 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Saint Marcus
|
 |
Scio Me Nihil Scire
Jan 1970 time: 06:16
|
|
From CCN.com
quote: Since the September 11 hijacked plane attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Ashcroft has helped push legislation through Congress providing broad new powers to wiretap phones, monitor Internet traffic and apprehend suspects. |
quote: Criticism escalated when the administration followed up on the legislation, without consulting Congress, by proposing the creation of military tribunals to try foreigners suspected of terrorism. |
quote: Ashcroft, 59, also ordered the listening in on some conversations between inmates and their lawyers, and the questioning of 5,000 foreign men, mostly from Middle Eastern countries, a move he denied was a form of racial profiling. |
The governement can do all that in the USA? Damn At least here in free Holland the governement can't do those things. 
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Roland
|
 |
Auf'm Jahrmarkt :(
May 1999 time: 06:16
|
|
To all those yanks so concerned about our freedom of speech: You know, your former secretary of state, dumb piece of **** Notbright, found it worth reducing diplomatic relations because of Haider's FP becoming part of Austria's government. Must be a truly horrible man when the US PC crowd identifies him as such. And how many criminal convictions or only trials can you name against him for racist or xenophobic or hatefilled remarks ? Hmmm... lessee.... hmmm... damn, I'd say "zero". Read the tabloid or rightwing newspapers here (if you can). The laws on the book don't apply to vitually all of that. The average idiot does not reach the level of "Wiederbetätigung" or "Verhetzung".
Chris:
I'll try to address what might constitute a point of yours.
"Just as I had forseen, my two favorite European appologists tried to spin doctor their way out of this"
I suppose that's why I posted the link for everyone to see that nonsense draft. 
"...and the other by trying to twist it into a USA is culturally different, so you don't understand. (sorry Mein herr,we get it just fine. )"
That's "Herr". Und wenn wir schon dabei sind, kulturelle Unterschiede bedeuten nicht dass man etwas notwendiger Weise nicht versteht, sondern lediglich, dass man den kulturellen Hintergrund berücksichtigen sollte. Das schließt auch ein dass ein US-amerikanisches Grundrechtsverständnis keineswegs universal ist, nicht einmal für den nordatlantischen Kulturkreis. Ganz im Gegenteil, es ist ein eher eigentümliches Gebilde. Sogar Kanada orientiert sich eher an der EMRK als an der Bill of Rights.
Have fun runing that through bablefish.
"Yes, but at least we don't try to regulate the thoughts of our citizens."
Public speech, not thoughts. On the other side, we don't brainwash people into being "patriotic".
"We can't imagine how you could be backward enough to NOT want said rights"
Guns: That's just silly as a constitutional right. As a simple legal right, why not.
Abortion: That's just silly as a constitutional right. As a decriminalised conduct, why not.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Saint Marcus
|
 |
Scio Me Nihil Scire
Jan 1970 time: 06:16
|
|
quote: That's "Herr". Und wenn wir schon dabei sind, kulturelle Unterschiede bedeuten nicht dass man etwas notwendiger Weise nicht versteht, sondern lediglich, dass man den kulturellen Hintergrund berücksichtigen sollte. Das schließt auch ein dass ein US-amerikanisches Grundrechtsverständnis keineswegs universal ist, nicht einmal für den nordatlantischen Kulturkreis. Ganz im Gegenteil, es ist ein eher eigentümliches Gebilde. Sogar Kanada orientiert sich eher an der EMRK als an der Bill of Rights. |
Let's see our American friends tackle that one
quote: The difference is that I don't feel the need to mindlessly defend the government when it infringes on my rights. |
If people voluntary chose to give up those rights, isn't that true democracy and freedom? People in Europe, at least in Germany, France, Holland (and probably many others too), have made their choice. They don't want people making hate-speeches in public. If people chose to have those rules and live under those rules, it's their own choice and decision. And that is the truest form of Freedom and Democracy.
The US constitution states that civilians have the right to buy and carry guns. What if 90% of the Americans is against that? Would you, and the governement, still keep the law as it is? Doubt it. And if so, then that's clearly a sign of dictatorship and not democracy.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
faded glory
|
 |
This trash talking 2 bit dope dealer is about to learn respect for the law
Jan 2001 time: 05:16
|
|
quote: If people voluntary chose to give up those rights, isn't that true democracy and freedom? |
No, thats sheer stupidity (worty of dutch politics)
quote: People in Europe, at least in Germany, France, Holland (and probably many others too), have made their choice. They don't want people making hate-speeches in public |
We dont eihter... but we just ignore them. We dont actually Ban them . Who's to say one day your hippie ass politics are hateful and then are treated as such under the law
quote: If people chose to have those rules and live under those rules, it's their own choice and decision. And that is the truest form of Freedom and Democracy. |
Majority rules again eh? Just because you dont like there politic views makes it ok? Also: See 2 aboves.
quote: The US constitution states that civilians have the right to buy and carry guns. What if 90% of the Americans is against that? Would you, and the governement, still keep the law as it is? |
No..the constitution is not a living document. Men didnt give the ultimate sacrifice just for someone to change it. Guns are civil liberties...
quote: Doubt it. And if so, then that's clearly a sign of dictatorship and not democracy. |
Oh yes! We are a police states because we let people defend themselves. If that 90% doesnt want to own guns...ten tey shouldnt buy them! Its that simple...we dont need moronic half-assed laws to enforce changing public opinions
Stupid troll
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Chris 62
|
 |
But I'm feeling MUCH better now
Jan 2001 time: 00:16
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Roland
To all those yanks so concerned about our freedom of speech: You know, your former secretary of state, dumb piece of **** Notbright, found it worth reducing diplomatic relations because of Haider's FP becoming part of Austria's government. Must be a truly horrible man when the US PC crowd identifies him as such. And how many criminal convictions or only trials can you name against him for racist or xenophobic or hatefilled remarks ? Hmmm... lessee.... hmmm... damn, I'd say "zero". Read the tabloid or rightwing newspapers here (if you can). The laws on the book don't apply to vitually all of that. The average idiot does not reach the level of "Wiederbetätigung" or "Verhetzung". | Spin, spin, spin, spin, 
quote: Chris:
I'll try to address what might constitute a point of yours.
"Just as I had forseen, my two favorite European appologists tried to spin doctor their way out of this"
I suppose that's why I posted the link for everyone to see that nonsense draft. | The point is Roland, we address our problems, not try to bury them in retoric, as you and the boy try to.
quote: That's "Herr". Und wenn wir schon dabei sind, kulturelle Unterschiede bedeuten nicht dass man etwas notwendiger Weise nicht versteht, sondern lediglich, dass man den kulturellen Hintergrund berücksichtigen sollte. Das schließt auch ein dass ein US-amerikanisches Grundrechtsverständnis keineswegs universal ist, nicht einmal für den nordatlantischen Kulturkreis. Ganz im Gegenteil, es ist ein eher eigentümliches Gebilde. Sogar Kanada orientiert sich eher an der EMRK als an der Bill of Rights. | Of course their are cultural differences, and that the bill of rights doesn't apply universally, and as for what Canada does, I find them a restrictive society and a welfare state, quite frankly.
Also, there is no need to post in German, you should let all the folks read this. 
quote: Have fun runing that through bablefish. | Didn't need to, and never use it anyway. 
quote: Public speech, not thoughts. On the other side, we don't brainwash people into being "patriotic". | Nor do we, and it isn't needed.
You shouldn't think this website is a good cross section of the USA, we seem to get a lot of rebellious youngters here.
The average American loves his country, with no need for proding. It's a shame you think otherwise, but your quite wrong.
quote: Guns: That's just silly as a constitutional right. As a simple legal right, why not.
Abortion: That's just silly as a constitutional right. As a decriminalised conduct, why not. | "Silly as a Constitutional right", but a right, nontheless.
I personally am anti-gun, but the right is there.
As for abortion, I'm pro-choice, and always will be.
quote: Let's see our American friends tackle that one | Your such a silly young man.
When you get older, and start viewing the world more objectivly, you will begin to understand all of this, but that time isn't here yet. 
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Saint Marcus
|
 |
Scio Me Nihil Scire
Jan 1970 time: 06:16
|
|
quote: Why isn't the Communist party banned in Europe? Thier rule was far longer and just as harsh as the Nazis were. Why ban one and not the other? |
Reasons? I don't know about the rest of Europe, but in Holland it's obvious.
A. Nazis raped Holland
B. Nazis are per definition rascist
C. Dutch nazis worshipped Hitler, dutch communists didn't worship Stalin.
"A" is of course motivated by history. Holland didn't suffer under the soviets, only under the nazis.
"B" is also rather obvious. While many communist regimes were rather rascist, rascism isn't part of the communist/marxist idealogy, while Nazis are per definition rascist (anti-jew, anti-roma. neo-nazis are also anti-muslim).
"C" is an important distinction. Dutch Nazis, or at least the ones banned, were openly pro-Hitler. Dutch communists are openly pro-Lenin, but (openly) anti-Stalin. Lenin did make some mistakes, but can in no way be compared to Hitler or Stalin.
Eventhough in practice communism and nazism turned out remarkably similar, you have to see the clear distinction in idealogy. And Marxists aren't per definition totalitarian or rascist.
About the banned Nazi party. There were two extreme-right parties in Holland at that time. The CP and the CD.
The CP openly denied the holocaust, made no secret of their desire for a nazi-style governement in Holland, made it an official party goal to get rid of any and all foreigners or put them in camps, and openly pledged support to Hitler's actions during WW2. That got them banned.
The CD was a tad smarter than that. At first, they did similar things, but after some fines they moderated their official viewpoints. The CP wasn't very smart and after fines and warnings still did the same things. The CD did scrap all pro-nazi, pro-hitler and rascist remarks from the official party rethorics, and was therefor not banned.
However, in the end it did not matter. the CP had no seats in the parliament, and when the next elections came the CD lost their last seats too. 
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Saint Marcus
|
 |
Scio Me Nihil Scire
Jan 1970 time: 06:16
|
|
I checked
Article 1 in the Dutch Constitution is commonly known as the anti-discrimination law. Discrimination in public, in whatever form, including verbal descrimination, is illegal. Officially it says "instigating (sp) hatred".
Today has been announced that a muslim imam will be prosecuted for his anti-homosexual remarks. The guy said that gays are a danger to society.
Now there's once again the discussion between Article 1 and Article 2 of the Dutch Constitution (I believe Article 2 includes freedom of speech, have to look this one up). However, Article 1 is the most important part of the Constitution.
I'll look up the exact text of Article 1 and other articles.
Last edited by Saint Marcus on 06-12-2001 at 03:55
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Saint Marcus
|
 |
Scio Me Nihil Scire
Jan 1970 time: 06:16
|
|
The text is a bit different than I thought. Article 2 also isn't about freedom of speech. In total it's freakin long and boring (of course) so bear with me, it will take some time to go through the whole thing.
De Nederlandse Grondwet (The Dutch Constitution)
written in 1848 by J.R. Thorbecke (parts based on earlier documents of the Batavian Republic and the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands)
Historical context: Holland just became a monarchy a few decades earlier after the end of the Napoleonic Wars. A document was needed to decrease the power of the monarch, and list ground rights.
Chapter 1: ground rights
Article 1: Allen die zich in Nederland bevinden, worden in gelijke gevallen gelijk behandeld. Discriminatie wegens godsdienst, levensovertuiging, politieke gezindheid, ras, geslacht of op welke grond dan ook, is niet toegestaan.
Translation: All who reside in the Netherlands, should be treated equally in all cases. Discriminations on grounds of religion, system of beliefs (??), political preference, race, gender, or on any other ground, is not permitted.
* Discrimination is not permitted. This includes verbal discrimation as well.
Article 6, subsection 1: Ieder heeft het recht zijn godsdienst of levensovertuiging, individueel of in gemeenschap met anderen, vrij te belijden, behoudens ieders verantwoordelijkheid volgens de wet.
Translation: Everyone has the right to his religion or system of beliefs, individually or in community with others, free to practice, within everyone's responsibility within the law.
* Freedom of religion, but only for as long as it doesn't violate the law.
Article 7, subsection 3, part A: Voor het openbaren van gedachten of gevoelens door andere dan in de voorgaande leden genoemde middelen heeft niemand voorafgaand verlof nodig wegens de inhoud daarvan, behoudens ieders verantwoordelijkheid volgens de wet.
Translation: Expressing thoughts or feeling through other then in previous articles mentioned means [paper, tv, radio, mentioned in Article 7, subsections 1 and 2] does not require permission for it's content, within everyone's responsibility within the law.
* Freedom of speech. It states anyone can say what he or she wants, without needing permission. However, only as long as it doesn't violate the law.
So people here have freedom of speech and religion and just about everything else, but with one vital addition. The freedom a certain person has/wants should not conflict with other laws. Every article about people's rights ends with "behoudens ieders verantwoordelijkheid volgens de wet". And as Article 1, the most important article of the Constitution, states: Discrimination is not allowed. So your civil liberties may not violate Article 1 of the Constitution, which bans all forms of discrimination, including verbal.
And as some Americans always say...the Constitution is a living document. 
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16. Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|