Charlie Hebdo massacre - 2015-Jan-07 (12 Viewers)

[Seven]

was the champion of free speech, julian assange invited to the paris demonstrations?

We have lots of champions of free speech.

A right which is rarely, if ever, well and truly breached in the Western world. Frankly, it wasn't breached in Paris either. They voiced their opinions. Then they were killed. Their right to life was breached.

But it is cooler to make it about freedom of speech apparently. Because to us in the West that somehow has become our core value. Rather than.. you know, living.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[GordoDeCentral]

There's a difference between Maddy's opinion and the law. You guys made the same fail, when you argued with Rus.
Americans have, by law, more freedom og speech than Europeans, but the censorship is stronger in The States.
You seem to have a different opinion about stuff as soon as Islam is involved.

and you seem to be a lot of interpreting of my posts when a simple what did you mean by that would answer it directly:

http://forum.juventuz.org/threads/4...-2015-Jan-07?p=4781169&viewfull=1#post4781169

 

[Fred]

We have lots of champions of free speech.

A right which is rarely, if ever, well and truly breached in the Western world. Frankly, it wasn't breached in Paris either. They voiced their opinions. Then they were killed. Their right to life was breached.

But it is cooler to make it about freedom of speech apparently. Because to us in the West that somehow has become our core value. Rather than.. you know, living.

But the idea was that they were killed because the perpetrators wanted to limit their right to free speech, which is why I guess it is understandably about freedom of speech.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

We have lots of champions of free speech.

A right which is rarely, if ever, well and truly breached in the Western world. Frankly, it wasn't breached in Paris either. They voiced their opinions. Then they were killed. Their right to life was breached.

But it is cooler to make it about freedom of speech apparently. Because to us in the West that somehow has become our core value. Rather than.. you know, living.

but if it was just that seven a million people wouldnt take it to the streets, heck im pretty sure we had days in chicago where a dozen people would get gunned down and no one would blink an eye, but you can count on the media to steer it towards the sensational and milk the heck out of it.

 

[Seven]

But the idea was that they were killed because the perpetrators wanted to limit their right to free speech, which is why I guess it is understandably about freedom of speech.

Because they want to limit their right to freedom of speech in the future, yes. But it's not very likely to happen, now is it?

 

[GordoDeCentral]

and soren, before you go on about what my take is, i dont believe in freedom, i just think some places are more restrictive than others depending on whether the means of state control are direct or indirect

 

[Maddy]

Yes. So you teach in Social Science.

And you also quote a man who says there should be no constraints on the free flow of information and ideas. When, quite frankly, history has demonstrated otherwise.

Of course we have to aim for the biggest possible degree of freedom of speech. But there are limits. There have to be. Every right has limits. I don't understand why you insist on claiming the opposite, when it's simply impossible.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, something you seem to forget, limits to a human right do not necessarily mean it is breached. Otherwise every judgment of the ECHR would be a breach in itself.

You keep on putting words in my mouth. Mind stopping that now?

My original claim was: banning an ideology cause it doesnt fit your world view is borderlune facism, un-democratic and too big of a breach on freedom of speech.

It's my opinion on how a democracy should work.

I'vr never claimed there arent any constrains on freedom of speech. Look at my reply to Hoori.
My claim is again banning an ideology is too big of constrain in democracy.

- - - Updated - - -

You keep on putting words in my mouth. Mind stopping that now?

My original claim was: banning an ideology cause it doesnt fit your world view is borderlune facism, un-democratic and too big of a breach on freedom of speech.

It's my opinion on how a democracy should work.

I'vr never claimed there arent any constrains on freedom of speech. Look at my reply to Hoori.
My claim is again banning an ideology is too big of constrain in democracy.

Oh whats the bullshit about history showing us theres should be a limit to freedom of speech, if anything history has shown the opposite. Lack of freedom speech = caertain path to dictatorship

 

[Fred]

and soren, before you go on about what my take is, i dont believe in freedom, i just think some places are more restrictive than others depending on whether the means of state control are direct or indirect

Semantics, but I think you would agree, that you cannot compare between the degree of "restrictiveness" is extremely higher in the middle east for example than in Western countries.

 

[Maddy]

and soren, before you go on about what my take is, i dont believe in freedom, i just think some places are more restrictive than others depending on whether the means of state control are direct or indirect

But ain't just a question about what you put into the word "freedom".

We have a discussion in the Danish educational system about how free one can be.

There's a pretty big consensus on the price of freedom is a certain limit to freedom.

So when are we discussing freedom we are rather discussing where to draw the line and what price to pay. Somewhat similar to what Seven and I are doing, altho I have a distinct feeling he's in the discussion to be right rather than to discuss the idea.

 

[Seven]

Oh whats the bullshit about history showing us theres should be a limit to freedom of speech, if anything history has shown the opposite. Lack of freedom speech = caertain path to dictatorship

You seem to be forgetting what happened in Germany a long time ago.

An antidemocratic party gaining power through democracy realising their antidemocratic ideas. Doing pretty much what a Nazi party in Denmark would do. And yet here you are defending the necessity of allowing Nazi parties in Democratic states.

Surely you can see why I don't share your opinion?

- - - Updated - - -

So when are we discussing freedom we are rather discussing where to draw the line and what price to pay. Somewhat similar to what Seven and I are doing, altho I have a distinct feeling he's in the discussion to be right rather than to discuss the idea.

No. I very much disagree with what you're saying. And I'm not sure you agree with yourself either. You seem to think it's okay for a party to exist that opposes the right to freedom of speech, yet it would not be okay for that party to actually do what is in their program.

How does that work?

Although I must admit that there is a risk that we actually do agree on this issue, but are having a purely semantic discusion. It's a risk that always exists when you are debating large, somewhat vague ideas such as democracy.

 

[Fred]

@Maddy, If you're talking about a secular democracy, wouldn't allowing political islam be a direct contradiction of that, if you're country was built on the principle of the separation of church and state, then surely you can't allow a party whose politics are based primarily on religion? I mean take Turkey for example, the AKP over there had to officially reject that they are in any way an "Islamist" party, and instead label themselves "conservative democrats" in order to avoid any conflict with the country's "secular" status.

 

[Maddy]

Although I must admit that there is a risk that we actually do agree on this issue, but are having a purely semantic discusion. It's a risk that always exists when you are debating large, somewhat vague ideas such as democracy.

We are not discussing semantics. We are talking about a subject within Political Science that has been an on going debate for decades now. I've made that clear to you already. I have a stance you disagree with and that's fine. But my stance on democracy and freedom of speech is shared by many intellectuals, scholars and politicians around the world.

And this:

No. I very much disagree with what you're saying. And I'm not sure you agree with yourself either. You seem to think it's okay for a party to exist that opposes the right to freedom of speech, yet it would not be okay for that party to actually do what is in their program.

How does that work?

Is the beauty of democracy. The dilemma that cannot be solved. While we have to accept ideologies that wants to overthrow the democracy (in theory) we have laws preventing that from happening (in practicality).

In Denmark you are allowed to be a Nazist of ideology, but if you start killing Jews you are going to jail. If you by non-democratic measures try to overthrow the democracy you are going to jail and so on.

But we cannot in a democracy start making laws and what one is allowed to believe in.

- - - Updated - - -

@Maddy, If you're talking about a secular democracy, wouldn't allowing political islam be a direct contradiction of that, if you're country was built on the principle of the separation of church and state, then surely you can't allow a party whose politics are based primarily on religion? I mean take Turkey for example, the AKP over there had to officially reject that they are in any way an "Islamist" party, and instead label themselves "conservative democrats" in order to avoid any conflict with the country's "secular" status.

But that's the thing you can and you have to. We might have a secular country but that doesn't mean that any non-secular Party should be disallowed. Freedom of thought, freedom of expression and freedom of speech.

Pluralism is a key in a Democracy and that includes Parties that one might not agree with.

 

[Seven]

You're forgetting one hypothesis. An anti-democratic party overthrowing democracy by democratic means. Which, unfortunately, is the hypothesis of WWII.

I never claimed that we should forbid people from believing in what they want. That is a completely different discussion and it's important not to mix them up.

- - - Updated - - -

@Maddy, If you're talking about a secular democracy, wouldn't allowing political islam be a direct contradiction of that, if you're country was built on the principle of the separation of church and state, then surely you can't allow a party whose politics are based primarily on religion? I mean take Turkey for example, the AKP over there had to officially reject that they are in any way an "Islamist" party, and instead label themselves "conservative democrats" in order to avoid any conflict with the country's "secular" status.

It doesn't work. If you allow the party to exist, it is an exercise in futility based on the assumption that not enough people will vote for them. It's a pretty dangerous gamble to make.

Not to mention the hypocritical nature of the laws you'd have.

 

[Maddy]

@Fred

The Danish constitution says the King/Queen of the Kingdom of Denmark is the ruler.

Should any republican party be disallowed?

 

[Seven]

@Fred

The Danish constitution says the King/Queen of the Kingdom of Denmark is the ruler.

Should any republican party be disallowed?

Laws (and constitutions too) are changed all the time. That is not the problem. The problem is allowing an antidemocratic party to exist, but not allowing that party to execute its ideas when it elected to rule by democratic means.

That is wrong on a whole range of levels.

 

[Maddy]

You're forgetting one hypothesis. An anti-democratic party overthrowing democracy by democratic means. Which, unfortunately, is the hypothesis of WWII.

I never claimed that we should forbid people from believing in what they want. That is a completely different discussion and it's important not to mix them up.

I believe in enlightenment and education and I have a firm believe in the choices of an educated population.

That's the way I want to build society and democracy.

And that's why I will never disallow a Party that works thru democratic measures.

- - - Updated - - -

Laws (and constitutions too) are changed all the time. That is not the problem. The problem is allowing an antidemocratic party to exist, but not allowing that party to execute its ideas when it elected to rule by democratic means.

I've already stated this before. That's the dilemma of Democracy and why Democracy isn't perfect.

It's doesn't change my stance.

Shouldn't we just agree to disagree instead?

 

[Fred]

We are not discussing semantics. We are talking about a subject within Political Science that has been an on going debate for decades now. I've made that clear to you already. I have a stance you disagree with and that's fine. But my stance on democracy and freedom of speech is shared by many intellectuals, scholars and politicians around the world.

And this:



Is the beauty of democracy. The dilemma that cannot be solved. While we have to accept ideologies that wants to overthrow the democracy (in theory) we have laws preventing that from happening (in practicality).

In Denmark you are allowed to be a Nazist of ideology, but if you start killing Jews you are going to jail. If you by non-democratic measures try to overthrow the democracy you are going to jail and so on.

But we cannot in a democracy start making laws and what one is allowed to believe in.

- - - Updated - - -



But that's the thing you can and you have to. We might have a secular country but that doesn't mean that any non-secular Party should be disallowed. Freedom of thought, freedom of expression and freedom of speech.

Pluralism is a key in a Democracy and that includes Parties that one might not agree with.

As a citizen you have the right to believe what you want, that doesn't mean though that any kind of political party can be formed. Because the minute you allow parties whose politics are based on religion to be formed and to enter politics, it directly contradicts one of the main tenets your country was based on, and that is secularism. There are no absolute freedoms as you mentioned earlier, and you have to draw the line somewhere. For a secular democracy, I feel it's self evident that that line is there.

You're forgetting one hypothesis. An anti-democratic party overthrowing democracy by democratic means. Which, unfortunately, is the hypothesis of WWII.

I never claimed that we should forbid people from believing in what they want. That is a completely different discussion and it's important not to mix them up.

- - - Updated - - -




It doesn't work. If you allow the party to exist, it is an exercise in futility based on the assumption that not enough people will vote for them. It's a pretty dangerous gamble to make.

Not to mention the hypocritical nature of the laws you'd have.

Exactly. Whether or not the said party stands a chance is an irrelevant point in this case.

@Fred

The Danish constitution says the King/Queen of the Kingdom of Denmark is the ruler.

Should any republican party be disallowed?

I'm not well versed on the danish constitution, but isn't Dennmark a constitutional monarchy?

 

[Seven]

I believe in enlightenment and education and I have a firm believe in the choices of an educated population.

That's the way I want to build society and democracy.

And that's why I will never disallow a Party that works thru democratic measures.

- - - Updated - - -



I've already stated this before. That's the dilemma of Democracy and why Democracy isn't perfect.

It's doesn't change my stance.

Shouldn't we just agree to disagree instead?

I can't for the life of me understand why you'd run the risk, when it has already proven fatal in the past. Especially if you agree that it should come to a stop as soon as the party starts executing its antidemocratic ideas.

I just don't see any possible benefit in your viewpoint, in the real world that is.

 

[Maddy]

I can't for the life of me understand why you'd run the risk, when it has already proven fatal in the past. Especially if you agree that it should come to a stop as soon as the party starts executing its antidemocratic ideas.

I just don't see any possible benefit in your viewpoint, in the real world that is.

Again that's your take. Mine is different. I've grown up in a democracy liek the one I describe and our biggest threat towards our democracy isn't Islam. Nope, it's the right wing with the exact rhetoric liek you.

 

[Seven]

Again that's your take. Mine is different. I've grown up in a democracy liek the one I describe and our biggest threat towards our democracy isn't Islam. Nope, it's the right wing with the exact rhetoric liek you.

You think my rhetoric in all this is right wing? When my counterexample is the danger of fascism?

You are peculiar.

Surely you must understand why your opinion is deeply hypocritical?