasting my typing on this subject when i have to debate it all the time anyway in the real world.

So criminals have the same rights as the innocent victims they rob? That means that it is assualt and GBH if the victim hits out of the criminal. Thats what the Human Rights Act does. The Human Rights Act gives human rights to those who do not deserve them and it forces the courts to convict people who were just defending themselves and their families. The Human Rights Act is a terrible act that should be repealed - most lawyers and judges say that.

Oh and Tony Martin was an old man who had been robbed countless times and the police had done nothing. He was being driven mad with paranoia and when these two burgulars broke into his house in the middle of the night, his paranoia went into overdrive and he shot them. Indeed they were running away but they had broken (illegally into his house) with the intent to rob and do criminal damage. I have studied the case in Law so I think I know the facts better than you.

I don't think most Americans complain about the UN because they think it infringes on our freedoms. Most of us just don't like it because we think it's a giant waste of money. Besides, most Americans know that the UN doesn't have any real power, especially over the US. (The League of Nations had real power, and that's why we didn't join it)

From what I've read about the EU, I gather that it actually has power once you agree to join. I'm pretty sure that if the Americas tried to get an AU or something of that nature, in which other people would have say over our laws, Americans would go nuts.

I only heard from a few Americans about the UN, and I dO hope they're not the majority, but to them the UN was regarded as some sort of foreign power influencing their government.
The EU has some say in legislation, that's true. But I haven't yet seen any negative effects of that... After all, they largely change trading and economic laws. They didn't try to implement the Dutch drugs policy all over Europe yet... shame, really

So... friends of your government as well, right?

Unelected friends is my point. It means cronies like the corrupt fraud Peter Mandelson can be appointed Commissioner.

So criminals have the same rights as the innocent victims they rob? That means that it is assualt and GBH if the victim hits out of the criminal. Thats what the Human Rights Act does. The Human Rights Act gives human rights to those who do not deserve them and it forces the courts to convict people who were just defending themselves and their families. The Human Rights Act is a terrible act that should be repealed - most lawyers and judges say that.

Oh and Tony Martin was an old man who had been robbed countless times and the police had done nothing. He was being driven mad with paranoia and when these two burgulars broke into his house in the middle of the night, his paranoia went into overdrive and he shot them. Indeed they were running away but they had broken (illegally into his house) with the intent to rob and do criminal damage. I have studied the case in Law so I think I know the facts better than you.

i knew all the stuff you just said from the news, and humans should have rights i think, yes. undoubtably they were wrong to break into the guys house, and i think the police should have done something, even if it were just park a car outside so it looks like they are their. still, which is the bigger crime, robbery or murder? the robber, despite being a bastard, was a human being. if your son robbed someones house and got killed, would you be going, "well the little bastard shouldnt have been robbing him"? no. you wouldnt.

Britain is defined by its history and its method of government. Our common law, our language, our history , our constitutional monarchy and our Parliament are Britain. Without those Britain would cease to be. And Europe intends to remove those - it has already began to infringe on the common law and Parliament.

Have you read the constitutional treaty, it doesn’t change any of the things you mention.

You dont need the EU to do that. A system of co-ordinated defensive pacts like NATO would do that. Trade agreements could do that. What the EU wants to do is systematicaly rob its member states of sovereignty and make one monster state to challenge the US. Thats what drives the French anyway and the EU is a French pact.

LOL there is nothing more stupid in all of Europe, than the eternal Anglo-Frog mouth shouting at each other. You know what, both of your two nations should start growing up and stop acting like spoiled children. With the British it is either “buuuu mommy the French have taken my money for farm subsidising”, or it is “my farther (military) is bigger than you farther, and my grandfarther (Wellington) have beaten your grandfarther (Napoleon)”. With the French it is either “buuuu mommy the English have tricked me into joining my little club of friends (the EU) and now they don’t want to pay (Thatcher’s little deal) or play nice (not accepting French leadership)”, “my great grandfarther raped you grandmother(Norman invasion)”, “you are an illegitimate (uncivilized) son of a hore (Britain is nothing but an American state)", or something similar.
Last time I checked the EU had 25 member states, that is 23 states other than France and Britain.

Concerning what you said. Typical trade relationships have a tendency break up in times of economical hardship (reverting to protectionism), and a defensive pacts like NATO breaks up as soon as there is no longer a common enemy (look at the way American-European relations are going). Also a lot of problems are cross-border problems, and it is simple impossible to make any effective agreements between 25 countries unless you have set down some rules for such agreements.

as i type this im trembeling with rage at you. firstly, they were running away from his house, so it wasnt whilst robbing it. dont try and change history. second, we can defend our homes, it says resonable force. ie force that is reasonable. so if a guy is trying to kill you, you can kill him in defence. what you cant do is if someone who through no fault of their own is forced by circumstance into robbing you is in your house, you cant knock them out, hamstring them, poke thier eyes out with a poker, cut out their tongue, burn out their ears, cut of their nose and torture them in your cellar for ever. the human rights act gives humans rights, it doesnt select special humans out for special treatment. you are a human, ergo you have human rights. i could go on for hours on this but cant be arsed wasting my typing on this subject when i have to debate it all the time anyway in the real world.
are you mad?
"if someone who through no fault of their own is forced by circumstance into robbing you is in your house, "
right there you are wrong, NOTHING gives ANYONE the right to steal property i have worked my balls of legally for! if they cant keep a legal job that is their problem, its not for them to help themselves to stuff i have paid for with money i have earnt!
and lets just say you are in your house with your wife and baby and someone breaks in and threatens to put a screwdriver through your baby's head or a knife in your wife.... what would you do? i sure as hell dont know, but under this new EU "human rights" law i may well end up in jail for it!

i knew all the stuff you just said from the news, and humans should have rights i think, yes. undoubtably they were wrong to break into the guys house, and i think the police should have done something, even if it were just park a car outside so it looks like they are their. still, which is the bigger crime, robbery or murder? the robber, despite being a bastard, was a human being. if your son robbed someones house and got killed, would you be going, "well the little bastard shouldnt have been robbing him"? no. you wouldnt.

So did we not all have rights before 1998 when the foolish piece of legislation was introduced? Why I believe we did. The only difference was there was flexibilty when dealing with cases like this and others of a more minor nature. Should criminals be allowed to sue their victims for harm done during their crimes? That is what the Human Rights Act allows because it grants the same rights to criminals at the time of their offence as it does to everyone.
This is why most legal experts are agreed that the Human Rights Act should be repealed.

as i type this im trembeling with rage at you. firstly, they were running away from his house, so it wasnt whilst robbing it. dont try and change history. second, we can defend our homes, it says resonable force. ie force that is reasonable. so if a guy is trying to kill you, you can kill him in defence. what you cant do is if someone who through no fault of their own is forced by circumstance into robbing you is in your house, you cant knock them out, hamstring them, poke thier eyes out with a poker, cut out their tongue, burn out their ears, cut of their nose and torture them in your cellar for ever. the human rights act gives humans rights, it doesnt select special humans out for special treatment. you are a human, ergo you have human rights. i could go on for hours on this but cant be arsed wasting my typing on this subject when i have to debate it all the time anyway in the real world.

Could you explain: "if someone who through no fault of their own is forced by circumstance into robbing you is in your house"

To me, as it is illegal there is no such thing as "forced by circumstance into robbing you". We have social systems in place to ensure that people act within the law. Eitherway, if that is the attitude you're taking, I'm nor suprised NBG is on your back, because it is retarded. If someone is in your house robbing you, it's not reasonable force if it isn't their fault? How is it NOT their fault, they chose to break in, and if it doesn't not constitute reasonable force, what exactly does? Asking them politely to leave, and when they don't find an opportunity to rob them back?

Could you explain: "if someone who through no fault of their own is forced by circumstance into robbing you is in your house"

To me, as it is illegal there is no such thing as "forced by circumstance into robbing you". We have social systems in place to ensure that people act within the law. Eitherway, if that is the attitude you're taking, I'm nor suprised NBG is on your back, because it is retarded. If someone is in your house robbing you, it's not reasonable force if it isn't their fault? How is it NOT their fault, they chose to break in, and if it doesn't not constitute reasonable force, what exactly does? Asking them politely to leave, and when they don't find an opportunity to rob them back?

Sorry I didn't notice this latest stupidty to emerge from the keyboard of SA. Of course in the world SA is living in, we should abolish the law because everyone has rights to do want they want, even if that is murder or robbery.

It is a mystery to me only, being one of the few patriotic Britons left in my country. The only national thing everyone supports is the bloody football team and as we all know English football is a sport for yobs, played by yobs and watched by yobs.

Your point about the St.George flag is quite true (althoug I myself am a Briitsh patriot rather than an English one) - I heard a tale on the radio about how a pub was froced by the brewery to do St. Patricks Day celebrations (depite the fact that no one was Irish) but yet the same brewery forbade St.George's Day celebrations because it was seen as 'nationalistic'.

Unfortunately in Europe the politcally correct brigade have so much influence in government they can effectively quash any active patriotic sentiment from either the government or official events.

Alright, with that comment about football... you just quadrupled my respect for you :D (To really annoy them, call it soccer. *nods* I don;t care what it's called much, but they sure do :p)

He's right though; the only place people see much patriotism around here is in sports, really. Most of the flags of St. George here are dusty things; but you should have seen the number of bright new ones during the last big soccer tournament, whatever it was. I can honestly say we rivalled the US for flag population density.

However, it must be said; I don't feel there is much in Britain to be proud of since the War, frankly. The entertainment industry, and that's about it... though I'm sure I am missing things. Nonetheless, I'm proud of our heritage and suchlike, but when all we get is a few programs on BBC2 about said heritage per week, and we get extremely heavy coverage of sports events, I'm not sure I want to be a part of it anyway, because hardly anyone else seems to care.

Sorry I didn't notice this latest stupidty to emerge from the keyboard of SA. Of course in the world SA is living in, we should abolish the law because everyone has rights to do want they want, even if that is murder or robbery.

nope. the law has its puropse. stopping people killing each other in rage for instance. you are the one wanting rid of a law so you can murder, remember? im simply saying that you can use reasonable force, rather than unreasonble force. you are all saying "if a guys robbing your house and has a screwdriver to your wife" thats not robbery is it? robbery is taking stuff, not coercing someone, or murder. and through no fault of their own, i meant perhaps someone had a screwdriver to their baby, and was forcing them to rob. admittedly we have social systems to help people who would otherwise need to rob, but if a guy had been refused entry to the countyr unjustly, say, and snuck in, needed money and the only way was to rob someone because they couldnt get social security and knew nothing about the charities etc (i admitt these are unlikely events)

as it happens, i dont think tony martin should have been imprisoned. all im saying is no one needs shooting.

nope. the law has its puropse. stopping people killing each other in rage for instance. you are the one wanting rid of a law so you can murder, remember? im simply saying that you can use reasonable force, rather than unreasonble force. you are all saying "if a guys robbing your house and has a screwdriver to your wife" thats not robbery is it? robbery is taking stuff, not coercing someone, or murder. and through no fault of their own, i meant perhaps someone had a screwdriver to their baby, and was forcing them to rob. admittedly we have social systems to help people who would otherwise need to rob, but if a guy had been refused entry to the countyr unjustly, say, and snuck in, needed money and the only way was to rob someone because they couldnt get social security and knew nothing about the charities etc (i admitt these are unlikely events)

as it happens, i dont think tony martin should have been imprisoned. all im saying is no one needs shooting.
wrong again, anyone threatening my family needs shooting! anyone robbing my things needs to be hurt and imprisoned!

nope. the law has its puropse. stopping people killing each other in rage for instance. you are the one wanting rid of a law so you can murder, remember? im simply saying that you can use reasonable force, rather than unreasonble force. you are all saying "if a guys robbing your house and has a screwdriver to your wife" thats not robbery is it? robbery is taking stuff, not coercing someone, or murder. and through no fault of their own, i meant perhaps someone had a screwdriver to their baby, and was forcing them to rob. admittedly we have social systems to help people who would otherwise need to rob, but if a guy had been refused entry to the countyr unjustly, say, and snuck in, needed money and the only way was to rob someone because they couldnt get social security and knew nothing about the charities etc (i admitt these are unlikely events)

as it happens, i dont think tony martin should have been imprisoned. all im saying is no one needs shooting.

Murder? I dont advocate the use of murder. I advocate the right of the house holder to defend themselves and I advocate the fact that criminals (at the time of their offence) should have to give up their human rights. The Human Rights Acts allows criminals to have at the time of their offence the same rights as the victim which means that victims can be tried and sued if they attack criminals.

wrong again, anyone threatening my family needs shooting! anyone robbing my things needs to be hurt and imprisoned!

and thats where we disagree. i respect peoples right to live, you do not.

and thats where we disagree. i respect peoples right to live, you do not.
you dont respect other peoples property then? you dont respect other peoples right to be safe?

Murder? I dont advocate the use of murder. I advocate the right of the house holder to defend themselves and I advocate the fact that criminals (at the time of their offence) should have to give up their human rights. The Human Rights Acts allows criminals to have at the time of their offence the same rights as the victim which means that victims can be tried and sued if they attack criminals.

you are saying that if a person goes into another persons house, they have the right to kill them. that is murder. a person, from birth to death, is a human, and therefore has rights regardless of what they happen to be doing at any particular time. i say people can defend themselves, just not by killing, which is quite wrong.

you dont respect other peoples property then? you dont respect other peoples right to be safe?

i respect property, but i think people come before property. you seem not to. you can be safe without killing everyhting other than your own family. it would be safer if people broke into your house not intending to defend themselves from militant homeowners by arming themsleves than if they did, which is what would happen if homeowners were allowed to kill people on their property.

nope. the law has its puropse. stopping people killing each other in rage for instance. you are the one wanting rid of a law so you can murder, remember? im simply saying that you can use reasonable force, rather than unreasonble force. you are all saying "if a guys robbing your house and has a screwdriver to your wife" thats not robbery is it? robbery is taking stuff, not coercing someone, or murder. and through no fault of their own, i meant perhaps someone had a screwdriver to their baby, and was forcing them to rob. admittedly we have social systems to help people who would otherwise need to rob, but if a guy had been refused entry to the countyr unjustly, say, and snuck in, needed money and the only way was to rob someone because they couldnt get social security and knew nothing about the charities etc (i admitt these are unlikely events)

as it happens, i dont think tony martin should have been imprisoned. all im saying is no one needs shooting.

Hardly anybody ever gets shot, firearms being illegal and all. However I really do think you're on the losing end here. I've never heard even any allusions to the idea that somebody can be coerced or blackmailed into robbery, and as for the idea of illegal immigrants who have as you say, and I'll QFE

been refused entry to the countyr unjustly, say, and snuck in, needed money and the only way was to rob someone

Then these ARE in fact criminals in the first place, doubly so for comitting robbery and should be immediately deported back to their home nation irregardless of circumstances.

As current legislation stands, I beleive that it is perfectly legal for an offender to sue you if he injures himself while in the process of burglerising (sp) your property, which I think is the kind of thing we are getting at here. As it stands however, I beleive "reasonable force" is quite adequate, you can defend yourself in relation to the manner of threat that you feel, real or imagined. If you beleive someone is going to kill you you CAN kill them in self defence. Ambushing a burgler and killing them, or killing them without any justifyable cause is illegal however.

and thats where we disagree. i respect peoples right to live, you do not.

He respects people's right to live SO LONG AS THEY ABIDE BY THE LAWS OF THE LAND. You do not. Criminals are people who abuse human rights and as such dont deserve any themselves.

i respect property, but i think people come before property. you seem not to. you can be safe without killing everyhting other than your own family. it would be safer if people broke into your house not intending to defend themselves from militant homeowners by arming themsleves than if they did, which is what would happen if homeowners were allowed to kill people on their property.

You dont get many socialists respecting property. Someone needs to re read Marx me thinks.

He respects people's right to live SO LONG AS THEY ABIDE BY THE LAWS OF THE LAND. You do not. Criminals are people who abuse human rights.

yes. criminals are people. people with families who do not want to see their son knifed for being stupid enough to try and rob someone. you cant go around saying "only the people i think are deserving have human rights", which is what you seem to advocate.

so people who break the law deserve no protection then, do you all agree?

yes. criminals are people. people with families who do not want to see their son knifed for being stupid enough to try and rob someone. you cant go around saying "only the people i think are deserving have human rights", which is what you seem to advocate.

so people who break the law deserve no protection then, do you all agree?

Yes I agree with that final sentiment. Unfortunately the Human Rights Act does not.

You dont get many socialists respecting property. Someone needs to re read Marx me thinks.
never read marx. by respect property i mean if a person is using something, i dont walk over, headbutt them and take it. i excercise common decency, (such as not killing people over property) and either find one not in use or ask if i cna borrow it or wait.

Yes I agree with that final sentiment. Unfortunately the Human Rights Act does not.

right, so i can stand over a motorway with a speedgun and a sniper rifle, and gun down anyone speeding, yes?

I agree to an extent.

People who break into others homes must realise that they are passing beyond the veil of the law and that others have a right to defend themselves. You cannot break into someones home and expect them to sit idly by while you rob them. You would generally be right in beleiving they won't kill you, and this I think is correct, it is illegal to kill someone for breaking in. It is not however illegal to assault someone in an attempt to detain them for the police.

If you break into my home, you're getting your ass beat till I can get you tied down, regardless of your human rights.

Hardly anybody ever gets shot, firearms being illegal and all. However I really do think you're on the losing end here. I've never heard even any allusions to the idea that somebody can be coerced or blackmailed into robbery, and as for the idea of illegal immigrants who have as you say, and I'll QFE



Then these ARE in fact criminals in the first place, doubly so for comitting robbery and should be immediately deported back to their home nation irregardless of circumstances.

As current legislation stands, I beleive that it is perfectly legal for an offender to sue you if he injures himself while in the process of burglerising (sp) your property, which I think is the kind of thing we are getting at here. As it stands however, I beleive "reasonable force" is quite adequate, you can defend yourself in relation to the manner of threat that you feel, real or imagined. If you beleive someone is going to kill you you CAN kill them in self defence. Ambushing a burgler and killing them, or killing them without any justifyable cause is illegal however.

i agree with you in the end then, people can use reasonable force, but that means dont mean just load up your shotgun and sit by the door waiting.

i did say are unjustly kept out of the nation, though, like a miscarriage of justice kinda thing.

and i also admitted the situations were unlikely.

Wow. An entire thread hijacked by just 2 users. :D
Usually they do that in groups. Several users on both sides.

you are saying that if a person goes into another persons house, they have the right to kill them. that is murder. a person, from birth to death, is a human, and therefore has rights regardless of what they happen to be doing at any particular time. i say people can defend themselves, just not by killing, which is quite wrong.
if someone broke in2 my house to rob it, and did not threaten my family i would do what i had to to get them out of there, i cant say how much id hurt them cuz i dont no how id react but no i dont think id kill them. if while robbing my house they threatend my family i would do anything to protect my family! ANYTHING!

I agree to an extent.

People who break into others homes must realise that they are passing beyond the veil of the law and that others have a right to defend themselves. You cannot break into someones home and expect them to sit idly by while you rob them. You would generally be right in beleiving they won't kill you, and this I think is correct, it is illegal to kill someone for breaking in. It is not however illegal to assault someone in an attempt to detain them for the police.

If you break into my home, you're getting your ass beat till I can get you tied down, regardless of your human rights.

now im happy with this. ive got nothing wrong with assaulting someone who robbing you, thats fine, and if you kill them by accident (real accident, mind, not "well, i was beating his head with this mace and it caved in. i was as shocked as you are!") then accidents cant be helped. im just against letting people kill each other for entering their house is all, which is what the Act is for.

right, so i can stand over a motorway with a speedgun and a sniper rifle, and gun down anyone speeding, yes?

People defending their house are acting in self defence rather than as vigilantes. They are often reacting on the spur of the moment. And also burgulary is a crime which warrants the life sentence, it is a serious crime.

In your situation you have obviously planned to stand on a motorway with a sniper rifle so you are not acting on the spur of the moment. Neither are you defending your own life, your own property or the lifes of your family. Neither is speeding down a motorway a serious crime in the same way burgularly is.

Your poor attempt to create a slippery slope does not work because it takes things massively out of proportion and context. We are talking about defending homes and lives from criminals who do not deserve the protection of the law because they intend to damage people and property. You are talking about legalising vigilantism.

Don't you two have anything better to do? The sun is shining. The boids are singing. The beer in the fridge is cold.

if someone broke in2 my house to rob it, and did not threaten my family i would do what i had to to get them out of there, i cant say how much id hurt them cuz i dont no how id react but no i dont think id kill them. if while robbing my house they threatend my family i would do anything to protect my family! ANYTHING!

yes, but that would then be probably classed as reasonable, wouldnt it? you may kill them during that and i would disapprove, but it would be understandable.

right, so i can stand over a motorway with a speedgun and a sniper rifle, and gun down anyone speeding, yes?

Hey, back in context and proportion;

You don't know what someone is planning if he breaks into your house. What do you expect to happen?

"Excuse me sir, are you here to rob, or rape my wife?"

"Oh, just to rob you."

"Ah, alright. Carry on then. I'll just call the police."

"Of course, of course. Pleasure doing business!"

"Likewise."

I mean come on. If someone breaks into my house, I don't know their intentions. I have the right to defend myself, my property, but most of all my family. If someone's just here to rip off my TV, ok, being shot is an extreme punishment, but I don't KNOW that, for all I know they're here to kill us all, or rape my wife and beat her black and blue, and I will not take that chance. Ever. And if that is a crime, I will go to prison for it.

People defending their house are acting in self defence rather than as vigilantes. They are often reacting on the spur of the moment. And also burgulary is a crime which warrants the life sentence, it is a serious crime.

In your situation you have obviously planned to stand on a motorway with a sniper rifle so you are not acting on the spur of the moment. Neither are you defending your own life, your own property or the lifes of your family. Neither is speeding down a motorway a serious crime in the same way burgularly is.

Your poor attempt to create a slippery slope does not work because it takes things massively out of proportion and context. We are talking about defending homes and lives from criminals who do not deserve the protection of the law because they intend to damage people and property. You are talking about legalising vigilantism.

burgalry is serious, but not as serous as murder. no one dies from it. complications leading from it due to violence from both homeowner adn burgaler perhaps, but no one died from losing their dvd player. anyway, surely killing a criminal in the act of robbing would be classed as vigilantism? and i would call my attempt clumsy, rather than poor.

Don't you two have anything better to do? The sun is shining. The boids are singing. The beer in the fridge is cold.

clearly we dont. :)

and its not sunny here. it never bloody is...

Hey, back in context and proportion;

You don't know what someone is planning if he breaks into your house. What do you expect to happen?

"Excuse me sir, are you here to rob, or rape my wife?"

"Oh, just to rob you."

"Ah, alright. Carry on then. I'll just call the police."

"Of course, of course. Pleasure doing business!"

"Likewise."

I mean come on. If someone breaks into my house, I don't know their intentions. I have the right to defend myself, my property, but most of all my family. If someone's just here to rip off my TV, ok, being shot is an extreme punishment, but I don't KNOW that, for all I know they're here to kill us all, or rape my wife and beat her black and blue, and I will not take that chance. Ever. And if that is a crime, I will go to prison for it.

fair enough, but if the guy is downstairs, holding your tv, chances are hes not going to try and smother you with it is he?

aww my arguement buddys gone offline. probably to load his shotgun in preparation for the postman tomorrow who hell mistake as a robber.

sorry for leading the entire post of on a completely different angle everyone.

right first and formost, sex pistols were punk, not rock. got the important part out of the way there. second, while people at your school may be a school of sheep bleating and marching in time, i and a number of my friend are not. i would do what i said in my statement, and so would a number of others. just because youve never seen anyone do it doenst mean anyone else wouldnt.

I completely agree, I definitely wouldn't do it, and I can't imagine anybody I know would. The difference is, of course, that we haven't been brought up with it, we have history and geography teachers that are interested in all parts of the world and social science teachers that encourage us to think for ourselves. And we don't wear uniforms in school, either. ;)