Europe Must Embrace Free Speech

[A_Wanderer]

In that people say some profoundly dumb and offensive things that should be left unsaid I agree with you. But I would rather live where somebody can act like and imbecile or stick their foot in their mouth than be subject to speech codes stifling the marketplace of ideas.

Im not so sure about laws being used to promote harmony, Victoria has had a racial and religious vilification law on the cards for a few years now and it has been used against some evangelical pastors from Catch the Fire Ministries who said that Islam was influenced by devils. These laws are very dangerous things, they grant undue protection to religious ideas that in themselves deserve absolutely no protection and I would argue forment more distrust and animosity than unlimited free speech on the matter.

Inciting violence and hate speech can be divided. Infringing on free speech that is not incitement or the equivalent of screaming fire in a theatre is a dangerous position, if you can ban one type of speech that you find offensive then why not another - the demands across Europe from for such laws betray a lack of respect for free speech and the liberal tradition (e.g. Iqbal Sacranie and the MCB in Britain and the uproar over Jyllands-Posten publishing cartoon depictions of Mohammed in Denmark as well as the support for those laws from Christian and Jewish groups; when Christians, Jews and Muslims are working together you know something bad is going down for the rest of us).

Just off the top of my head in the context of the Cronulla riots some hypothetical declarations.

Bash Lebs - that would be incitement to violence and should not be protected speech.

Go Home Osama! - that should be protected speech. It is ignorant and hate filled to be sure but it is not in itself instigating violence.

 

[Otokonoko]

Point taken. I suppose my own local MP comes to mind, regarding Palm Island again. He came out and said that the only solution was to take all the Aborigines off Palm Island and scatter them in towns across the NQ Coast. As long as nobody takes him seriously, he hasn't harmed anything but his own credibility.

Sometimes restrictions are taken too far. I remember reading about a drunk pommy fella who went to court in Germany for reminding the cops there who won the war . . .

 

[A_Wanderer]

The stupidity of individuals in the world is only bested by the stupidity of the state

 

[hiphop]

when Christians, Jews and Muslims are working together you know something bad is going down for the rest of us.

oh I see. I didn´t know that, but now that you say it..

 

[hiphop]

What I am getting at, though, is that it is up to individual societies to determine their own values. We abhor child porn, Austrians abhor hate speech.

Just for the record, Austrians also abhor child porn.

 

[A_Wanderer]

oh I see. I didn´t know that, but now that you say it..

Oh I say and believe it, believers in the totalitarian deity don't just put aside their differences unless there is a basic understanding of mutual benefit and that will always be furthuring the goals of the religious. The irreligious are the ones that pay the price. For the sake of the atheists, antithesists and iconoclasts I think it is wise to steer well clear of laws protecting religions from criticism, satire and mockery however savage it may be.

I want the right to think and say that that God would be a cruel power junkie imbuing true believers with the fortitude to convert or kill unbelievers while holding everybody ransom with fear, guilt and failing that violent coercion. I think the Klingon religion at least has the virtue of the epic heroes killing their Gods. If the religious want to get together and stop people from offending their sensitivities then their aims warrant some harsh words.

I hope that the degredation and decline of the Christian Churches is mirrored around the globe with a vast decline of other religious institutions and the adoption of more personal and less harmful spiritual expression.

 

[all_i_want]

--------
comment:


Pamuk is in prison for "denigrating Turkishness". I don´t know how this is supposed to be a crime, we do not have a crime fro "denigrating Austrian-ness" or anything in that direction. Still, he´s in prison in Turkey. Just to have it mentioned.. a Turkish prison is a little different compared to an Austrian prison. Maybe you can see why some Europeans are critical of Turkey´s human rights record and upcoming EU membership.


Irving broke the law. Whatever you may think of our national law, he broke it and he´s in prison for that. This particular Austrian law was installed for important reasons. Without wanting to discuss these at length now (also because they are apparent), there´s no discussion about that - he broke it.

If you are so eager on total 100% free speech, how come an american agent breaks law when he publishes classified information? I´ll tell you why: He breaks the law because he hurts the country´s reputation, secret service and national interests. Same for people who deny the holocaust in Austria: they hurt the countries´ reputation and national interests; additionally the extreme right is dangerous; there are people like Haider or LePen, they get enough media exposure with their hate speeches against immigrants (should be prohibited too) - imagine what could happen if they were also allowed to deny the holocaust.

In reality there is no such thing as free speech in the U.S. For example, the moment that you make a harmless joke about the controls at an airport security checkpoint, you violate U.S. law - there are signs all over the airport about this (where you´re queuing to take your shoes off). Free speech when you´re not allowed to make a joke or an offensive remark? Well, excuse me, I´ll rather have the Nazis locked up.

I am deeply offended by what you have made Turkey out to be all along this thread hiphop. Turkey does not reside in 'stone age', neither is it a 'dictatorship'. You'd probably know better if you had ever been to Turkey.

You should also get your facts straight. Orhan Pamuk is NOT in jail and he was not in jail at any other time either. What you do is called mud-slinging and hoping it sticks. His case will not conclude in imprisonment either.

Also, the hypocrisy of this post amazes me. Turkey does have a LAW prohitibiting denigration of the Turkish identity, the army and Ataturk, founder of the state. Orhan Pamuk was prosecuted because he broke the law. This is exactly the same situation Irving is in. You have a law against denying holocaust, we have a law against denigrating the Turkish nation. Austria is no different for IMPRISONING a man because of his claims. The only difference is that you dont like what Irving says, but you like what Pamuk says. That is the sole difference. Since Pamuk walks and Irving is imprisoned, basicly because of the same 'crime', so by your standards, Austria should be the one still residing in the stone age.

You also say that its ok to make free-speech a crime to protect national interests. The Armenian question IS vital for Turkey's national interests, perhaps even more so than an Englishman claiming that there is no holocaust in Austria.

In either case, I support free speech. I do not think Pamuk should be prosecuted for mere words, even if they are untrue. Neither should Irving be imprisoned, even if his claims are ludicrious. People should be free to express themselves. I also invite all of you to see this for what it is and stop this hypocrisy.

 

[A_Wanderer]

 

[hiphop]

I am deeply offended by what you have made Turkey out to be all along this thread hiphop.

not my problem

Turkey does not reside in 'stone age', neither is it a 'dictatorship'.

I never said Turkey was a dictatorship. Whatever may be decided in that specific case. And it is good if they let Pamuk walk free. The question´s rather why he was in front of court.

You might not see any difference in the two laws. Well, if you ponder over this a bit, you will find out there is an essential difference. Turkey does not want to speak about it´s past crimes. Austria does want to speak about it and does not want people to deny the holocaust.

maybe you have not read my post carefully because you think have something against Turkey. That´s not the case. I think the way Turkey has been dealing with the Kurds is a shame.

And yes, even if I have mentioned that the Austrian police is racist - there´s still a difference to the way Turkey deals with its minorities, esp. Kurds. The Turkish governments have depopulated 2,000 Kurdish villages and displaced over 2 million Kurds

And you want to tell me Turkey and Austria have the same high standard in human rights records? Sorry, I don´t buy it.

As to the prisons, I invite you to take a look at an Austrian prison in compare of a Turkish one and then tell me where you´d prefer to spend your time if you were in the same situation.

I invite you to read this article, even if I do not agree with all it says (the American fear of Communism is funny):
http://www.meib.org/articles/0102_me1.htm

quote:
Turkey's prisons have been spinning out of control since the late 1970s, when extremist political violence, coming from both the left and the right, swept the country (...) The prisons were overcrowded. Inmates were not housed in cells, but in large, open dormitories under the control of revolutionary gangs. Prison authorities were powerless to intervene. Weapons, drugs, and all manner of contraband flowed freely. (...) By 1996, even Interior Minister Ülkü Gülcügil acknowledged that the world inside Turkish prisons was controlled by revolutionaries and that the state was no longer in command.

(...) The Turkish government moved with paramilitary forces against the hunger strikers on 19 December (2000). They called the operation "Return to Life", and it is still unclear why they launched it when they did. (...) Once the order was given, government forces concentrated on 20 prisons. Resistance by the prisoners was strong, perhaps unexpectedly so. The Ministry of Interior said prisoners had homemade flame-throwers, Molotov cocktails, and pipe bombs. At Canakkale prison, police had to use heavy machinery to knock holes in the walls to gain entrance.

The fighting lasted four days. It was the worst prison violence Turkey had seen in decades. Thirty prisoners and two policemen were killed. Many of the dead prisoners reportedly set themselves on fire and burned to death.

That´s just an example. Want to hear more about Turkish human rights records? Google it, it is VERY EASY.

You'd probably know better if you had ever been to Turkey.

I´ve been to Turkey and I like the Turkish population and the country for many reasons. One thing for which I don´t like Turkey is its human rights policy and the way it deals with people who are "dangerous for the state".

You have a law against denying holocaust, we have a law against denigrating the Turkish nation. Austria is no different for IMPRISONING a man because of his claims. The only difference is that you dont like what Irving says, but you like what Pamuk says. That is the sole difference.

No it isn´t. Please give me a reason why Turkey needs a law that forbids "denigrating the Turkish nation" - a law that is PROTECTING THE ESTABLISHED TURKISH POLITICAL CLASS against anyone (opposition, communists, Turks, Armenians, whoever) who dares to critisize the great national Turkish state, and apparently Ataturk was a holy man or something.

The law in Austria PROTECTS THE VICTIMS of the holocaust.

 

[nbcrusader]

No it isn´t. Please give me a reason why Turkey needs a law that forbids "denigrating the Turkish nation" - a law that is PROTECTING THE ESTABLISHED TURKISH POLITICAL CLASS against anyone (opposition, communists, Turks, Armenians, whoever) who dares to critisize the great national Turkish state, and apparently Ataturk was a holy man or something.

The law in Austria PROTECTS THE VICTIMS of the holocaust.

Can you see why a number of us are befuddled by the inconsistency between these two standards?

 

[hiphop]

Another press release:

http://www.greens-efa.org/en/press/detail.php?id=269&lg=en

The delegation of the European Parliament to the Turkish prisons calls for urgent action to end the death fasts which are continuing in a number of Turkish prisons.

The members of the delegation visited F-type prisons in Kandira and Sincan. Some members also had the opportunity to see the prison in Bayrampasa and the Juvenile Detention Centre in Ankara.

Following a resolution by the European Parliament and the invitation from the Minister of Justice the ad hoc delegation was established in order to look at the current situation. They considered that urgent action was justified by the loss of life and the serious damage being caused to the image of Turkey within the European Union.

At a meeting with the Minister of Justice the delegation noted that the Government is not indifferent in the face of the continuing crisis but that further action should be taken in order to gain the confidence of the prisoners and to create the conditions for the crisis to end.

The delegation pointed out that they had no sympathy whatsoever with the political objectives of the leaders of the actions in the prisons. This point was made clearly during meetings with those leaders with whom the parliamentarians spoke in the various locations and with the Minister of Justice. (...)

The parliamentarians took note of the fears felt by some prisoners and their families as to the possibility of torture or even death in prison, particularly in the light of the recent decision of the European Court of Human Rights concerning deaths in Turkish jails.

For these reasons the members of Parliament felt that the Government could act in a way that would increase the possibility for contacts with and between the spokesmen of the prisoners. Action could also be taken to ensure that prisoners felt they were able to prepare, without interference, for their trials. Arrangements for visits could also be implemented in a sensitive manner to allow prisoners to meet with their friends.

The Government should re-assess the implementation of current legislation in a way which would minimise the isolation of prisoners and would prevent any unjustified isolation which could amount to psychological torture.

During the visit to Turkey the MEPs had contacts with a number of NGOs and parliamentarians and they noted a growing awareness as to the urgent need to speed up the process of penal and prison reform, which is also an integral part of Turkey’s preparation for EU membership. In this context the delegation called for an amnesty for those imprisoned under anti-terrorism laws when in reality these laws had been used to curtail freedom of expression in a different politcal situation than that which exists in Turkey at the present time. The European Parliament continues to deplore the imprisonment of Leyla Zana and at its June plenary session in Strasbourg next week they will adopt a report on human rights in the world which focuses particularly on defending the right to freedom of expression. (...)

 

[hiphop]

Can you see why a number of us are befuddled by the inconsistency between these two standards?

As I see it, there is no inconsistency there. The Austrian law protects the victims, whereas the Turkish law protects the politicians and the people in power.

The Austrian law against denial of the holocaust does not protect the politicians here. The contrary is the case, i.e. the governor of Carinthia (Haider) has to be very careful what he says.

Also, when you go in jail in Turkey, you apparently risk to be beaten up or killed or massacred. In compare, our prisons are like hotels.

Can you see the difference?

 

[nbcrusader]

As I see it, there is no inconsistency there. The Austrian law protects the victims, whereas the Turkish law protects the politicians and the people in power.

Could not Turkey view their law as protecting victims? You've characterized the difference in a light most favorable to Austria (or unfavorable for Turkey). This is why slippery slope arguments are made.

The Austrian law against denial of the holocaust does not protect the politicians here. The contrary is the case, i.e. the governor of Carinthia (Haider) has to be very careful what he says.

Actually, it protects the politician who does not deny the holocaust. It is designed to limit expression to the contrary.

Also, when you go in jail in Turkey, you apparently risk to be beaten up or killed or massacred. In compare, our prisons are like hotels.

Can you see the difference?

I am unfamiliar with jail conditions in either country, but I would not use that as a basis for depriving liberty.

I know there are good intentions underlying the law, but that is not enough to deny what most consider basic freedoms.

 

[hiphop]

Could not Turkey view their law as protecting victims? You've characterized the difference in a light most favorable to Austria (or unfavorable for Turkey). This is why slippery slope arguments are made.



Actually, it protects the politician who does not deny the holocaust. It is designed to limit expression to the contrary.



I am unfamiliar with jail conditions in either country, but I would not use that as a basis for depriving liberty.

I know there are good intentions underlying the law, but that is not enough to deny what most consider basic freedoms.

Doug, I see your point of view and you see mine. We may have different opinions on that, yet I can understand your point.

 

[nbcrusader]

fair enough

Thanks for the discussion

 

[VertigoGal]

alright, well it seems like you guys have already agreed to disagree.

but I still have a question. In your last few posts hiphop you've made it seem like the purpose of the law is not in the interest of national security (ie preventing a resurance of nazism or something), but to protect the feelings of concentration camp survivors. I don't know if protecting the feelings of a small percentage of the population is a legitimate basis for such a restrictive law. I don't mean to sound like an insensitive ass (I'm half-Jewish, had many relatives who were killed in the Holocaust, etc)...And then you go on to comment on how "funny" it is that Americans are so afraid of Communism. Communism which has been responsible for millions and millions of deaths in the past century (far more than the Nazis surely...although not in the US of course), and which until quite recently was a far greater threat to the US and world in general than I think Nazism is in Austria in the 21st century. That's just the feeling I get but feel free to correct me regarding the extent to which Nazi supporters are still present in Austria.

Also I think it's interesting that you fear the Nazis could return and take over at any moment with complete disregard for the democratic process...but the idea that this law could be extended or abused for more sublte, seemingly less sinister purposes such as punishing political opponents is completely absurd and would never happen.

I do understand where you're coming from by the way...

 

[hiphop]

alright, well it seems like you guys have already agreed to disagree.

but I still have a question. In your last few posts hiphop you've made it seem like the purpose of the law is not in the interest of national security (ie preventing a resurance of nazism or something), but to protect the feelings of concentration camp survivors. I don't know if protecting the feelings of a small percentage of the population is a legitimate basis for such a restrictive law. I don't mean to sound like an insensitive ass (I'm half-Jewish, had many relatives who were killed in the Holocaust, etc)...And then you go on to comment on how "funny" it is that Americans are so afraid of Communism. Communism which has been responsible for millions and millions of deaths in the past century (far more than the Nazis surely...although not in the US of course), and which until quite recently was a far greater threat to the US and world in general than I think Nazism is in Austria in the 21st century. That's just the feeling I get but feel free to correct me regarding the extent to which Nazi supporters are still present in Austria.

Also I think it's interesting that you fear the Nazis could return and take over at any moment with complete disregard for the democratic process...but the idea that this law could be extended or abused for more sublte, seemingly less sinister purposes such as punishing political opponents is completely absurd and would never happen.

I do understand where you're coming from by the way...

I´d say the purpose of the whole law is also national security interest, whether the part that forbids to deny the holocaust is not only to protect the interest of the survivors (even if this is the most important point, like I pointed out when I said that law is to protect the victims) but also the interest of Austrians who are not holocaust survivors.

example: I´m not Jewish, not half-Jewish and not related to any Jewish family as far as I know. I could find a holocaust survivor to talk with, but I´m not related to anyone (as far as I know). so one could say, why am I interested in that? The reply is easy, because my relatives were deeply affected by the war. My grandfather was missed in Russia. And my grandmother, when she was still alive, was still thinking of the friends she had lost in the war when she was 80 years old. Because when she was in her 20ies, she studied and she had many friends. After WW II, 7 out of 10 of the people she knew were either dead or missed.

A whole generation or two of Germans and Austrians have suffered from that war. So it is not only a law to protect the obvious victms, the holocaust survivors, but also to protect an Austrian like me! I have nothing to do whatsoever with WW II, but when the holocaust is denied, I have the feeling that all the war and these bad times and the losses we had to suffer are ridiculed.

It is not only about protecting the small percentage of holocaust survivors, but also to protect the collective memory of the majority. So I think it is a legitimate basis for a restrictive law.

My comments in regard to Communism had to do with the article I posted, I don´t know if I have made the connection clear enough. This is an article written by T.P. Carroll from the Middle East Intelligence Bulletin, and comments on the political views of people imprisoned in Turkey (and the comments are different from the ones made by Amnesty International; AI understands to be more protective towards the prisoners).

Nazis have complete disregard for the democratic process. I´m not saying it can happen very easily, but if they were allowed, it could happen that they gain more power. just to remind you, Hitler did not seem to care a lot about democracy. Sure, we live in a world with checks and balances now and the situation is not the same it once was after WW I. But have you ever seen how fast a dictatorship can rise? After a coup d´etat for example? It just takes one day.

That said, apparently it has become more fashionable to treat immigrants as harshly as the police thinks it fits. Nationalist tendencies? You want a laugh? The Haider party (and over 20% voted for them a couple of years ago) uses slogans like "Don´t make Vienna another Chicago" (they talk about the crime rates then and why we need a stronger police) - and these are just harmless - we see the whole concept of national socialism in their publicity, even if it is hidden. I also don´t care if they call it national socialism or neo-conservative liberalism. The strategies are the same, their policies are based on hate and class differences. If you lived here, you would actually see it!

Its the "brave citizens go to work, the others are beggars, and who wants to be a beggar" or "you are not entitled to any social benefit" or "we are brave and true Austrians (whereas the others are not)" mentality, mixed with Neuro Linguistic Programming (apparently its fashionable for politicians to do communication courses now in order to lie or beat around the bush without the society noticing) and Anti-Semitism. So there is enough room here for such views. Well, democracy. Haider himself owns land that apparently did not belong to his family before of WW II. You see? I´m not comparing Haider´s party to the NSDAP now. Anyway, there are a couple of similar ideas. And frankly, I don´t know what these RATS would say and do if we did not have the anti-Nazi law.

The breeding ground for such ideas is there. To some extent, the breeding ground for fascist ideas is also there in the U.S... the difference is that our past generations have seen how truly slaughterous these kind of ideas can be.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Protecting the collective memory, in principle it sounds Orwellian even though it may be applied with the best of intentions.

If police racism is as abundant as you claim then I do not think that a correlation to holocaust denial exists.