EU considers plans to outlaw racism

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Mark L
Also really funny how Americans here say we now live in a police state when people in the USA are being arrested left and right for no good reasons,

Do you really want to compare who has the most extraordinary police powers enshrined in thier laws?

and the laws this thread is about have existed since the end of WW2.

and what Orwellian laws they are!

And please note that this is not some totalitarian regulation since most people here agree that they are right and just. It's a democracy after all, the people have spoken.

That's doubleplusgood then.

[DinoDoc]

Just for the fun of it.

Name the EU member in which you could be arrestted and held without charge, the government could ban whatever politcal organization you might happen to belong to, and whatever you might happen to do on the 'Net could be spied on.

First person to guess the answer gets a prize.

[Saint Marcus]

Britain

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Mark L
Britain

Give the man a prize! Now can we dispense with the US/Nazi double talk.

[Saint Marcus]

From CCN.com

Since the September 11 hijacked plane attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Ashcroft has helped push legislation through Congress providing broad new powers to wiretap phones, monitor Internet traffic and apprehend suspects.

Criticism escalated when the administration followed up on the legislation, without consulting Congress, by proposing the creation of military tribunals to try foreigners suspected of terrorism.

Ashcroft, 59, also ordered the listening in on some conversations between inmates and their lawyers, and the questioning of 5,000 foreign men, mostly from Middle Eastern countries, a move he denied was a form of racial profiling.

The governement can do all that in the USA? Damn At least here in free Holland the governement can't do those things.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Mark L
The governement can do all that in the USA? Damn At least here in free Holland the governement can't do those things.

The difference is that I don't feel the need to mindlessly defend the government when it infringes on my rights.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


The difference is that I don't feel the need to mindlessly defend the government when it infringes on my rights.

I don't think that they are in on the little secrete yet.



Guys, I'm on my way to Germany in April. Me and some others are wanting to rent a car and see the sites in some of the surrounding countries as well.

The only real question I have is.

Where can I get a list of the things I can't do over there and can I get it now so that I can be sure and study up on it.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Sprayber
Where can I get a list of the things I can't do over there and can I get it now so that I can be sure and study up on it.

Don't Sieg Heil anybody. It'll cost you 800 DM IIRC.

[Roland]

To all those yanks so concerned about our freedom of speech: You know, your former secretary of state, dumb piece of **** Notbright, found it worth reducing diplomatic relations because of Haider's FP becoming part of Austria's government. Must be a truly horrible man when the US PC crowd identifies him as such. And how many criminal convictions or only trials can you name against him for racist or xenophobic or hatefilled remarks ? Hmmm... lessee.... hmmm... damn, I'd say "zero". Read the tabloid or rightwing newspapers here (if you can). The laws on the book don't apply to vitually all of that. The average idiot does not reach the level of "Wiederbetätigung" or "Verhetzung".

Chris:

I'll try to address what might constitute a point of yours.

"Just as I had forseen, my two favorite European appologists tried to spin doctor their way out of this"

I suppose that's why I posted the link for everyone to see that nonsense draft.

"...and the other by trying to twist it into a USA is culturally different, so you don't understand. (sorry Mein herr,we get it just fine. )"

That's "Herr". Und wenn wir schon dabei sind, kulturelle Unterschiede bedeuten nicht dass man etwas notwendiger Weise nicht versteht, sondern lediglich, dass man den kulturellen Hintergrund berücksichtigen sollte. Das schließt auch ein dass ein US-amerikanisches Grundrechtsverständnis keineswegs universal ist, nicht einmal für den nordatlantischen Kulturkreis. Ganz im Gegenteil, es ist ein eher eigentümliches Gebilde. Sogar Kanada orientiert sich eher an der EMRK als an der Bill of Rights.

Have fun runing that through bablefish.

"Yes, but at least we don't try to regulate the thoughts of our citizens."

Public speech, not thoughts. On the other side, we don't brainwash people into being "patriotic".

"We can't imagine how you could be backward enough to NOT want said rights"

Guns: That's just silly as a constitutional right. As a simple legal right, why not.
Abortion: That's just silly as a constitutional right. As a decriminalised conduct, why not.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Don't Sieg Heil anybody. It'll cost you 800 DM IIRC.

Thanks KH, Ill keep that in mind.


note to self *no Sieg Heil. Find alternative form of greeting*

[Saint Marcus]

That's "Herr". Und wenn wir schon dabei sind, kulturelle Unterschiede bedeuten nicht dass man etwas notwendiger Weise nicht versteht, sondern lediglich, dass man den kulturellen Hintergrund berücksichtigen sollte. Das schließt auch ein dass ein US-amerikanisches Grundrechtsverständnis keineswegs universal ist, nicht einmal für den nordatlantischen Kulturkreis. Ganz im Gegenteil, es ist ein eher eigentümliches Gebilde. Sogar Kanada orientiert sich eher an der EMRK als an der Bill of Rights.

Let's see our American friends tackle that one

The difference is that I don't feel the need to mindlessly defend the government when it infringes on my rights.

If people voluntary chose to give up those rights, isn't that true democracy and freedom? People in Europe, at least in Germany, France, Holland (and probably many others too), have made their choice. They don't want people making hate-speeches in public. If people chose to have those rules and live under those rules, it's their own choice and decision. And that is the truest form of Freedom and Democracy.

The US constitution states that civilians have the right to buy and carry guns. What if 90% of the Americans is against that? Would you, and the governement, still keep the law as it is? Doubt it. And if so, then that's clearly a sign of dictatorship and not democracy.

[faded glory]

If people voluntary chose to give up those rights, isn't that true democracy and freedom?

No, thats sheer stupidity (worty of dutch politics)

People in Europe, at least in Germany, France, Holland (and probably many others too), have made their choice. They don't want people making hate-speeches in public

We dont eihter... but we just ignore them. We dont actually Ban them. Who's to say one day your hippie ass politics are hateful and then are treated as such under the law

If people chose to have those rules and live under those rules, it's their own choice and decision. And that is the truest form of Freedom and Democracy.

Majority rules again eh? Just because you dont like there politic views makes it ok? Also: See 2 aboves.

The US constitution states that civilians have the right to buy and carry guns. What if 90% of the Americans is against that? Would you, and the governement, still keep the law as it is?

No..the constitution is not a living document. Men didnt give the ultimate sacrifice just for someone to change it. Guns are civil liberties...

Doubt it. And if so, then that's clearly a sign of dictatorship and not democracy.

Oh yes! We are a police states because we let people defend themselves. If that 90% doesnt want to own guns...ten tey shouldnt buy them! Its that simple...we dont need moronic half-assed laws to enforce changing public opinions


Stupid troll

[faded glory]

note : I-I dont seem to be working good since I spilled coffee on it yesterday

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Mark L
If people voluntary chose to give up those rights, isn't that true democracy and freedom?

And you're complaining about American laws because of what exactly? Let me be serious for a moment. No, it isn't true democracy and freedom. The majority doesn't have the rights to infringe on the rights of the minority.

[Roland]

"If people voluntary chose to give up those rights, isn't that true democracy and freedom?"

If I give up a right that's not much at all.

However, if a majority decides to limit or abolish a right, then there are constitutional limits to that. In the parliamentary tradition of ia the netherlands, parliament is under no national judicial review - only on the european level.

It would be quite interesting to debate differences in the fundamental rights traditions of western countries, but if people prefer a troll fest, go ahead. It's called freedom of spam.