 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
> 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.
I'm honestly hoping so. After all, I live here too.
> 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.
The problem I see is that currently the rational discussion about the
problems of immigration are being overwhelmed by loud racist bigotry and
people only see the latter, and while fighting against it, they are also
going to kill the rational discussion with it. In other words, people who
are *not* racist and who have rational concerns about immigration problems
are going to be shut down by the same measures used to shut down the true
racists.
I hope I'm wrong in this.
> > 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.
I think trying to kill racism by creating totalitarian censorship laws
is also wishful thinking. It's more like trying to sweep the problem under
the carpet, out of sight (and probably unsuccessfully even at that).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27 Dec 2007 16:11:56 -0500, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> I think trying to kill racism by creating totalitarian censorship laws
>is also wishful thinking. It's more like trying to sweep the problem under
>the carpet, out of sight (and probably unsuccessfully even at that).
I used to have the opinion that you can't change human nature by passing laws.
For a start if the government does not try to stop, say, racism then it is
giving tact agreement that it is ok and we've seen where that leads.
If you can remember before drink driving laws were introduced. It was considered
ok to drink and drive if you did not have an accident. In the UK, in my youth,
it was normal for parents to beat there children in public now I never see it.
In Canada the instances of spouse abuse dropped dramatically when every case was
prosecuted whether the victim agreed or not.
I think that if people grow up knowing something is wrong then they will accept
that it is wrong, at least for other people.
And as an aside. One definition of totalitarian is someone doing something you
don't agree with.
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Some of the punishments are even scarier:
>
> "- alternative sanctions such as community service or participation in
> training courses"
The one that scares me is "permanent disqualification from
the practice of commercial activities", they'll keep you from
ever having any job ever?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Attwood <tim### [at] comcastnet> wrote:
> The one that scares me is "permanent disqualification from
> the practice of commercial activities", they'll keep you from
> ever having any job ever?
I suppose it's good from their point of view that the EU doesn't have
pesky things like the eighth amendment of the US constitution.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I'm honestly hoping so. After all, I live here too.
As I said, such laws are in effect for years in the Netherlands and we
were considered quite a tolerant country nevertheless.
>
>> 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.
>
> The problem I see is that currently the rational discussion about the
> problems of immigration are being overwhelmed by loud racist bigotry and
> people only see the latter, and while fighting against it, they are also
> going to kill the rational discussion with it. In other words, people who
> are *not* racist and who have rational concerns about immigration problems
> are going to be shut down by the same measures used to shut down the true
> racists.
>
I think that is more or less what I said.
> I hope I'm wrong in this.
The situation in the Netherlands is that there is no debate anymore,
there is just Geert Wilders. The guy who wants a.o. to make the Koran
illegal because it incites violence.* No serious, well thinking human
wants to be associated with that sort of person. So there is nobody
anymore that is able to say that there are problems with immigrants or
with some muslims. End of debate.
>>> 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.
>
> I think trying to kill racism by creating totalitarian censorship laws
> is also wishful thinking. It's more like trying to sweep the problem under
> the carpet, out of sight (and probably unsuccessfully even at that).
>
I already understood that you prefer to address this issue using big
words like 'totalitarian censorship'. Repeating it again and again does
not convince me that you are not overreacting. ;) More to the point,
racism is not going to go away but how do you handle groups that shut
themselves off from reality and continually pass the same (false)
information among themselves. And that is not only neo-Nazi's but also
anarchists, fundamentalist Muslims and not to forget the right wing
Christians in the US, to name a few. Standing aside and repeating the
mantra of freedom of speech will inevitably result in terrorist attacks.
Prosecuting and marginalizing them will have the same effect. So in the
end people just do what they hope will minimize the damage.
*Most recent action: the queen in her Christmas speech asked for less
verbal attacks on groups because of faith, race or... He felt she meant
specifically him (how is that for an ego) so he will be trying to pass a
law to the effect that the queen a.o. won't be able to address the
country anymore. Not a change, but at least he will get some much needed
attention for the coming days. After that there will be another action
to get the attention of the media for a few days and after that...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> The situation in the Netherlands is that there is no debate anymore,
> there is just Geert Wilders. The guy who wants a.o. to make the Koran
> illegal because it incites violence.* No serious, well thinking human
> wants to be associated with that sort of person.
A paranoid conspiracy theorists could say that the government wants
such a person in a visible position in order to draw attention to himself
and away from the real issues. Such a person is also a good scapegoat
and target for straw man arguments.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Okay, so what advocacy groups have arisen in the Netherlands on the issue of
immigration on the side of the spectrum which includes "conservative"
"traditionalist" "homeland-loving" to "anti-immigrant" to fascist? And what
are they saying?
Knowing what's out there affects my reaction to the legislation. Is it
targetted at a convent affiliated with Mother Teresa who's buying immigrants
plane tickets and free PhD education in their country of origin? Or are there
physical attacks on the rise?
I have some folks who are dear to me in the States who've had a brick thrown
through their window with anti-immigrant sentiments on it. (It started out
with a disfigured doll with a note which looked like something from a retarded
6 year old girl.)
Could we see some citation for the 60%?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
gregjohn wrote:
> Okay, so what advocacy groups have arisen in the Netherlands on the issue of
> immigration on the side of the spectrum which includes "conservative"
> "traditionalist" "homeland-loving" to "anti-immigrant" to fascist?
Strangely: none. There are two persons in parliament that have some sort
of Chronic Lack of Attention Syndrome. The best way to get attention is
to shout things that are just on the wrong side of what is generally
acceptable. So that is what they do. Because they get votes they can
fill in some seats in parliament with people whose only job is to vote
as they do. There is no real group that supports them or a consistent
view for that matter.
> And what are they saying?
Oh, the usual. That all Muslims are either terrorists or at least
sympathize and support those who are. That there are too many immigrants
and asylum seekers and that they drain the economy. (Asylum seekers are
forbidden by law to work).
>
> Knowing what's out there affects my reaction to the legislation.
The legislation would be European, in Europe as a whole the sutuation
differs from country to country.
> Is it targetted at a convent affiliated with Mother Teresa who's buying immigrants
> plane tickets and free PhD education in their country of origin? Or are there
> physical attacks on the rise?
Well, there is always a danger of physical attacks. There are the usual
attacks on asylum seekers by right wing fundamentalists, but few and far
between and not organized. There are also the usual attacks of young
urban scum on gay people and these youngsters are predominantly from
countries associated with the Islam. These attacks get more media
attention (or are more common, there is no way for me to find that out).
>
> I have some folks who are dear to me in the States who've had a brick thrown
> through their window with anti-immigrant sentiments on it. (It started out
> with a disfigured doll with a note which looked like something from a retarded
> 6 year old girl.)
>
> Could we see some citation for the 60%?
What 60%? I have been thinking on that, and I think it might be a
reference to Pim as PM. If so: the Netherlands have a system with many
parties. You need 76 to form a government and the party in the
government that has the most seats traditionally gets the PM position.
The current PM has 41 out of 150 seats. That has been even less in the
past. There are normally three mayor parties here liberal/conservative,
christian and labour plus a few smaller ones in various sizes. Though in
recent years the situation become much more complex. In 2002 about 30-35
might have been enough, provided that there was no other coalition
possible along more conventional lines. It would still represent 20% or
more of votes, but the situation in 2002 with Pim* was completely
abnormal (you had to be here to believe it, and many still can't believe
what happened), and that does not say much about the popular support of
right wing fundamentalists. My estimate is that it may be about 10-15%.
*some background on Pim of course on wikipedia
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pim_Fortuyn) but I don't think that
captures the mood swings in the country very well.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote
> Note that it doesn't say "material which incites racism and xenophobia",
> it says "material containing expressions of racism and xenophobia".
> Expressing your opinion is a thought crime. Welcome Big Brother.
No, not big brother. It's called social engineering. It's been going on for
at least a century, and the notion that it will lead to big brother is long
antiquated. We (meaning 99.9% of people) just learn to live within the
confines of acceptable behaviour and expression, and once adapted to the new
codes of society (whether they are written or not), feel just as free, if
not more.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
gregjohn <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> Could we see some citation for the 60%?
http://www.mol.fi/mol/fi/99_pdf/fi/04_maahanmuutto/08_maahanmuuttotilastot/wulktyoll.pdf
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
