NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6263103.stm

But it has now.

Basically, when Germany next takes the European Presidency they plan to introduce a pan-European ban on Nazi symbolism and Holocaust denial, bringing the whole continent in line with Germany's (frankly) neurotic and border-line authoritarian legislation.

Personally, I believe the ultimate indicator of a civilised society is allowing even the individuals with the most unpopular opinions the same free and equal rights to voice themselves as anybody else. Once you place any limitation on freedom of speech the whole principle is seriously endangered.

Now, I am very pro-European. I dislike the constant bandwagoneering against the 'crazy' 'Eurocrats', I believe that the EU has succeeded in bringing the continent peace and, through its standardisation programs, has helped secure an integrated single market. But I do not believe the EU has a mandate to act in this field, it can legislate over nations and enterprises, but NOT over people.

Britain is the nation that granted asylum to Karl Marx, of all people, despite the obvious threat to the world order that he posed. I find that something to be very proud of, that we are willing to protect the rights of the weak and disenfranchised even when it is directly against our best interests. This is a legacy I am proud of, and a legacy I wish to maintain. I hate Nazis, I hate Jihadis, I probably wouldn't have liked Karl Marx, but I would fight for their right to voice their hateful and moronic opinions.

I sincerely hope this legislation gets nowhere, but alas... that is not how Europe works.

So Europe is annoying you when it's Germany that's pushing for this?

So Europe is annoying you when it's Germany that's pushing for this?
It can't be law unless it has considerable support from across Europe, and, as the article says, the Germans think it has a good chance of being accepted.

"Germany hopes to make Holocaust denial a crime across the EU as part of a package of laws it wants to introduce during its presidency of the bloc. "

Dont know about that, but readind the title, it looks like DENYING THE HOLOCAUST IS A CRIME, not speaking about it. I agree with that.

Anyway, forgeting history is the first step to repeating it.

Yeah, it's always been stupid. If I ever got to power in Germany, I'd repeal those laws.

Frankly, I don't think this will be accepted. And all the German minister can do is propose the legislation, she won't be able to decide on it.

So Europe is annoying you when it's Germany that's pushing for this?

In its capacity as European Union Presidency.

It can't be law unless it has considerable support from across Europe, and, as the article says, the Germans think it has a good chance of being accepted.

Tyranny of the Majority.

They tried it before, and failed. I hope for a repeat performance.

Anyway, forgeting history is the first step to repeating it.

And outlawing the discussion of history is the second, third, fourth and fifth step to repeating it.

There is no argument stupid enough that cannot be disproved with frank, open debate.

I agree with you. The entire EU should fight restrictions of free speech like this one at every turn. Fear fights freedom, and fear of a second holocaust, a second Hitler, or maybe just a fear of bad PR has pushed Germany into putting restrictions on free speech.

In its capacity as European Union Presidency.

So get pissed off at Germany for pushing for this

In its capacity as European Union Presidency.


I can see how the German mentality would have concluded that this is a step in the right direction. So it doesn't really piss me off...
It would piss me off greatly however if the rest of Europe agreed with the proposition.

So get pissed off at Germany for pushing for this
They wouldn't propose it if they didn't think it'd have a chance of being accepted. I don't imagine Germany is the only country that would consider putting this forwards while they have the presidency.

They wouldn't propose it if they didn't think it'd have a chance of being accepted. I don't imagine Germany is the only country that would consider putting this forwards while they have the presidency.

Yea, but wait until it passes and then get pissed of at Europe

Speaking of which, Estonia recently prepared legistlation to ban Nazi -and- Soviet symbols. This is so going to open a can of worms. On the other hand, I hope this brings attention to the Soviet Union's genocides in the Soviet-invaded territories.

Speaking of which, Estonia recently prepared legistlation to ban Nazi -and- Soviet symbols. This is so going to open a can of worms. On the other hand, I hope this brings attention to the Soviet Union's genocides in the Soviet-invaded territories.
Why just in the Soviet-invaded territories? Its genocide of its own people wasn't too nice either.

Yea, but wait until it passes and then get pissed of at Europe
It won't pass. I think GC might, like me, be pissed off that the mentality of enough people has reached the stage where this sort of thing can be proposed and, not only not get shot down within 5 seconds, but actually be seriously considered as a potential law.

Of course, I could be wrong.

Hehe, I've been waiting for this topic to pop up here. :p

I heard about it last week in the news but didn't want to throw myself into the fray here.

I grew up in Germany and I can't find it in me to subscribe to the "ZOMG freedom of expression!11!!!1!" credo Americans cherish so much when it comes to Nazi symbols and especially Holocaust denial.

It's a fundamental difference in the concept of "freedom of expression" that features prominently in every thread on topics like this. And I, for one, am perfectly happy with freedom of expression that excludes hate speech.


Frankly, I don't think this will be accepted. And all the German minister can do is propose the legislation, she won't be able to decide on it.
I agree - that was my first thought when I heard it.

Strangely enough, as has already been said, they're saying they're optimistic they'll have enough support throughout Europe to get it passed.

I'll be interested to see what happens - after seeing the usual reactions to such questions here on NSG, I can't really imagine it passes.

So get pissed off at Germany for pushing for this

Division of Reponsibilities, it isn't proposing this as the Federal Republic of Germany, but as the current President of the European Union, there is a minor, but important difference.

Besides, as was said, this is quite a supported move within the European establishment, it seems that they have just been waiting for Germany to do it.

Division of Reponsibilities, it isn't proposing this as the Federal Republic of Germany, but as the current President of the European Union, there is a minor, but important difference.
Well, no, as long as "Europe" doesn't pass it you should still be pissed only at the guys who proposed it, i.e. the current President of the EU, i.e. Germany.

Besides, as was said, this is quite a supported move within the European establishment, it seems that they have just been waiting for Germany to do it. That's what the people who proposed it say. Doesn't mean it's true, does it? Kind of a no-brainer for them to say that, seeing how they want to shore up support for their idea.

It's a fundamental difference in the concept of "freedom of expression" that features prominently in every thread on topics like this. And I, for one, am perfectly happy with freedom of expression that excludes hate speech.
So you're all for letting people say whatever they want, so long as it's nice?

One rule for one...

Speaking of which, Estonia recently prepared legistlation to ban Nazi -and- Soviet symbols. This is so going to open a can of worms. On the other hand, I hope this brings attention to the Soviet Union's genocides in the Soviet-invaded territories.

Yeah, that was alluded to in the OP article. It seems especially moronic to me, seeing as nearly all European countries have a functioning Communist Party that utilises the hammer and sickle icon. By banning that you would seriously inhibit those parties electioneering, and thus unfairly discriminate against them.

I grew up in Germany and I can't find it in me to subscribe to the "ZOMG freedom of expression!11!!!1!" credo Americans cherish so much when it comes to Nazi symbols and especially Holocaust denial.

It's a fundamental difference in the concept of "freedom of expression" that features prominently in every thread on topics like this. And I, for one, am perfectly happy with freedom of expression that excludes hate speech.


Well, in America we have a long history of holding freedom of speech sacred. Unfortunately it seems Europe does not share this value. People have a right to say hateful, virulent, racist things, but you also have the right to speak out against it. Censorship is death in any nation that calls itself a Democracy.

Yeah, that was alluded to in the OP article. It seems especially moronic to me, seeing as nearly all European countries have a functioning Communist Party that utilises the hammer and sickle icon. By banning that you would seriously inhibit those parties electioneering, and thus unfairly discriminate against them.
FYI, the minister who proposed the ban said it would only extend to Nazi symbols, not Communist ones or others.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6263103.stm

But it has now.

Basically, when Germany next takes the European Presidency they plan to introduce a pan-European ban on Nazi symbolism and Holocaust denial, bringing the whole continent in line with Germany's (frankly) neurotic and border-line authoritarian legislation.

-snip-


I reckon the President of Iran won't be denying the Holocaust if it were to pass. :p

Seriously, I'd have to agree with the OPs opinion of Freedom of Speech. Is it truly Freedom of Speech when in fact you place limitations/restrictions on it? I think not. If you place restrictions on the Freedom of Speech then you are truly a hyprocrite and it isn't really Freedom of Speech. It's more of "Limited Speech".

Censorship is death in any nation that calls itself a Democracy.

so you think that democracies should have absolutely NO censorship?

Well, no, as long as "Europe" doesn't pass it you should still be pissed only at the guys who proposed it, i.e. the current President of the EU, i.e. Germany.

Verywell, I shall redirect my anger at Germany for the time being.

That's what the people who proposed it say. Doesn't mean it's true, does it? Kind of a no-brainer for them to say that, seeing how they want to shore up support for their idea.

There is a significant bloc of European countries where Holocaust denial is already illegal, I don't see why they would oppose a proposal that leaves them untouched.

P.S. Cherishing the "ZOMG freedom of expression!11!!!1!"-credo does not make me somehow American. Britain has an equally proud legacy of supporting Liberty and opposing Tyranny.

so you think that democracies should have absolutely NO censorship?

Yes. What is so confusing about "free speech?"

i'm all against banning freedom of speach and especially the banning of symbols. Germany is one of the only countries with such a ban and yet it has a lot of neo-nazi's. it's also not that hard to start to use new symbols.
i also find it strange why they only want to ban nazi symbols. there are plenty of other countries wich have commited war crimes and genocide. almost every large nation i can think of.

So you're all for letting people say whatever they want, so long as it's nice?

One rule for one...
Well, in America we have a long history of holding freedom of speech sacred. Unfortunately it seems Europe does not share this value. People have a right to say hateful, virulent, racist things, but you also have the right to speak out against it. Censorship is death in any nation that calls itself a Democracy.

There's a difference between only allowing people to say "nice" things and forbidding hate speech, as I'm sure you're well aware.

And funnily enough our democracy is alive and well, imagine that.

But I'm not versed in political philosophy so I won't be able to put up a debate about it, I'd be crushed in no time - not least because it *is* a fundamental difference in definition of how far "freedom of speech" should go, so these things usually end up in a kind of rhetorically disguised "Does not!" "Does too!" argument.

It's also important to note that

1) I don't intend to convert anyone to the German way of looking at this (unlike the minister who proposed this)

2) I very much think that it makes an eminent amount of sense to forbid Nazi symbols and most certainly Holocaust denial in Germany. If other countries are fine with it, so be it. Living here, I don't feel curtailed in my right to freedom of speech.

Yes. What is so confusing about "free speech?"

nothing really.

it's just that, if you mustn't censor ANYTHING, then people should have the right to show p0rn anytime, anywhere, to tell people how to build bombs, to show anybody's private life in public... that's just a few exemples.

clearly, I think you object to at least some of this. but then, isn't forbiding it censorship?

FYI, the minister who proposed the ban said it would only extend to Nazi symbols, not Communist ones or others.

Similarly some MPs from former communist states object to a ban on the swastika without a commensurate ban on the symbols of the Soviet era, such as the hammer and sickle.

Seems to imply that there is some kind of plan to tack this onto the German proposal, but yes, I concede, Germany itself has not commented on that.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6263103.stm

But it has now.

Basically, when Germany next takes the European Presidency they plan to introduce a pan-European ban on Nazi symbolism and Holocaust denial, bringing the whole continent in line with Germany's (frankly) neurotic and border-line authoritarian legislation.

Personally, I believe the ultimate indicator of a civilised society is allowing even the individuals with the most unpopular opinions the same free and equal rights to voice themselves as anybody else. Once you place any limitation on freedom of speech the whole principle is seriously endangered.

Now, I am very pro-European. I dislike the constant bandwagoneering against the 'crazy' 'Eurocrats', I believe that the EU has succeeded in bringing the continent peace and, through its standardisation programs, has helped secure an integrated single market. But I do not believe the EU has a mandate to act in this field, it can legislate over nations and enterprises, but NOT over people.

Britain is the nation that granted asylum to Karl Marx, of all people, despite the obvious threat to the world order that he posed. I find that something to be very proud of, that we are willing to protect the rights of the weak and disenfranchised even when it is directly against our best interests. This is a legacy I am proud of, and a legacy I wish to maintain. I hate Nazis, I hate Jihadis, I probably wouldn't have liked Karl Marx, but I would fight for their right to voice their hateful and moronic opinions.

I sincerely hope this legislation gets nowhere, but alas... that is not how Europe works.

Talking about neurotic and Germans...This reminded me:


The Trouble with Germans: Part Two

The BBC's Matt Frei reports in the concuding part of a Radio 4 programme on Germans' relationship with their fellow Europeans.

Click here to read the first part of Matt Frei's report

Adolf Hitler had a lot to answer for but I never thought I would end up blaming him for the leaking pipes and faulty wiring in my flat.

Let me explain. In 1992 I bought a flat in Notting Hill, when that neck of the woods was a lot less fashionable and expensive than it is today. The property had just been converted and since a lot of work needed to be done I inherited a group of three Polish builders who had been employed by the developer: Lazlo, Tadeausz and Tomas, citizens of the city of Lodz now resident in Tuffnel Park.

They were master craftsmen. Tadeuz wasn't just a carpenter. He fancied himself as a sculptor. When I asked him to make me a wooden box to hide the fuse switches, he suggested making something fit for a cathedral with a Madonna and child: "Just like in Lodz cathedral," he said. "No", I replied. "Keep it simple."

Lazlo, who was an electrician by training but a theatre director by delusion, wanted to wire up a galaxy of fairy lights and halogen lamps that would have turned my small flat into an airport runway. In the end Lazlo even had problems putting in a socket.

Tomas, the plumber's real ambition was to irrigate the hanging gardens of Babylon, not fix my drainage pipe. The truth is that all three were as charming as they were incompetent. The fuses kept blowing, the sinks never stopped leaking and the drainage pipe irrigated my neighbour's conservatory.

"I'm going to sack all three!" I told my mother, who had come over from Germany to supervise the work.

"No, you're not!" she replied sharply. "We owe these people a favour. After all that Hitler and we Germans did to Poland during the war."



Lazlo, who was an electrician by training but a theatre director by delusion, wanted to wire up a galaxy of fairy lights and halogen lamps that would have turned my small flat into an airport runway.
I was astonished. Had my mother been the daughter of Martin Borman or Albert Speer, or Heinrich Himmler I would have understood. But Anita Frei, born Matz, was eight years old in 1945, too young to even join the League of German Maidens, Hitler's Brownies. Her father was a music teacher who loathed the Nazis and her mother once compared Hitler's moustache to a "Rotznase", a runny nose, at ladies' coffee morning, a flagrant act of resistance under the circumstances.

What is more my mother's family had lived in that part of the Reich that was bequeathed to Poland by the Allies after the War. Together with 16m other Germans they became refugees and part of the biggest forced migration of people in history, bigger even than the exodus after Indian partition. My mother and her family lost everything.

'Collective guilt'

The suffering of her family is of course trivial when compared to the suffering of millions of Jews, Poles and gypsies. Considering her innocence it was probably enough to let her off the hook on the guilt front. But Lazlo, Tomas and Tadeuz continued to wreck my flat, the unwitting beneficiaries of the convulsions of 20th century Europe.

Since World War II, the Germans have become experts at collective guilt. It has been drummed into us over and over again by politicians, authors and religious leaders that we the Germans have a collective responsibility for what happened half a century ago.



It has been drummed into us over and over again by politicians, authors and religious leaders that we the Germans have a collective responsibility for what happened half a century ago.
Some like my mother take their guilt seriously. Most people bear it lightly, as if they were tossing coins into a beggar's hat. And some like the former Chancellor Helmut Kohl, now of course deeply mired in scandal, want to shrug it off.

Herr Kohl struck a popular cord when he declared that the younger generation of Germans, including himself, should benefit from the grace of a late birth. In other words: please stop labouring us with a past, for which we cannot be held responsible.

But the past continues to dominate. And nowhere more so than in Berlin, a city which is busy reinventing itself. Pity the famous Reichstag. Sir Norman Foster has filled the old burnt out cavity with elegant glass and steel like a master dentist. You can see the new debating chamber from the steps outside. It is light and airy, a cathedral of democracy. But even here nothing is straightforward and Guenther, my guide on a recent visit looked perplexed.

"Sir Norman Foster wanted dark grey benches for the deputies. But we decided that this colour was too fascistic," sighed Guenther who must have been in his late twenties and displayed the angry complexion of someone suffering perhaps from too much collective guilt. No blond blue-eyed Neo-warrior was he.

"We chose a more democratic colour," he continued, without even a flicker of irony. "We call this colour Reichstag blue."

'Political correctness'

The colour of German democracy is a garish purple blue that looks completely out of place in the Armani earth tones of the Reichstag. I began to worry. If the future of German democracy hinges on the colour of the deputy's seats how stable can that democracy be? Fifty-five years after the end of Fascism, Germany still takes nothing for granted.

"Then there was the argument about the eagle," Guenther continued, by now almost on the verge of tears.

The debating chamber is dominated by a giant eagle, Germany's national emblem, which hangs precariously above the Speaker's podium. The eagle has reflected the various stages of German history. Pre-war versions looked as if they were about to swoop down on some unfortunate prey. By contrast the West German eagle, which hung in the Bonn parliament for four decades was flat, grey and innocuous, like one of those splayed ducks in the window of a Chinese restaurant.

Norman Foster had designed a new eagle. But the elders of the parliament deemed it too unfriendly. So they commissioned a rival eagle, also flat and made of grey metal but this time with an expression that can best be described as dead pan.

"But we couldn't get rid of the Foster eagle", Guenther intoned. "It would have been unfair."

Both eagles now hang back to back above the speaker's podium as if engaged in some strange mating ritual. Having spent most of the last century offending just about everyone, we Germans are today bending over backwards to be nice.

Re-inventing a city

The city planners who are re-inventing Berlin are treading ever so carefully around the eggshells of German history. There are so many ghosts that need to be appeased: the Jews, the gypsies, the "Aussies", the Russians, the Poles - the list is endless. At the same time there is so much history that must not be denied, or bricked over: Imperial Germany, the Nazis, the East German Communist. The prime inspiration for redesigning Berlin is not grandeur, patriotic pride or economic success but guilt.

Virtually every major building has triggered an agonising historical debate. For instance the new German Finance Ministry will be housed in the monolithic Airforce Ministry built by Hermann Goering for Hitler's Luftwaffe. It would have been cheaper to knock the building down and start from scratch. But that would have amounted to an act of denial.



Virtually every major building has triggered an agonising historical debate.
So the original structure, massive and ugly as it is, has been preserved. A new West-facing facade has been added to provide a friendlier look and of course the government made sure that Goering's ministry was occupied by the Labour Department, not Defence.

The so-called "Palace of the Republic" is another case in point. This hideous perspex and chrome monstrosity, which is infested with asbestos, was the rubber stamp parliament of Communist East Germany. The obvious thing would have been to tear it down like the former East German foreign ministry that was demolished at great cost for purely aesthetic reasons.

But the Palace of the Republic will stay -for reasons of politically correct nostalgia. This building was a curious combination of parliament, Communist shopping mall and entertainment complex, including an ice rink and a bowling alley - one of the few places where East Germans went to have what they thought was "fun".

The rest of East Germany may have been trampled over by those arrogant Wessies but the Palace of the Republic has become a treasured fig leaf of respect for our poor cousins in the East. People like my Uncle Wolfgang.

An electrician by trade who was responsible for some dubious electrical fittings in the era of the Stasi, Wolfgang greeted the liberation of his country from the yoke of dictatorship with a fearful cringe and prolonged constipation. He and his three children and pallid wife Irmgard had spent the first two days holed up in their bungalow on the outskirts of Berlin.

"We are scared! What's going to happen to our country, our currency, my allotment?" Wolfgang whined when I went to see him to offer my congratulations that a member of the Frei family had finally taken part in one of Europe's great peaceful revolutions. He was depressed. I was disappointed.

Wolfgang and his family sat in front of the TV waiting to be told by the government what to do next. But there were no instructions. The East German government was too pre-occupied with self-preservation. The country was beginning to implode.

For two days Wolfgang twitched the curtains and watched his neighbours cram into their spluttering Trabis and head West. Finally he and my cousins also put on their duffel coats and went to have a peak at liberty and its forbidden fruits. East Germany suffered from the typical lack of fresh fruit that was stipulated nowhere in Marx's Kapital but that seemed to afflict every Communist country. When they got to West Berlin Wolfgang and the children binged on bananas. Hence the constipation.

All this was a far cry from the joke made by a Dutch colleague ten years ago. "German unification", he said "is great. It's just like the Beatles getting together again. Let's just hope they don't go on another World Tour." I can assure you world domination was not on my uncle's mind.

.......

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/648010.stm

I guess, this article still holds for today except that that commie palace was demolished. And freedom of speech is also restricted in UK. Refer to one of my previous threads.

There is a significant bloc of European countries where Holocaust denial is already illegal,Ah, I didn't know that. I just looked it up on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial#Laws_against_Holocaust_denial) and it turns out it's illegal in more countries than I knew:

Austria
Belgium
Czech Republic
France
Germany
Lithuania
The Netherlands
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
Spain
Switzerland

I don't see why they would oppose a proposal that leaves them untouched.You certainly have a point there, then.
Except of course the part about banning Nazi symbols - that I really don't see being passed.

P.S. Cherishing the "ZOMG freedom of expression!11!!!1!"-credo does not make me somehow American. Britain has an equally proud legacy of supporting Liberty and opposing Tyranny. I see.

There's a difference between only allowing people to say "nice" things and forbidding hate speech, as I'm sure you're well aware.

I see no difference.

i'm all against banning freedom of speach and especially the banning of symbols. Germany is one of the only countries with such a ban and yet it has a lot of neo-nazi's. it's also not that hard to start to use new symbols.
i also find it strange why they only want to ban nazi symbols. there are plenty of other countries wich have commited war crimes and genocide. almost every large nation i can think of.

One could argue that the neo-Nazi phenomenon in Germany is exactly due to the silencing of debate about the Nazi period. Especially in East Germany, where the curriculum basically consisted of repeating that 'Nazi Germany was an evil Imperialist Regime that you, as Good Loyal Communists, have nothing at all to do with.' Whereas the West German curriculum did offer some discussion about the phenomenon, and sought to explain how people can be corrupted, and how evil can prevail when good men do nothing and yadda yadda yadda. Eastern Germany has a significant neo-Nazi problem, western Germany less so, and Britain has hardly no Nazi problem. As you can see, the order corresponds with the level of openness in the debate.

hmmm....Okay, now the Holocaust was indeed horrendous (and that's being nice) but fact is it happened and ended more than 60 yrs ago. It's time for people to move forward and to get out of the past.

A lot of people from across the globe declare and stand by saying how President Bush is the most evil person in this world. Do you think he's going to ban the anti-Bush, Bushwhackers, Bushhaters, etc... from expressing their freedom of speech and expression and their determined and continued hate sentiment? I think not.

I'm convinced that not all of Europe has "Freedom of Speech" but more like "Freedom of Speech as long as you aren't Offended" :rolleyes:

In America, after our Civil War that costed many lives throughout our Great Nation, we never placed a ban on the Conferate Flag. In fact, it is still around throughout the nation.

America, the True "Freedom of Speech". :)

hmmm....Okay, now the Holocaust was indeed horrendous (and that's being nice) but fact is it happened and ended more than 60 yrs ago. It's time for people to move forward and to get out of the past.

A lot of people from across the globe declare and stand by saying how President Bush is the most evil person in this world. Do you think he's going to ban the anti-Bush, Bushwhackers, Bushhaters, etc... from expressing their freedom of speech and expression and their determined and continued hate sentiment? I think not.

I'm convinced that not all of Europe has "Freedom of Speech" but more like "Freedom of Speech as long as you aren't Offended" :rolleyes:

In America, after our Civil War that costed many lives throughout our Great Nation, we never placed a ban on the Conferate Flag. In fact, it is still around throughout the nation.

America, the True "Freedom of Speech". :)

As it happens America doesn't have true freedom of speech, you do have some restrictions. Sensible things like no shouting fire in a crowded theater, or shouting theater in a crowded fire. Sensible restrictions or not, they're still restrictions.

or shouting theater in a crowded fire.
Oh, they've done me on that one many a time.

The entire EU should fight restrictions of free speech like this one at every turn.
Except, the EU has previously demonstrated that it doesn't like freedom. Remember their response to the election of Jörg Haider in Austria.

I thought the idea of free speech was that it is supposed to expose ideas. If it's a good idea then this exposure means it gains influence. If it's a bad idea then it is ridiculed.

I'm going to go out on a limb her and say that facism and holocaust denial can be separated from the hate speech that it is normally expressed in.

I think there's nothing wrong with someone advocating a state with stong morality, state-owned industry and a strong sense of nationalism - even though I think there's something with with such a state.

It's like a debate in a way. It's easier to demolish someone's argument rather to create and defend your own argument. Hence if you ban nazi symbols and holocaust denial you go part of the way to supressing that idea. Thus you have to do more of the defending your own ideals rather demolishing others.

To preserve democracy all you have to do is show that it is better than all the other options, not that it is a perfect system. Restrictions on free speech hinder the ability of democracy to engage in this process.

Seriously, I'd have to agree with the OPs opinion of Freedom of Speech. Is it truly Freedom of Speech when in fact you place limitations/restrictions on it? I think not. If you place restrictions on the Freedom of Speech then you are truly a hyprocrite and it isn't really Freedom of Speech. It's more of "Limited Speech".

I have no problem whatsoever with turning "Freedom of Speech" into "freedom to state an opinion" and only a little with changing it into "freedom to state an opinion provided one can back it up".

As far as holocaust denial is concerned that last change would effectively be equal to a ban. It will also eliminate many utterings of racism, as well as religions that try to gain followers through lies and deceit.

I thought the idea of free speech was that it is supposed to expose ideas. If it's a good idea then this exposure means it gains influence. If it's a bad idea then it is ridiculed.
Unfortunately humans do not work that way.

I'd be more concerned about Mussolini's recent rise to power than this.

Unfortunately humans do not work that way.Stupid humans. They always screw everything up. Everything would be just perfect without them I tell you.

In America, after our Civil War that costed many lives throughout our Great Nation, we never placed a ban on the Conferate Flag. In fact, it is still around throughout the nation.

Actually, we did. For about twenty years, you were screwed if you were caught with the Stars and Bars or the Southern Cross.

Its not often Europe makes me angry

I suppose we shall just have to be more diligent in the future.

And I, for one, am perfectly happy with freedom of expression that excludes hate speech.


I hate people who use hate speech!

Well, in America we have a long history of holding freedom of speech sacred. Unfortunately it seems Europe does not share this value. People have a right to say hateful, virulent, racist things, but you also have the right to speak out against it. Censorship is death in any nation that calls itself a Democracy.

I have two words for you: "wardrobe malfunction". "Freedom of speech sacred in the US", my ass (which rocks)!

hmmm....Okay, now the Holocaust was indeed horrendous (and that's being nice) but fact is it happened and ended more than 60 yrs ago. It's time for people to move forward and to get out of the past.

A lot of people from across the globe declare and stand by saying how President Bush is the most evil person in this world. Do you think he's going to ban the anti-Bush, Bushwhackers, Bushhaters, etc... from expressing their freedom of speech and expression and their determined and continued hate sentiment? I think not.

I'm convinced that not all of Europe has "Freedom of Speech" but more like "Freedom of Speech as long as you aren't Offended" :rolleyes:

In America, after our Civil War that costed many lives throughout our Great Nation, we never placed a ban on the Conferate Flag. In fact, it is still around throughout the nation.

America, the True "Freedom of Speech". :)
*Yawn*

Germany in my opinion is the singapore of europe, and thus should not be allowed to force any of it's draconian legislature on the rest of Europe.

I have two words for you: "wardrobe malfunction". "Freedom of speech sacred in the US", my ass (which rocks)!

But Fass, that's not free speech! It's free boobage and shocking pornography! Not the same, not he same *rocks back and forth repeating the mantra until it becomes truth*

But Fass, that's not free speech! It's free boobage and shocking pornography! Not the same, not he same *rocks back and forth repeating the mantra until it becomes truth*

Yeah, apparently human body = intolerable, Fred Phelps and his ilk = fine and dandy. Such champions of free speech they are, protecting themselves from all those evil boobies.

Yeah, apparently human body = intolerable, Fred Phelps and his ilk = fine and dandy. Such champions of free speech they are, protecting themselves from all those evil boobies.

I've always been perplexed at the fact that most Americans don't seem to have a problem with watching a TV character conducting mass killings but the sight of a nipple somehow breaks our fragile sensibilities.

I've always been perplexed at the fact that most Americans don't seem to have a problem with watching a TV character conducting mass killings but the sight of a nipple somehow breaks our fragile sensibilities.

I think it's just feminists and old dudes who can't get an erection that decide to ruin it for the rest of us.

Germany in my opinion is the singapore of europe, and thus should not be allowed to force any of it's draconian legislature on the rest of Europe.
As I've learned just a few hours ago, Poland bans Holocaust denial, too.

So what you're saying is that the OMG banning of Nazi symbols makes us a draconian legislature?

*pats*

So... what's the horrible repercussions of not banning the symbols? For example, they're not banned in the US and Canada, and I don't see any Gestapo marching through the streets of either of these nations. Whats Europe so afraid of? They're past authoritarianism...

In the meantime, I think we should (in addition to Nazi symbols) ban capitalist and communist symbols. Do you know how much pain and suffering both of these ideologies have caused? And you know what caused all that pain and suffering? That's right, those symbols. *nod*

I think it's just feminists and old dudes who can't get an erection that decide to ruin it for the rest of us.

I dunno, I was overseas when all that happened, so I didn't get to hear everything that was going on back here. Still, the fact that the FCC went ballistic just boggles my mind.

old dudes who can't get an erection that decide to ruin it for the rest of us.

Surely they would be pro nipple showing?

I see no difference.
You don't see how, say, Bodacious' ill-applied example here:
A lot of people from across the globe declare and stand by saying how President Bush is the most evil person in this world. Do you think he's going to ban the anti-Bush, Bushwhackers, Bushhaters, etc... from expressing their freedom of speech and expression and their determined and continued hate sentiment? I think not.

I'm convinced that not all of Europe has "Freedom of Speech" but more like "Freedom of Speech as long as you aren't Offended" :rolleyes:
is nothing that would be banned in any democratic country (except maybe Berlusconi's Italy if you spoke against him ;)) and how there's a huge difference between inconvenient opinions one might not like and malicious lies about, threats against and slander of the classic targets of national socialism as well as its victims from 65 years ago?

I dunno, I was overseas when all that happened, so I didn't get to hear everything that was going on back here. Still, the fact that the FCC went ballistic just boggles my mind.

It really is a part of American society that is perplexing... we allow women to dress up as scantily as possible, parade them on TV, but as soon as we see ONE nipple then we freak out and the censors get to work.

Surely they would be pro nipple showing?

They're just jealous that the rest of the male population can get erections so they wreak their revenge by censoring it on TV.

America and Europe seem to be inverses of each other on free speech. Europe is more open about things in sexual nature, while the US is more open about political speech. Combine them into one giant supernation and then...

*cough* Germans have a lot too live up too *cough*

http://img478.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ajp2.jpg


(I wrote that comic for another thread, so it may not really apply too well too this threads topic)

America and Europe seem to be inverses of each other on free speech. Europe is more open about things in sexual nature, while the US is more open about political speech. Combine them into one giant supernation and then...

...then we have a place where it's a capital felony to deny the Holocaust while showing your nipple.

As I've learned just a few hours ago, Poland bans Holocaust denial, too.

So what you're saying is that the OMG banning of Nazi symbols makes us a draconian legislature?

*pats*
Wow. i never know you would not see the huge difference between Holocaust denial and swastika bans. germany is just too obsessed with making sure minorities don't get offended.

Wow. i never know you would not see the huge difference between Holocaust denial and swastika bans. germany is just too obsessed with making sure minorities don't get offended.

While Poland is on the verge of being censured by the EU for not respecting minority rights. Face it, Poland with its nutty kind of political Catholicism has very little to lecture any country in the West about.

Wow. i never know you would not see the huge difference between Holocaust denial and swastika bans.
...

You misunderstand me, it seems.

You said Germany was the Singapore of Europe with its draconian laws.

Since Poland also outlaws Holocaust denial, it logically follows that you base your assessment of Draconian, Singaporean Germany only on the banning of Nazi symbols.

Which seemed just a tad... loopy.

germany is just too obsessed with making sure minorities don't get offended. Minorities??

Yes, because of course we average Germans just wait to break out our Swastika flags.

If only those pesky Jews, gypsies, gays and political dissidents would finally stop wielding all that power over our government.

Oh, how I hates them!

My housemate, doing an International Politics degree, thinks that all Holocaust deniers should be shot.

I find this somewhat ironic. XD

Well, in America we have a long history of holding freedom of speech sacred. Unfortunately it seems Europe does not share this value. People have a right to say hateful, virulent, racist things, but you also have the right to speak out against it. Censorship is death in any nation that calls itself a Democracy.

Yes those are 60 proud years.

So what you're saying is that the OMG banning of Nazi symbols makes us a draconian legislature?

No, banning Nazi symbols to the point of obsession makes you a draconian legislature.

No, banning Nazi symbols to the point of obsession makes you a draconian legislature.

Then you know very little about the German legislature as well as judiciary, it would seem. Or, you're just pulling hyperboles in place of anything actually salient to say.

My housemate, doing an International Politics degree, thinks that all Holocaust deniers should be shot.

I find this somewhat ironic. XD

considering that the only reason anyone does the denial dance is because they actually favor doing it again, your friend ain't far off the mark

No, banning Nazi symbols to the point of obsession makes you a draconian legislature.

Surely you can see how Germany might have more than an average issue with that symbol?

I have two words for you: "wardrobe malfunction". "Freedom of speech sacred in the US", my ass (which rocks)!

How fucked up was that? Goddamn FCC screwing everything up. I think the difference is where we have a prudish culture that cringes at anything having to do with sex, you (Europeans) have an overtly politically correct culture that cringes at anything that might possibly offend someone.

I am anti-european union for just this reason. It means that men on the continet in brussles can tell us what to do and make our laws that our own country may not agree on, as with most of european polocy.

cringes at anything that might possibly offend someone.

and/or result in the slaughter of millions

How fucked up was that? Goddamn FCC screwing everything up. I think the difference is where we have a prudish culture that cringes at anything having to do with sex, you (Europeans) have an overtly politically correct culture that cringes at anything that might possibly offend someone.

The point being that the things that offend us are sensible things to be offended at.

The point being that the things that offend us are sensible things to be offended at.

Thats relative, but I agree with you. However, I still defend the right for people to say/do offensive things.

It does seem a tad excessive, and more so in the context of the rest of Europe.

Except, the EU has previously demonstrated that it doesn't like freedom. Remember their response to the election of Jörg Haider in Austria.

Googling Haider and EU, I should say I'm quite shocked. First, at the powers of EU on nation states, and second to the interference on democratic process. Quite backward.

I am not sure about this but Canada may be the most free country in the world. Free speech, like USA, unlike Europe + Tolerance to nudity homosexuality (marriage, etc..), etc... like Europe, unlike USA.

I know I'm generalizing. Like NY may be more tolerant to gays than Alberta or like the difference between countries in Europe, but I'm talking "on avarage".

I'm missing anything?

....you (Europeans) have an overtly politically correct culture that cringes at anything that might possibly offend someone.


Paris
Racism Unfiltered in France
Saturday, Jan. 06, 2007 By BRUCE CRUMLEY

If the problem of racism in American discourse is typified by the N-word outburst of comedian Michael Richards followed by his abject apology, the French variant is altogether more toxic. The latest outrage came from second-string TV personality and self-appointed social commentator Pascal Sevran, whose recently published book included the obscenely racist idea that the "black [penis] is responsible for famine in Africa." Elaborating in a newspaper interview, Sevran said, "Africa is dying from all the children born there" to parents supposedly too sexually undisciplined or dumb to realize they could not feed them all. The answer to the problem? "We need sterilize half the planet," Sevran emphatically replied. Known as an relentless attention-seeker, the defiant Sevran drew only limited fire for his comments, and a public rebuke from his public television employer — though not the cancellation of his Sunday program that many demanded. Appalled at the light punishment, the government of Niger (itself a victim of recent famines) announced it would file libel charges against Sevran in French courts.
Crime Takes the Holidays

Even in a city used to daily violence, Rio's unusually bloody New Year's made locals shudder
Racism Unfiltered in France

In America, Michael Richards makes a racist outburst and later apologizes. In France, too, racist rants are becoming more common — only without the apology part

Sevran's prurient opinions are but the latest addition to the growing racist chatter in the French mainstream. A month earlier, a Socialist political kingpin in the Montpellier region sparked fury — and possible expulsion from the party — by lamenting that France's national soccer team fielded "9 blacks out of 11" starting players. "I'm ashamed of this country," in which "the whites are lousy," he groused, and would soon be fielding teams "where all 11 players are black." That echoed a comment a year earlier by philosopher Alain Finkelkraut, who — seeking to explain the 2005 rioting by youths descended from immigrants in France's suburbs — made allusion to France's "white-black-Arab" soccer side that won the 1998 World Cup and became an icon of French social integration. " Today, [the team is] black-black-black, and it's the laughingstock of Europe," Finkelkraut complained.

Even some black Frenchmen have joined the bigoted chorus: In November, the black comic known as Dieudonné made a conspicuous appearance at the annual congress of Jean-Marie Le Pen's National Front party — much to the pleasure of extreme-rightists looking to lose their racist stigma without changing their xenophobic positions. For the last two years, the self-described leftist Dieudonné had outdone even Le Pen in Jew-baiting, delivering a series of brazenly anti-Semitic remarks, belittling the Holocaust and depicting Jews as racist persecutors of blacks and Arabs. Though that earned him general condemnation, Dieudonné's high-profile fraternizing with a party treated as a pariah by most French minorities and voters indicated that he, too, was looking for a more effective manner to promote his divisive positions. His flirtation with Le Pen found support from Ahmed Moualek, a blogger and influential voice from France's blighted suburban housing projects who said he'd rather debate with "an intelligent racist than with a stupid anti-racist," noting that while Le Pen's "language can at times shock people, he's an honest man."

The rising torrent of racist language and publicly expressed racist attitudes may be a sign less that racism is spreading, than that the boundaries of mainstream tolerance are changing. As in the U.S., France has seen an increase in provocative shock content in entertainment and commentary, whether for comic effect or political impact. Interior Minister and presidential hopeful Nicolas Sarkozy drew protests when he used a racially loaded term to denounce young men rioting in the suburbs last year — an outcry that also coincided with his jump in polls. The street patois of those ethnically diverse projects, meanwhile, has also long contained its own racially aggressive "shock" element, with the rejoinder "ta race" (your race) a kind of generic, all-purpose slight. Clearly, the political "filter" in the U.S. public square that prompts a Michael Richards or a Mel Gibson to grovel apologetically following publicly recorded racial insults is considerably less developed in France. Indeed, last year's riots were a stark reminder of how poorly France has done in integrating its diversity, remaining locked in an officially "color-blind" national ideology that often simply avoids confronting the problems of racial inequality. France counts no blacks or Arabs as members of parliament, and its corporate boardrooms don't fare much better.

France rejects affirmative action as incompatible with its republican ideals of color-blind equality for all citizens. Nice in theory, but that's not working in practice: discrimination continues, inequality is rife, and notions of color-blindness don't square with the rising chorus of racially loaded commentary. Color-blindness may also function to keep France blind to racial discrimination and inequality, but the rising tide of anger in the projects and racist chatter in the mainstream suggests that the French may soon have no choice but to openly confront what color-blindness prefers not to see.


http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1574817,00.html

I love Germany. It's a beautiful country, and it's foods are excellent. The people are lovely, although I don't speak their language.

BUT DAMN THEY NEED TO STOP TRYING TO FORGET THEIR PAST!

-

Want to play that game? How about Belgium banning an entire politcal party?

Belgium's highest court has ruled that the Flemish far-right Vlaams Blok party is racist.

The ruling means the Blok will lose access to state funding and access to television which will, in effect, shut down the party.

The Blok was appealing against a court ruling which stated that it was guilty of violating anti-racism legislation.

Recent opinion polls suggest the Vlaams Blok is the most popular party in the Dutch-speaking region of Flanders.

It garnered almost a quarter of votes in regional and European elections in June.

The party campaigns on an anti-immigration platform.

It also wants independence for Flanders, home to six million Dutch speakers.

Blow to Belgium's far right

Party chairman Frank Vanhecke said he was shocked at the ruling.

"Exactly 15 years after the Berlin Wall came down and the people of East Germany and eastern Europe regained their freedom, it was confirmed today that in the Belgian state, democracy and freedom of speech are under threat," he said.


'Xenophobic'

Vlaams Blok's leaders were prepared for the ruling, and are making plans to launch a new party with a new name, Vlaams Belang, or Flemish Interest, Belgian media say.

The High Court's ruling is final and cannot be appealed.

"In order to preserve our party members from prosecution, we are now forced to disband," said Mr Vanhecke immediately after the judgment.

"Today, our party has been killed, not by the electorate but by the judges."

The party had been toning down some of its statements, but there is every chance the new party will pick up where the old one left off, says the BBC's Chris Morris in Brussels.

At the weekend, its members voted to modernise the party's statutes and tone down its views on immigration, saying non-European immigrants wishing to remain in Belgium should adopt Belgian rules and values.

The Blok had once advocated that all non-European immigrants should be returned to their home country.

'Bury Belgium'

The Vlaams Blok makes the political establishment in Brussels very uncomfortable as they regard it as extremist and xenophobic, our correspondent adds.

For years, other parties have combined to shut it out of national and regional governments, but this tactic has not really worked, he says.

"We are the democratic voice of an ever growing number of Flemings who, in an entirely non-violent way, want to put an end to Belgium," Mr Vanhecke said on Tuesday.

"Our electoral strength is causing panic amongst the Belgian establishment. We will establish a new party. This one Belgium will not be able to bury; it will bury Belgium."

Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3994867.stm)

I can pull up stories like this one all day if you want.

Did you know the EU reclassified carrots as a fruit?

Did you know the EU reclassified carrots as a fruit?That's a legal definition. Something to do with a portugese jam I think.

Want to play that game? How about Belgium banning an entire politcal party?



Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3994867.stm)

I can pull up stories like this one all day if you want.

It's backward but still doesnt make Europe more PC than USA. There are successful far right parties in Europe whose members say things that even the most conservative US politicians cant say...

That being said, US does have more freedom of speech...But I was just objecting to PC part.


EU-wide rule sought on illegal immigrants

The European Commission asked its member nations on Thursday to implement common rules governing the return to their home countries of illegal immigrants and refugees who are denied asylum.

The proposals could bring the commission into conflict with EU states such as France and, especially, Britain, which is stepping up measures to expel foreign extremists following the London bombings in July.

Franco Frattini, the EU's justice and home affairs commissioner, said the common rules would help the union return more of the 650,000 illegal immigrants who were ordered to leave the EU last year; around two-thirds of them avoided expulsion and stayed on. It would also end the sharp divergence of standards among countries that encourage immigrants to move around Europe, seeking the safest haven.

The proposals would send "the clear message that people staying illegally in the EU should return to their country of origin," Frattini said. "Indeed, if we don't ensure a human, dignified but efficient return of illegal migrants, this will undermine the integrity and credibility of our immigration and asylum policies."

.....

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/09/01/news/union.php

As you know, such talk about dumping illegal immigrants would draw heavy criticism in USA, not to mention usual racism charges...

That being said, US does have more freedom of speech...But I was just objecting to PC part.

Oh, my bad.

As you know, such talk about dumping illegal immigrants would draw heavy criticism in USA, not to mention usual racism charges...

I guess you haven't been keeping up with the news here...

I love Germany. It's a beautiful country, and it's foods are excellent. The people are lovely, although I don't speak their language.

BUT DAMN THEY NEED TO STOP TRYING TO FORGET THEIR PAST!
:eek:

:p

That must be the first time I read a post here that tells us to stop forgetting our past, usually everybody yells at us to get over ourselves already.

You don't know much about Germany, do you?

There is hardly a country that is *less* forgetting its past. Just why do you think this whole debate we're having here came up?

Oh, my bad.



I guess you haven't been keeping up with the news here...

No, I dont watch news or read papers. But I dont think anyone suggested at deporting all illegal immigrants? With democrats in power, they will be probably legalized?

Like NY may be more tolerant to gays than Alberta or like the difference between countries in Europe, but I'm talking "on avarage".
Alberta was the first Canadian province to legalise civil marriage for gay couples.

Libertarian utopia, here we come.

No, I dont watch news or read papers. But I dont think anyone suggested at deporting all illegal immigrants? With democrats in power, they will be probably legalized?

Bush has wanted to legalise illegals for quite some time now, despite opposition to the idea from both sides. There's a plan to build a giant fence/wall on the US/Mexico border to try to stop the flood of illegals coming over. Deportation doesn't work since they just walk back across after we ship them back.

Bush has wanted to legalise illegals for quite some time now, despite opposition to the idea from both sides. There's a plan to build a giant fence/wall on the US/Mexico border to try to stop the flood of illegals coming over. Deportation doesn't work since they just walk back across after we ship them back.

That was my point. Bush is conservative. He's conservative on steroids by European standarts. So his equivalent in Europe would be an anti-immigrant politician. I dont think any right or left politician in Europe (except Spain) could offer to legalize illegal immigrants. Not in UK, not in Germany, not in France, nor Netherlands. Am I correct?

That brings us to point that Europe is not more PC than USA.

About border/fence, it's better than doing nothing. I think this idea is also good, tho not successful yet:


France uses money, not manacles, for deportation
By Katrin Bennhold
Published: December 21, 2006

PARIS: As Europe struggles to cope with a sharply rising tide of economic refugees from Africa, France is reformulating its strategy on repatriating illegal immigrants in the hope of enlisting the support of their home countries.

But the process of convincing impoverished nations like Mali or Senegal to take back migrants who are working and sending money home to their families, thereby improving those countries' economies, is proving difficult. African leaders are also reluctant to be seen by their electorates as cutting deportation deals with the former colonial master.

The French development minister, Brigitte Girardin, failed last week to persuade the Malian government to sign an agreement to make it easier for France to send back illegal immigrants. Senegal, Cameroon and Gabon have also refused to sign such "readmission accords," which facilitate the repatriation of illegals who try to conceal their national origin.

The French government, meanwhile, is making about €20 million, or $26 million, available over the next two years for small grants to illegal immigrants who agree to return home with a business project and to legal migrants who invest in a project in their home countries.

These funds are earmarked for people from 34 countries — all of French-speaking sub-Saharan Africa, plus Ethiopia, Morocco, Vanuatu, Haiti and the Comoros Islands — and amount to less than €600,000 a country on average.
Today in Europe
BP may have to cede some control of Russian venture
London bomb plot trial begins
Sarkozy, France's tough guy, files down his rough edges
Click here to find out more!

French officials, under pressure in an election year to allay public concerns about immigration, have expressed frustration with the lack of responsiveness in African capitals to measures they see as more carrot than stick.

"We can no longer separate security and development," Girardin said in a telephone interview. "We cannot win the fight against illegal immigration with repressive means only."

But African representatives counter that Western governments are more interested in getting rid of immigrants than in helping countries develop, arguing that the latest initiatives fall short of a credible effort to improve living standards.

"The idea that you can keep poor Africans out of the developed countries is a lost cause," said Amina Sidibé, a member of the Paris-based Malian High Council, an umbrella body for about 300 Malian organizations in France.

"The initiatives are nice for the few people they help," Sidibé said, "but against the determination of young people who are ready to die, it is a drop in the ocean."

Thousands of Africans have come ashore in Europe this year after risking their lives in sea crossings; many others have drowned en route. More than 26,000 Africans reached Spain's Canary Islands from January to October this year, up from 4,715 in all of 2005, according to the European Union.

Last weekend two dozen illegal migrants drowned off the coast of Senegal after their vessel was wrecked on its way to the Canaries.

Other major destinations have been Malta, Lampedusa and Sicily, where a rusty fishing boat with 648 people who said they were from Egypt arrived this week.

Once they make it to the mainland, African migrants can move on with relative ease to other countries because of Europe's open borders.

Even if many of the migrants live in poverty in Europe, they do not want to go back. So various countries, including France, Germany and the Netherlands, have begun paying them to leave.

Under a policy implemented in France in November 2005, an illegal immigrant who agrees to return home may collect €2,000 in cash. A couple is entitled to €3,500, with an extra €1,000 for each of the first three children and €500 for every additional child.

But by November this year only 1,859 people had taken the offer; an estimated 500,000 illegal immigrants preferred to stay.

As tensions over immigration build, several European governments have sought readmission agreements with African countries.

In theory, illegal immigrants can be repatriated without such accords — no country can refuse to take one of their nationals back, according to Girardin's office — but in practice the task is complicated by the fact that illegal immigrants have an incentive to hide their nationality to avoid deportation.

Readmission accords ease the burden of proof of nationality — accepting, for instance, local dialects as conclusive evidence.

France has such accords with 44 countries in Europe, Asia and Latin America, but none in Africa.

Mali, a former colony, is a test case for France. In 2004, the government started a pilot program for the 75,000 illegal Malian immigrants estimated to be living in France. Girardin's office made €2.6 million available to finance micro grants for illegal immigrants who were prepared to return home with business projects. In return, Mali exchanged a letter of understanding with France on facilitating the deportation process.
.....

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/21/news/migrate.php

That was my point. Bush is conservative. He's conservative on steroids by European standarts. So his equivalent in Europe would be an anti-immigrant politician. I dont think any right or left politician in Europe (except Spain) could offer to legalize illegal immigrants. Not in UK, not in Germany, not in France, nor Netherlands. Am I correct?

That brings us to point that Europe is not more PC than USA.


You've got to remember that Bush has become somewhat of a pariah to the Republican party. His immigration policy is not what the vast majority of Republicans want. So essentially he's split with his party. The only thing keeping him a "Republican" is name.

You've got to remember that Bush has become somewhat of a pariah to the Republican party. His immigration policy is not what the vast majority of Republicans want. So essentially he's split with his party. The only thing keeping him a "Republican" is name.

LOL. Thats kinda ironic. I still remember how everyone was behind him right after 9/11.

But you've also got to remember that there is no equivalent of Vlaams Belang (new Vlaams Blok) in USA. I dont remember hearing any conservative Republicans going that far.

No more Metal of Honor, Return to Castle Wolfenstien, or any other WWII games in Europe, because Germany bans all of those. (They ban most FPS anyway)

LOL. Thats kinda ironic. I still remember how everyone was behind him right after 9/11.

But you've also got to remember that there is no equivalent of Vlaams Belang (new Vlaams Blok) in USA. I dont remember hearing any conservative Republicans going that far.

No mainstream parties that is. Theres a fair amount of variations of the Nazi party here not to mention an official American Nazi party.

Germany is a great country. WHere else can you buy hard core porn showing women with ducks and chickens, and get in trouble for owning a video game?

No more Metal of Honor, Return to Castle Wolfenstien, or any other WWII games in Europe, because Germany bans all of those. (They ban most FPS anyway)

Anything with violence really. They changed the aliens to robots in HL1 and made the blood green....

I have two words for you: "wardrobe malfunction".

How is that "speech?" Not that I support censorship of such things, but how could it be considered "speech?"

No more Metal of Honor, Return to Castle Wolfenstien, or any other WWII games in Europe, because Germany bans all of those. (They ban most FPS anyway)
No they don't.

a) The government doesn't ban anything. It's a self-imposed industry standard. The games are still available, they just can't be advertised or put on the shelves. If you go to the smaller stores, they'll sell them under the counter to adults, and that is legal.

b) Wolfenstein was indeed not freely available in the shops. We still played it on the computers at school though.

c) Medal of Honor and all the other WWII shooters are freely available, if I recall correctly. They are very popular in Germany.

d) German firms are also working on very good FPS' themselves.

e) The only thing that rubs people the wrong way is really quite pointless violence and gore. And I suppose the question is: Do we really need to be able to mutilate dead bodies in a game? And if we are able to, is that really the sort of stuff you want kids to have?

How is that "speech?" Not that I support censorship of such things, but how could it be considered "speech?"

If that doesn't count as speech, then how does a swastika count as speech? Hmm?

Simple - "speech" in this context is used synonymously with expression. Don't cling to irrelevant semantics and thus waste our time with nonsense.

d) German firms are also working on very good FPS' themselves.

I agree. Far Cry was great.

e) The only thing that rubs people the wrong way is really quite pointless violence and gore. And I suppose the question is: Do we really need to be able to mutilate dead bodies in a game? And if we are able to, is that really the sort of stuff you want kids to have?

If you're selling censored FPS's to adults anyway then why not have them uncensored with all the blood and gore? Kids shouldn't be playing things like that in the first place. I don't understand the German aversion to violence in video games.

How is that "speech?" Not that I support censorship of such things, but how could it be considered "speech?"

Expression = speech. If you took it literally then only things that were spoken would be protected.

And I suppose the question is: Do we really need to be able to mutilate dead bodies in a game? And if we are able to, is that really the sort of stuff you want kids to have?
There's no connection between those two questions. Games aren't necessarily for kids.

Restricting access to goods because you don't see the need for them is a very authoritarian position. As long as they don't cause harm, there's no reason to prevent adults from having them.

Children, on the other hand, are restricted from all sorts of things. Games are no different.

If you're selling censored FPS's to adults anyway then why not have them uncensored with all the blood and gore?
Half-Life was available in the English version, under the counter. Problem is that you can't make much money that way.

So when they worked on the translation, they made sure that they wouldn't get in trouble with the USK, by adding the (frankly ridiculous) robots. It's all about money.

Kids shouldn't be playing things like that in the first place. I don't understand the German aversion to violence in video games.
It's pretty much the same as the American aversion to nudity.

Most Germans would call themselves pacifists. They don't like violence, they want things solved peacefully. So in-your-face depictions of hurting people are never gonna go down well.

Though there isn't nearly as big an issue in movies. And that comes down to the image of video games as something for children.

I agree. Far Cry was great.



If you're selling censored FPS's to adults anyway then why not have them uncensored with all the blood and gore? Kids shouldn't be playing things like that in the first place. I don't understand the German aversion to violence in video games.

I'm German (by citizenship tho I never lived there for long and I dont speak much German) but I have no aversion at all. ;) God, I missed FPS.

Half-Life was available in the English version, under the counter. Problem is that you can't make much money that way.

So when they worked on the translation, they made sure that they wouldn't get in trouble with the USK, by adding the (frankly ridiculous) robots. It's all about money.


It's pretty much the same as the American aversion to nudity.

Most Germans would call themselves pacifists. They don't like violence, they want things solved peacefully. So in-your-face depictions of hurting people are never gonna go down well.

Though there isn't nearly as big an issue in movies. And that comes down to the image of video games as something for children.

Ah, I see. I kind of equate it to the Japanese censoring porn...

Restricting access to goods because you don't see the need for them is a very authoritarian position.
I don't think anyone can accuse the Federal Republic of being a libertarian paradise. :D

Restricting access to goods because you don't see the need for them is a very authoritarian position.
Unless Jesus says so...

Unless Jesus says so...

Who said he wasn't?

Unless Jesus says so...
Especially if Jesus says so.

He's a tyrant. Why else would someone nail him to a tree?

But you've also got to remember that there is no equivalent of Vlaams Belang (new Vlaams Blok) in USA. I dont remember hearing any conservative Republicans going that far.

There is the Constitution Party, but they don't have the sort of support that parties like the Front National and such have.

Le Sigh
More progressive Nazism.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6263103.stm

But it has now.

Basically, when Germany next takes the European Presidency they plan to introduce a pan-European ban on Nazi symbolism and Holocaust denial, bringing the whole continent in line with Germany's (frankly) neurotic and border-line authoritarian legislation.

Personally, I believe the ultimate indicator of a civilised society is allowing even the individuals with the most unpopular opinions the same free and equal rights to voice themselves as anybody else. Once you place any limitation on freedom of speech the whole principle is seriously endangered.

Now, I am very pro-European. I dislike the constant bandwagoneering against the 'crazy' 'Eurocrats', I believe that the EU has succeeded in bringing the continent peace and, through its standardisation programs, has helped secure an integrated single market. But I do not believe the EU has a mandate to act in this field, it can legislate over nations and enterprises, but NOT over people.

Britain is the nation that granted asylum to Karl Marx, of all people, despite the obvious threat to the world order that he posed. I find that something to be very proud of, that we are willing to protect the rights of the weak and disenfranchised even when it is directly against our best interests. This is a legacy I am proud of, and a legacy I wish to maintain. I hate Nazis, I hate Jihadis, I probably wouldn't have liked Karl Marx, but I would fight for their right to voice their hateful and moronic opinions.

I sincerely hope this legislation gets nowhere, but alas... that is not how Europe works.


I'm Jewish and all, but I frankly find that kind of disturbing. Not that Nazism is good, but that they would ban nazism outright. Scary. Europe.

Half-Life was available in the English version, under the counter. Problem is that you can't make much money that way.

So when they worked on the translation, they made sure that they wouldn't get in trouble with the USK, by adding the (frankly ridiculous) robots. It's all about money.


It's pretty much the same as the American aversion to nudity.

Most Germans would call themselves pacifists. They don't like violence, they want things solved peacefully. So in-your-face depictions of hurting people are never gonna go down well.

Though there isn't nearly as big an issue in movies. And that comes down to the image of video games as something for children.

Very informative. Thanks NL.

e) The only thing that rubs people the wrong way is really quite pointless violence and gore. And I suppose the question is: Do we really need to be able to mutilate dead bodies in a game? And if we are able to, is that really the sort of stuff you want kids to have?

Yes. Don't sanitize violence. Let people see exactly was it does.

Yes. Don't sanitize violence. Let people see exactly was it does.

Yeah, but in games, you kill someone, and you get perfect health, ammo and weapons. And points. That's not sanitizing violence, that's mythologizing it!

It can't be law unless it has considerable support from across Europe, and, as the article says, the Germans think it has a good chance of being accepted.

They're quite wrong then, aren't they?

I don't see how this affects anyone who is worth mentioning.

Except for my friend Matt who dressed as Hitler for Halloween because he has class.

They're quite wrong then, aren't they?
Not really. You're aware that much (if not most) of Europe has laws like that already, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial#Laws_against_Holocaust_denial

Except for my friend Matt who dressed as Hitler for Halloween because he has class.
Wouldn't be covered, because it's neither Holocaust Denial, nor glorification of the Nazi regime.

hmmm....Okay, now the Holocaust was indeed horrendous (and that's being nice) but fact is it happened and ended more than 60 yrs ago. It's time for people to move forward and to get out of the past.

A lot of people from across the globe declare and stand by saying how President Bush is the most evil person in this world. Do you think he's going to ban the anti-Bush, Bushwhackers, Bushhaters, etc... from expressing their freedom of speech and expression and their determined and continued hate sentiment? I think not.

I'm convinced that not all of Europe has "Freedom of Speech" but more like "Freedom of Speech as long as you aren't Offended" :rolleyes:

In America, after our Civil War that costed many lives throughout our Great Nation, we never placed a ban on the Conferate Flag. In fact, it is still around throughout the nation.

America, the True "Freedom of Speech". :)
Yeah right ... just you try to say fuck on daytime TV and see what sort of fines you/the station receive :rolleyes:

Anyway, forgeting history is the first step to repeating it.

Agree. See Hannah Arendt.

I have no problem whatsoever with turning "Freedom of Speech" into "freedom to state an opinion" and only a little with changing it into "freedom to state an opinion provided one can back it up".

As far as holocaust denial is concerned that last change would effectively be equal to a ban. It will also eliminate many utterings of racism, as well as religions that try to gain followers through lies and deceit.


Unfortunately humans do not work that way.

:eek:

Yeah, but in games, you kill someone, and you get perfect health, ammo and weapons. And points. That's not sanitizing violence, that's mythologizing it!

Not in the games I play.

*cough* Germans have a lot too live up too *cough*

http://img478.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ajp2.jpg


(I wrote that comic for another thread, so it may not really apply too well too this threads topic)

so your point is that because Germany was nazi 65 years ago, germans who had nothing to do with that should not have anything to say about other war crimes? well then, I don't see that I have the right to voice an opinion on slavery, or fascism, or any other such topic... :confused:

Re: dressing as Hitler:

Wouldn't be covered, because it's neither Holocaust Denial, nor glorification of the Nazi regime.

How is someone going to dress as Hitler without displaying any Nazi symbols? Go as 'before he was famous' Hitler? As fancy dress, I think it would lack a certain something.

I can see how the German mentality would have concluded that this is a step in the right direction. So it doesn't really piss me off...
It would piss me off greatly however if the rest of Europe agreed with the proposition.in another words.. you are happy with the atupidity of the German elected Prez(Chancelor), and are counting ou Europe to save you from your own stupidity.

nothing really.

it's just that, if you mustn't censor ANYTHING, then people should have the right to show p0rn anytime, anywhere, to tell people how to build bombs, to show anybody's private life in public... that's just a few exemples.

clearly, I think you object to at least some of this. but then, isn't forbiding it censorship?

...

I don't object to any of that actually.

So Europe is annoying you when it's Germany that's pushing for this?

On NS General, you're not allowed to say that Europe annoys you. This is as bad as that guy in the other thread who says that NHS sucks in his area.

:eek:

Religions that .... Not ALL religions ;)

But of course, if the shoe fits... :p

It's backward but still doesnt make Europe more PC than USA. There are successful far right parties in Europe whose members say things that even the most conservative US politicians cant say...

That being said, US does have more freedom of speech...But I was just objecting to PC part.


http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/09/01/news/union.php

As you know, such talk about dumping illegal immigrants would draw heavy criticism in USA, not to mention usual racism charges...

hmmm....If I recall correctly in previous topics regarding illegal aliens in America...We were and still are highly criticized by a lot of Europeans whenever an American on NSG mentions sending the Mexicans crossing the borders illegally back home and to tighten and better enforce to prevent the overflow of illegals into our country.

And now I see your post stating that this is exactly what the EU is trying to do with their illegals. What gives? It's okay for Europe to expel the illegals back to where they came from but as for America, we're nothing but a bunch of bigots for suggesting the same. Wow.

And now I see your post stating that this is exactly what the EU is trying to do with their illegals. What gives? It's okay for Europe to expel the illegals back to where they came from but as for America, we're nothing but a bunch of bigots for suggesting the same. Wow.

You seem to be under the impression that the EU is not criticised for its immigration policies, for instance the Schengen treaty. That assumption is ignorant.

How is someone going to dress as Hitler without displaying any Nazi symbols?
That's not what the law is about.

Not only can you display the Swastika in Germany (case in point - look at the pictures (http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/0,5538,12834,00.html)), but the main push for a law here is about Holocaust denial.

Unless your friend runs through the streets trying to get into the media building a serious argument to diminish or deny the Holocaust, that law will not affect him.

The ban of symbolism in German law is actually very specific. It can't be displayed in a way that glorifies the regime or is otherwise used in a way to create public agitation. I sincerely doubt that anyone is going to bother to sue the guy who dresses up as Hitler. Even if they could get the case through court, it wouldn't be worth the effort. The law is meant to target public figures and movements.

On the other hand, it is likely that he's gonna offend people on a personal level, and the question is whether he really needs to do that.

Yeah, but in games, you kill someone, and you get perfect health, ammo and weapons. And points. That's not sanitizing violence, that's mythologizing it!
Not to mention ressurection spells in fantasy games.

Religions that .... Not ALL religions ;)

So that's basically....

Judaism, which tries to discourage conversion, and Buddhism. And I guess LaVeyan Satanism.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6263103.stm

But it has now.

Basically, when Germany next takes the European Presidency they plan to introduce a pan-European ban on Nazi symbolism and Holocaust denial, bringing the whole continent in line with Germany's (frankly) neurotic and border-line authoritarian legislation.

Personally, I believe the ultimate indicator of a civilised society is allowing even the individuals with the most unpopular opinions the same free and equal rights to voice themselves as anybody else. Once you place any limitation on freedom of speech the whole principle is seriously endangered.

Now, I am very pro-European. I dislike the constant bandwagoneering against the 'crazy' 'Eurocrats', I believe that the EU has succeeded in bringing the continent peace and, through its standardisation programs, has helped secure an integrated single market. But I do not believe the EU has a mandate to act in this field, it can legislate over nations and enterprises, but NOT over people.

Britain is the nation that granted asylum to Karl Marx, of all people, despite the obvious threat to the world order that he posed. I find that something to be very proud of, that we are willing to protect the rights of the weak and disenfranchised even when it is directly against our best interests. This is a legacy I am proud of, and a legacy I wish to maintain. I hate Nazis, I hate Jihadis, I probably wouldn't have liked Karl Marx, but I would fight for their right to voice their hateful and moronic opinions.

I sincerely hope this legislation gets nowhere, but alas... that is not how Europe works.

Shouldn't you be upset with just the Germans rather than all Europeans? It seems you are lumping all Europeans into one group.

Not to mention ressurection spells in fantasy games.

Once again, not in the ones I play.

:eek:

:p

That must be the first time I read a post here that tells us to stop forgetting our past, usually everybody yells at us to get over ourselves already.

You don't know much about Germany, do you?

There is hardly a country that is *less* forgetting its past. Just why do you think this whole debate we're having here came up?

It sure seems like that's what your doing. Germany is lovely. But I think it's retarded that they banned nazi symbols. That bans damn near every WWII non-documentary/thing is banned. I really do like germany, I've been there several times. It's nice. But damn I am tired of this stuff about trying to ban nazi symbols. They are part of history, they are important, and anyone who doesn't like it can sit down and shut up.

Once again, not in the ones I play.
Look, tell us then which game you play, and we can find out whether the USK in Germany actually has a problem with it, or whether we think it's gonna make kids either more or less likely to see violence as a way of solving problems.

That bans damn near every WWII non-documentary/thing is banned.
Can you name anything?

Can you name anything?

Castle Wolfenstein. That was easy.

You seem to be under the impression that the EU is not criticised for its immigration policies, for instance the Schengen treaty. That assumption is ignorant.

Didn't really get a say on Schengen ourselves to be honest.

(Thank you very much UK)

Castle Wolfenstein. That was easy.
You mean Wolfenstein 3D of course. Look, this case is many years old now, and many things in public opinion have changed since then, as the post-war era has finally come to an end in Germany.

To my knowledge, no game has since gotten in trouble for this reason. I personally disagree with the court's decision, because I don't think the case actually fits the crime described in the legislation, but I'm more in favour of a purposive rather than literal approach to the interpretation of laws anyways.

By the way, here is the German law with respect to Nazi symbols:
http://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/86.html
http://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/86a.html

And violence:
http://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/131.html

As you can see (or not see, I suppose you may have to use Babelfish because I don't want to translate this now), the law in its intention is not that bad. The problem is if the court misuses it, which is what the court did in Wolfenstein, because the Nazi symbolism in that game really was very much in your face and served no purpose. It does trivialise things a little bit, I think we can agree on that.

In conclusion though, I would like to say that personally I don't think the law is really necessary. I prefer my Nazis clearly identifying themselves. By giving them a reason to look for other symbols and making it a legal issue to be a Nazi, you make them pick other symbols (say...an Odal Rune) and then tell you "Oh, no, we're not Nazis, we're <insert euphemism here>".

That's not what the law is about.


According to the OP and BBC News, it is. A ban on Nazi symbols means exactly what is says. If some police forces and courts choose to turn a blind eye, that's another matter entirely.


Not only can you display the Swastika in Germany (case in point - look at the pictures (http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/0,5538,12834,00.html)), but the main push for a law here is about Holocaust denial.

Unless your friend runs through the streets trying to get into the media building a serious argument to diminish or deny the Holocaust, that law will not affect him.


I don't see how you can know what the proposed new EU law is likely to say, because I doubt it's even been drafted yet, let alone tabled.

By the way he's not my friend - it was another poster entirely who said his friend had dressed as Hitler. Personally I think anyone who finds dressing as Hitler funny is either thick or sick.

According to the OP and BBC News, it is.
I suppose you can only assume that the law will be similar to the one in Germany. At any rate, it's not gonna end up harsher.

It sure seems like that's what your doing. Germany is lovely. But I think it's retarded that they banned nazi symbols. That bans damn near every WWII non-documentary/thing is banned. I really do like germany, I've been there several times. It's nice. But damn I am tired of this stuff about trying to ban nazi symbols. They are part of history, they are important, and anyone who doesn't like it can sit down and shut up.

Would you mind explaining me to me again how banning Holocaust denial and Nazi symbols is forgetting history?

I suppose you can only assume that the law will be similar to the one in Germany. At any rate, it's not gonna end up harsher.

Mate, you can't assume anything of the kind. And if the BBC News story is accurate then it definitely will end up harsher.