 |
| |
|
|
Winston
|
 |
Danmark
Mar 1999
time: 06:37
|
|
The point is very simple; "understanding" of so-called motives doesn't enter into it when politicians comment on political violence. In a democratic society it is to be condemned, and if certain politicians can't issue a condemnation without attempting to explain away the violence, they should keep quiet - and let their silence speak for itself.
6 weeks ago, unknown people doused the car of our relatively newly appointed Minister for Integration in flammable fluids and set it on fire, at 3 in the morning while it was parked in the driveway 6 feet away from the family bedroom. Luckily the family, including 2 small kids were awaken by the blaze and escaped physically unharmed, but the point is, again, that if any politician would've started to dwell on his or her "understanding" or empathy with the perpetrators, it wouldn't have been a condemnation, but an explanation, if not an outright endorsement.
This particular case was so serious though, that even the regular loonies kept their mouths shut. So we know they can do it if they reeaally concentrate...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Winston
|
|
Danmark
Mar 1999
time: 06:37
|
|
Try to realise we're not talking about, for instance a politician saying "they must have done it because they disagreed with the victim politically" - that's a no-brainer, and of course some will touch on that when it's clearly a politically motivated violent crime.
I'm talking about using a violent attack to further the politician's own political agenda, saying for instance "the government has done so and so (going into specific criticisms) and what we saw yesterday is the result of the build-up of tensions among so and so, because of the rules and regulations as set up by the government - and one should not underestimate the widely held skepticism about the governments course in Iraq... etc. etc."
Now this is a fictional example, but the general choice of words and the overall message is not far from some of the statements I've heard on similar occasions over the years.
My point is such statements are not condemnations, first and foremost they're rationalizations, for political purposes, as to how the violence was a logical extension of normal political activities, among the elected representatives as well as the general population.
Baloney.
Political violence is to be condemned. Not agreed or disagreed with to various extents, depending on if it's the radical left or right who's behind it. Condemned.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
To swedes :
I don't read many swedish newspapers (zero to be truthfull), but there are many swedes that writes to the debate pages of danish papers. A common thing for them is their releif that their writings are printed which has been imposible in swdish papers. No, it's not swdish nazis that has found a way to express their hate, it's common swedes with opinions that are not accepted by the PC'ness where they live.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Last Conformist
What should we do? Force newspapers to print things they don't want to? |
It might be different in Sweden, but here most newspapers gladly print things they don't agree with on the debate pages. I guess that they see it as a part of a democratic discussion,
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-07-2005 00:41
, but Winston describes things pretty well.
Attachment: 
As long as I'm to the right of RV I know that I'm on secure ground.
|
