 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmail com> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> 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.
That's one of the contradictory thinking I have never understood:
On one hand they (ie. multiculturalists) complain how difficult the
hosting society is making it for the immigrants to integrate, but then,
on the other hand, they demand all kinds of special arrangements, such
as teaching in the immigrant's own language in schools, which can only
cause difficulties in integration.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> 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. :-)
Some people have presented the theory that many prominent
multiculturalists, even if only at a subconscious level, *don't want*
racism to stop. They want racism to be perpetuated. That's because
if racism was somehow completely eliminated, their own purpose would
cease to exist as well. They would become obsolete. Their "15 minutes
of fame" would end.
That's the reason why they are so desperate to find symptoms of
racism everywhere, even at places where there is none. If everything
else fails, then they claim people at least *think* in a racist way
(which in their view is a thoughtcrime, of course) even if they don't
show it in any way.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Or the first amendment, I suppose. :-)
"Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want."
If it doesn't mean that, then what does it mean then?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Or the first amendment, I suppose. :-)
>
> "Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want."
>
> If it doesn't mean that, then what does it mean then?
It means you don't have to pay for it.
*ducks*
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.digitalartsuk.com
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Some people have presented the theory that many prominent
> multiculturalists, even if only at a subconscious level, *don't want*
> racism to stop. They want racism to be perpetuated. That's because
> if racism was somehow completely eliminated, their own purpose would
> cease to exist as well. They would become obsolete. Their "15 minutes
> of fame" would end.
This somehow reminds me of the Swedish movie Kopps, in which cops of a
small town start making crimes to make themself needed and to keep
theier jobs.
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2008/01/01 05:25:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Or the first amendment, I suppose. :-)
>
> "Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want."
>
> If it doesn't mean that, then what does it mean then?
>
Freedom of speech stops when you start telling lies, or you throw around false
accusations or start difaming peoples. You can use freedom of speech, but you
can't abuse it.
Like for any freedom, your freedom stop where your neibour's freedom start.
Also, with every freedom comes some duty and obligations.
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
Don't cry because it is over, smile because it happened.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alain <ele### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> Freedom of speech stops when you start telling lies, or you throw around false
> accusations or start difaming peoples. You can use freedom of speech, but you
> can't abuse it.
> Like for any freedom, your freedom stop where your neibour's freedom start.
> Also, with every freedom comes some duty and obligations.
Thus "freedom of speech" is the same type of oxymoron as "free speech
zone".
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> That's one of the contradictory thinking I have never understood:
Yeah. A lot of the laws around here are clearly counter-productive. :-/
--
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:
> Thus "freedom of speech" is the same type of oxymoron as "free speech
> zone".
Not really. "Freedom of speech" means you can't pass laws about the
content of speech.
For example, you can be stopped from shouting loudly while standing in
the middle of a residential street in the middle of the night,
regardless of what you're shouting about. You can't be stopped for
talking about religion or economic theory, regardless of what the
religion or theory is, because that would be based on content rather
than delivery.
Defamation (i.e., lying about someone to damage them) is a civil
problem. In other words, the government isn't trying to stop you from
doing it. The person you're lying about can say "your lies cost me
money, so pay me back and stop doing it." In the USA, truth is an
absolute defense to defamation charges; i.e., if you actually did sleep
with a prostitute, me making that public cannot get me in legal trouble.
A "free speech zone" is an oxymoron (in the USA) because free speech is
guaranteed everywhere. Hence, the existence of a zone where it's
permitted implies there are places where it isn't.
BOCTAOE.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Tue, 01 Jan 2008 04:23:11 -0000, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
did spake, saying:
> 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.
Here in the UK we provide free language lessons for immigrants and then
make sure that all government information is available in English, Polish,
Urdu,...
Trouble is the cost of providing said pamphlets is quite high prompting a
lot of tabloids to complain about this waste of taxpayers money (ignoring
the fact that a lot of these immigrants are themselves taxpayers too); if
they come over here, they write, they should learn the language.
Then the cost of these free English lessons are released and the very same
tabloids then complain about this waste of money.
Then people are turned away from the lessons because the staff can't cope
with the numbers coming in (unless they get more funding) and the tabloids
then complain about immigrants who are 'trying to do the right thing'
being let down.
It'd all be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook wrote:
> It'd all be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.
"In summary: People are a problem."
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> Trouble is the cost of providing said pamphlets is quite high prompting a
> lot of tabloids to complain about this waste of taxpayers money (ignoring
> the fact that a lot of these immigrants are themselves taxpayers too)
I think that the tabloids are right if the immigrant have a total
negative effect on the economy and wrong if they have a total positive
effect on it. Has anyone dared to make the (unbiased) calculations there
on which is the case?
Of course in modern Europe it would not be PC to make (and especially
publish) such calculations if they show that the net total is negative...
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Fri, 04 Jan 2008 11:44:14 -0000, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did
spake, saying:
> Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>> Trouble is the cost of providing said pamphlets is quite high prompting
>> a
>> lot of tabloids to complain about this waste of taxpayers money
>> (ignoring
>> the fact that a lot of these immigrants are themselves taxpayers too)
>
> I think that the tabloids are right if the immigrant have a total
> negative effect on the economy and wrong if they have a total positive
> effect on it. Has anyone dared to make the (unbiased) calculations there
> on which is the case?
>
> Of course in modern Europe it would not be PC to make (and especially
> publish) such calculations if they show that the net total is negative...
For my country historically we seemed to get a positive result, unless
they were Catholic or Norman :-) Then again historically we didn't bend
over backwards to accomodate them.
I was at the Polish Club a couple of months ago and they were talking
about how they were helping immigrating Poles, mostly a bit of translation
of documents, legal niceties, how to open a bank account etc. unlike the
tabloid portrayal of "Which way to Job Centre for free monies please?".
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2008/01/04 04:56:
> And lo on Tue, 01 Jan 2008 04:23:11 -0000, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
> did spake, saying:
>
>> 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.
>
> Here in the UK we provide free language lessons for immigrants and then
> make sure that all government information is available in English,
> Polish, Urdu,...
>
> Trouble is the cost of providing said pamphlets is quite high prompting
> a lot of tabloids to complain about this waste of taxpayers money
> (ignoring the fact that a lot of these immigrants are themselves
> taxpayers too); if they come over here, they write, they should learn
> the language.
>
> Then the cost of these free English lessons are released and the very
> same tabloids then complain about this waste of money.
>
> Then people are turned away from the lessons because the staff can't
> cope with the numbers coming in (unless they get more funding) and the
> tabloids then complain about immigrants who are 'trying to do the right
> thing' being let down.
>
> It'd all be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.
>
Damn if you do, damn if you don't!
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you;
that is the principal difference between a dog and a man.
Mark Twain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:30:23 -0000, Alain
<ele### [at] netscapenet> did spake, saying:
> Phil Cook nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2008/01/04 04:56:
>
>> It'd all be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.
>>
> Damn if you do, damn if you don't!
Unless you're newspaper editor. The sad thing is they believe themselves
to be the voice of the people... the really sad thing is that too many
politicians believe them or are too frightened to stand up to them.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook wrote:
> For my country historically we seemed to get a positive result, unless
> they were Catholic or Norman :-) Then again historically we didn't bend
LOL!
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
