John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Furthermore, this law will be selectively enforced.  The history of 
> restrictions on free speech give no example of such a law that was 
> uniformly enforced whether A slandered B or B slandered A; the 
> government has always taken sides, acting on one group's complaints no 
> matter how ludicrous they were, and turning a deaf ear to the grievances 
> of the other.

  There was a clear case of this rather recently in Sweden (surprise).

  Sweden's law has this section which criminalizes slander against groups
of people based on their ethnicity, nationality, religion, gender, etc.

  Well, not long ago an extreme feminist wrote a heated article in a
newspaper using almost all possible forms of slander against Swedish men
(basically she wrote that Swedish men are in all ways inferior to immigrant
men, and used all kinds of insulting words against Swedish men).

  The question was raised whether this broke the law regarding slander
against a group, in this case based on nationality, ethnicity and gender.
An official statement was made that this was *not* a case criminalized
by the law (even though the law has absolutely no mention of such an
exception).

  The fact that the law is not the same for all people regardless of gender,
nationality and ethnicity got de jure status.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> Furthermore, this law will be selectively enforced.  The history of 
>> restrictions on free speech give no example of such a law that was 
>> uniformly enforced whether A slandered B or B slandered A; the 
>> government has always taken sides, acting on one group's complaints no 
>> matter how ludicrous they were, and turning a deaf ear to the grievances 
>> of the other.
> 
>   There was a clear case of this rather recently in Sweden (surprise).
> 
>   Sweden's law has this section which criminalizes slander against groups
> of people based on their ethnicity, nationality, religion, gender, etc.
> 
>   Well, not long ago an extreme feminist wrote a heated article in a
> newspaper using almost all possible forms of slander against Swedish men
> (basically she wrote that Swedish men are in all ways inferior to immigrant
> men, and used all kinds of insulting words against Swedish men).
> 
>   The question was raised whether this broke the law regarding slander
> against a group, in this case based on nationality, ethnicity and gender.
> An official statement was made that this was *not* a case criminalized
> by the law (even though the law has absolutely no mention of such an
> exception).
> 
>   The fact that the law is not the same for all people regardless of gender,
> nationality and ethnicity got de jure status.
> 
In general if you insult the ruling class that is in general not 
considered slander. Nor if you insult the group you belong to. You might 
not like that, but that does not make it wrong. ;)

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> In general if you insult the ruling class that is in general not 
> considered slander. Nor if you insult the group you belong to. You might 
> not like that, but that does not make it wrong. ;)

  The law should say that. It never does.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:

> In general if you insult the ruling class that is in general not 
> considered slander. Nor if you insult the group you belong to. You might 
> not like that, but that does not make it wrong. ;)

The men of Sweden do not constitute a ruling class, and the lady in 
question most certainly did not insult the class to which she belonged.

And I daresay that if you insult the ruling class in other countries, it 
most certainly is punished as slander.

The Swedish government has decided that only some forms of racism, 
sexism, and other forms of tribalism will be punished.  Everyone else 
gets carte blanche.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle wrote:
> andrel wrote:
> 
>> In general if you insult the ruling class that is in general not 
>> considered slander. Nor if you insult the group you belong to. You 
>> might not like that, but that does not make it wrong. ;)
> 
> The men of Sweden do not constitute a ruling class, 
Why not?
> and the lady in 
> question most certainly did not insult the class to which she belonged.
> 
> And I daresay that if you insult the ruling class in other countries, it 
> most certainly is punished as slander.
I don't think that if I would write an article where I would point out 
how inferior the white male is I would be prosecuted or even frowned 
upon no matter how good the arguments. Yet if I did the same for black 
persons or for women, many people would object and if I managed to give 
the impression that I was serious I might well face prosecution.
I have seen some examples of racism by black people (or whatever the 
current PC term is) at Oprah that scared the hell out of me (as a white 
European male who is not accustomed to open racism), yet were treated 
mildly in the program. I think that a member of the KKK would have 
received a slightly different reception.

> 
> The Swedish government has decided that only some forms of racism, 
> sexism, and other forms of tribalism will be punished.  Everyone else 
> gets carte blanche.
> 
Not everyone and not in all circumstances. A black women in the 
Netherlands would get away with insulting whites, black men, protestants 
etc. but not african muslims.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> - public dissemination or distribution of tracts, pictures or other
> material containing expressions of racism and xenophobia"

So, a text book on this history of slavery in the USA, or the WW2 
"holocaust", would be illegal?  That would explain some european 
politician's panties being in a twist over showing nazi symbolism on 
wikipedia, in the article about nazi symbolism.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Tim Cook <z99### [at] bellsouthnet> wrote:
>> "ho hum, I don't 
>> really like these immigrants, they're taking our jobs and diluting our 
>> culture the way cultures have been being diluted and turned into what 
>> are really other cultures since forever"
> 
>   Btw, I find this cliche quite curious, given that the real problem is
> more or less the exact opposite.

I expect immigration in earlier decades in the USA differ from modern 
immigration in Europe (and possibly the USA).

Earlier generations in the USA wanted to be Americans, not Irish or 
Germans or whatever living in America. Both my sets of grandparents 
refused to teach their children (my parents) their native languages, as 
they wanted the kids to learn English well so as to better integrate, 
for example.

Nowadays, the Mexican immigrants around here (20 miles north of Mexico) 
  want their kids to learn English, and the prejudiced fools who think 
Mexicans can't learn try to pass laws making it required to teach school 
classes in spanish.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook wrote:
> "Racism and xenophobia will mean belief in race colour, descent, 
> religion or belief, national or ethnic origin as a factor determining 
> aversion to individuals.

>     * directing of a racist or xenophobic group (by "group" is meant a 
> structured organisation consisting of at least two persons established 
> for a specific period).

Cool. So, like, the fact that the Baptists think I'm going to Hell means 
they can be criminally prosecuted for getting up on their pulpit and 
telling people that?  When the Jehova Witnesses come around to bug me, I 
can have them arrested?

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   I oppose immigration policies which result in segregation and animosity
> between groups. Careless immigration policies just do that, and the worst
> thing is that the people who pass those immigration policies can't see it.

Basically, you oppose immigration policies which, in the name of 
reducing racism, actually encourage racism. :-)


-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> 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.

Or the first amendment, I suppose. :-)

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message