Calls for a European First Amendment Grows.

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/bruce-bawer/calls-for-a-european-first-amendment-grow/

...Europe’s oligarchs, in silencing honest talk about Islam, are employing totalitarian methods, the only difference being that they’ve been more successful than the Nazis, Fascists and Communists, because they’ve accomplished their goals “quietly and peacefully, with no need for concentration camps or gulags or mass graves or the shot in the back of the neck in the middle of the night.”

What do you think?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

Drewski

Yeah, talk's been so silenced it's the fastest growing religion across the continent... :rolleyes:

Reply 2

prog2djent

What we need is a swiss style quasi direct democratic system.

Reply 3

rawkus

Multiculturalism has taught them to mock concepts like freedom and to reject as sheer bigotry and ridiculous hyperbole the idea that members of some other culture might regard them and their civilization as an enemy deserving of destruction.

This quote speaks for itself. The author makes a claim, yet makes no effort to then explain the supposed link between multi-culturalism and mocking freedom. If Islam was one single group with a hierarchical order like the USSR or the Nazi's and were launching regular attacks on Europe as opposed to the handful of attacks that have happened since 2001, I may be able to start believing this hypothesis. Yet Islam is a relgion encompassing nearly a quarter of the world's population that is fragmented between different denominations that are at odds with each other. This "destruction of our civilisation" crap is merely a rehash of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" crap.

The article focuses almost entirely on the censorship of anything remotely Islamic, expanding only once into another area (namely the olympics) in a weak attempt to dress the agenda up, along with the title, as an article worried about freedom of speech rather then its real and obvious purpose.

The article mentions people like Geert Wilders. Now I too promote freedom of speech as a concept of utmost importance. The ban that prevented him from entering the UK was regrettable but I dare say merely an action that pandered to the media who portray anyone movement with extreme anti-immigration views as Nazi's and extremists (despite encouraging much xenophobia and carrying similar editorial stances as well?!)

However it appears Geert Wilders promotes freedom of speech in order to protect himself from criticism. One article I read he makes reference to criticism he received in light of calling Muhammed a paedophile and barbarian in the House of Commons. Surely, the freedom of speech he claims to so covert allows people to criticize him? I know that if someone stood up in the House of Commons and called Winston Churchill a barbarian, xenophobe, fascist etc one would be subject to much scorn and criticism, which is totally within people's rights.

The article also paints the issue of censorship with being synonymous with the prevention of any such criticism of Islam. I'm not really sure where this has come from, the past generation has seen an overwhelming amount of implied or even directly anti-islamic media, whether it be on an independent blog or the headlines of a national paper. Across this country and in America, some people have made themselves a large fortune from joining in the anti-Islam industry. Hardly possible with the levels of censorship the article describes.

I also wonder if this first amendment will legitimize Holocaust denial in the countries whereby it is punished by a custodial sentence. Will it allow extremist leftist groups across Europe more freedom to spread their message? Will it allow extremist Muslim movements more freedom to operate? After all Anjem Choudry (a man whm I dislike with a passion) and his group was banned for reasons that could be said to have been against Freedom of Speech?

Or, as this article seems to suggest, would this first amendment merely make measures focusing on Islam, making measures preventing the level of criticism that could be legally levelled against people who criticise Islam and a few minor concessions such as the whole thing about the olympics.

Freedom of Speech is just one element of Freedom as a whole which incorporates other freedoms as well such as the Freedom of Religion (which the much touted American Constitution protects) and the Freedom of Movement. However, these two are quite clearly not championed by Geert Wilders and his ilk. Freedom of Religion includes the freedom to practice Islam and the Freedom of Movement is at odds with Wilder's Freedom Party's views.

Why then focus on Freedom of Speech? In light of everything else I have just said I am going to put forward the notion that Wilders and co. don't give a suzy ****e about freedom of speech. It is merely a tool that they are using in order to try and advance their popularity in relation to Islam and the frenzy whipped up about it in the last decade, an issue that they used in the first place to launch their political careers.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 4

Rhadamanthus

Original post by prog2djent

What we need is a swiss style quasi direct democratic system.

Why do we need that? Why do we need to pander to the idea that every major decision needs to be subject to a referendum? Why overthrow hundreds of years of constitutional order which supplements our representative democracy in order to replace it with a direct one?

Reply 5

Snagprophet

Urgh, I hate all this stuff happening in secret.

Reply 6

prog2djent

Oh great a conservative.

We need it because that is what democracy is supposed to be, every decision should be held via a referendum, or just, by .. uh, voting, so that the people actually get what they want, some of the worst things about this country are the result of the people not having a say (nor even being told) about what is going on.

"Why overthrow hundreds of years of constitutional order", so, wait, just because we have had it for a few centuries, and you perceive things to be orderly, means its good?

Bring back slavery as well?

Reply 7

Perseveranze

"Silencing Islam" lmao, even throws in a Lord of the Rings quote haha.

Reply 8

Rhadamanthus

Original post by prog2djent

I'm not just a 'conservative' - I am a libertarian conservative (or Burkean conservative) who believes in representative democracy as opposed to the unrestrained rule of the masses through obligatory referenda. Democracy is not 'supposed' to be a vote on every issue. That is not what it is defined as, nor is it what most political philosophers believe constitutes 'democracy'. The representative parliamentary democracy that we have here in the UK (which was the 'constitutional order' I referred to) works. You have completely straw-manned me on the slavery issue. Nothing is further from the truth. You evidently cannot tell the difference between 'Britain's centuries-old constitutional order works fine' and 'because it's old it must be good'.

Reply 9

callum9999

Original post by prog2djent

Who says (your version of) democracy is so great? I personally think it's an awful system of governance (better than most dictatorships etc., but still awful).

One of my favourite quotes is something along the lines of "the biggest argument against democracy is a 5 minute chat with the average voter". Our current system only just passes as functional as despite the certain amount pandering they have to do, our governments are held completely responsible for how the country is run - i.e. they can create their own coherent strategy off their own backs, as long as it vaguely falls within the limits of acceptability. Remove that safeguard and have the population deciding how every little detail is run, and I guarantee that the country will be a complete mess. (Some people will no doubt make a witty little remark about how the country is already a mess - it categorically isn't).

Reply 10

prog2djent

Your representive parlimentary democracy then, given the problems in todays society, is it the solution? Or was it the cause?

If it was up to the public we would not have been in all these wars, we wouldn't have had open doors immigration, most drugs would we atleast decriminalised, tax would be lower, public spending lower, we would be out of the EU, and we could devide on many social issues that MP's simply do not care about or there are forces behind them that actively work against public interest in the persuit of revenue.

Reply 11

prog2djent

Original post by callum9999

1. Who says (your version of) democracy is so great?
2. One of my favourite quotes is something along the lines of "the biggest argument against democracy is a 5 minute chat with the average voter".
3. our governments are held completely responsible for how the country is run - as long as it vaguely falls within the limits of acceptability.

1. I'll take this Swiss and Lux' system over ours anyday.

2. Winston Churchill, not the best of people to vote for given his economic and social track record.

3. Seriously? Granted, the state does have a degree of accountability in comparison to private entities, but with the private sector, I get to decide everyday, with my money, whether I think it is resposible and I like it, with my cash, whereas the government, erm, try every half decade, and we have to struggle for a referendum on anything. They may be responsible, but that doesn't matter, they aren't punished, and our opinions are not factored in.

Case in point,

the very existance and actions of the Brown-Blair tag team terror, I don't think I have to reel off the list of things they have done which they haven't been accountable for, haven't been punished for, and where the public ever got a say in their decisions.

Reply 12

kingsholmmad

Original post by prog2djent

How are you going to increase border security and administration whilst reducing public spending? How are you going to maintain the standards of health, education etc whilst cutting the government's income from both taxes and preferrential access to European markets? It doesn't work.

Original post by prog2djent

3. Seriously? Granted, the state does have a degree of accountability in comparison to private entities, but with the private sector, I get to decide everyday, with my money, whether I think it is resposible and I like it, with my cash, whereas the government, erm, try every half decade, and we have to struggle for a referendum on anything. They may be responsible, but that doesn't matter, they aren't punished, and our opinions are not factored in.

You reckon? Precisely how is your money deciding whether or not to use the private entity known as G4S for public security? Precisely how is your money deciding whether or not to use the private firms in the health service? Or in the police? Or in public transport? The difference between the government and private firms is that private firms do get to keep their profits and they don't have to answer to the electorate.

Reply 13

callum9999

Original post by prog2djent

I'm not quoting him in his professional capacity, I'm quoting it because I fully agree with it... I'd still quote it if a serial-unemployed murderer came up with it!

They WERE held accountable for it, hence why they are no longer in power... If the public votes for all our policy, there would be no coherent plan. When the economy then fails - no-one is responsible for it, no-one is there to clean it all up and no-one can even say what caused it. Everyone voting for law X will be blaming those who voted for law Y, with them blaming those who voted for X and Z etc. etc.

Reply 14

prog2djent

Original post by kingsholmmad

1. How are you going to increase border security and administration whilst reducing public spending?
2. How are you going to maintain the standards of health, education etc whilst cutting the government's income
3. access to European markets?
4. how is your money deciding whether or not to use the private entity known as G4S
5. the private firms in the health service? Or in the police?

1. Just because you lower public spening doesn't mean that all areas have to be cut, other areas would receive more funding, some would be cut, and some would get funding where they previously didn't, i.e, completely gutting the military and all its excess, leave all wars we are in, and shut down bases, use the military for what they should be used for, national security and boarder security, with the money saved, or, the liabilities moved around the balance sheet, then spending can increase here.
2. Land Value tax should pretty much cover the less strict production, consuption, spending and mental property taxes. And from point 1, we need to severly cut things in order to improve improve others, which are more important, like hacking at the military, stopping foreign aid, remove subsidies to agriculture (would would ironically be a benefit to the poor nations dependent on our aid which have now been removed, an alternative)
3. You believe that?
4. I didn't decide, the state did it for me. :facepalm:

5. I don't want a private police force and I don't want a completely private NHS, only at the top end.

Reply 15

martinix

Original post by prog2djent

We need it because that is what democracy is supposed to be, every decision should be held via a referendum, or just, by .. uh, voting, so that the people actually get what they want, some of the worst things about this country are the result of the people not having a say (nor even being told) about what is going on.
?

1. Most people don't care about politics anyway, so they probably wouldn't even bother casting their vote in such referendums, especially if there were plenty of them...
2. Even if they did bother, they would vote mindlessly, as most people don't have any background in politics and don't understand its nature
3. Switzerland in a small country. In bigger countries like France or Germany, such a system would be very hard (and expensive!) to implement.

I agree that the current system isn't working though... yet I do not consider myself smart enough to suggest a definite solution to this problem. In politics, there are no easy solutions.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 16

kingsholmmad

Original post by prog2djent

3. with the private sector, I get to decide everyday

Original post by prog2djent

4. I didn't decide, the state did it for me. :facepalm:

So precisely who decides, you or the state? What if I don't want any part of the police or NHS privatising, who gets to decide how much is privatized and on what authority?

Reply 17

prog2djent

Original post by kingsholmmad

So precisely who decides, you or the state? What if I don't want any part of the police or NHS privatising, who gets to decide how much is privatized and on what authority?

I decide which company I part cash with, the government decided that G4S should be security, security for the olympics shouldn't be private anyway.

For the NHS, well, it is un-democratic, but having a myriad of private firms for those that can afford, the middle class to rich (did I mention that the NHS should only be a progressive system? Which it isn't at the moment), it gives you choice.

Why should I have to pay for other people's personal choices?

People may think the NHS is all well and good for everyone, but imagine, you are sat in the lounge, and you hear a knock on the door, its a cyclist who has fallen on a difficult track in the woods near your house, his arm is broken, and he asks you for a few grand for surgery, you would tell him to jolly well **** off.

Reply 18

Dux_Helvetica

I would support the creation of a European equivalent of a First Amendment to protect those who wish to speak about controversial issues such as Islam. However, if there was a Europe-wide First Amendment for the protection of freedom of speech, it would just give further legitimacy to the EU as a supranational state, which I oppose.