Warp wrote:
> Tim Cook <z99### [at] bellsouthnet> wrote:
>> This is to say, they're specifically interested in stopping the next 
>> Nazi regime
> 
>   By building up a similar regime of censorship, propaganda and limitation
> of basic human rights.
You are overreacting.
> 
>   Honestly, how probable it is, in the current world, that a "nazi regime"
> can form, even without these types of totalitarian laws, especially given
> that we are talking about Europe? I think it's next to nil.
I disagree, Pim Fortuijn (who was far too intelligent to be a xenophobe 
no matter what his adversaries made of him) was heading for a landslide 
victory that might have got him the position of MP before he was 
assassinated. One of his main items was immigration. After his death 
that was taken over by some less intelligent people that saw an easy way 
to increase their personal exposure by leaving out all nuances. ATM 
people that think that their personal problems could be solved by 
harsher measures towards foreigners amount for about 20 places in our 
parliament (out of 150). If the political 'leaders' of this movement can 
block any improvement in the situation for a couple of years they could 
increase their influence even more.
If this law could help in defusing the debate so that finally things can 
be done about the real problems of the immigrants and the people living 
near them I would be very happy.

>   If a country starts behaving in ways similar to the nazi party, it will
> quickly be shut down by surrounding countries. I don't believe there is
> any danger of this happening.

Wishful thinking, they won't interfere unless they are at risk 
themselves. You could make a case that Russia is sliding towards a 
dictatorial regime. I haven't seen any surrounding country taking steps, 
but perhaps there is a new role for Finland here.

>> not playing Big Brother to your personal dislike of 
>> Mohammed McMuslim
> 
>   They will attack any webpages which are critical of islam and/or
> immigration in general, using the new laws. Heck, it's happening already
> even without any supporting laws, there isn't even need to predict it. When
> their behavior gets de jure support, it can only become ten times worse.
> (We have precedent: The RIAA and the DMCA.)
>

Post a reply to this message