Freedom of Speech Debate

[jebus]

Leading off from the Oxford Union inviting Holocaust denier, David Irving (the guy who was jailed in Austria for this) and BNP Leader, Nick Griffin, to debate free speech, the media and Israel in general, and the subsequent protests by the Oxford students and the far left, we may as well have a topic on free speech, does it exist, should limits be set on it etc. Okay? Go!

Anyway I'm very much of the opinion that there is no gray area in free speech, either people are allowed to say whatever they want, or they aren't. If someone says something completely ridiculous, be it homophobic, racist, whatever, it is far easier to show them on a stage as the idiots that they are than it is by banning them and giving credence to their 'the left is out to get us' theory. I didn't see it, but I read today that Le Pen, the far right French politician, was shown up in a live debate on French TV last month. Apparantly he started in on his Immigrants Are the Root of All Evil topic and was picked apart quite easily by whoever it was that was debating with him. That's the way to deal with the BNP and their like in my opinion, not resorting to censorship and placard waving outside whatever building

[Lim till i die]

Well said that man

[pineapple stu]

We all have a right to free speech.

But people ignore the fact that with rights come obligations to use them properly. I can call you a paedo and say it's free speech, but I'd be sued for libel (or slander, whichever it is), and quite rightly so. You can't draw a line as to what you can say or what you can't say - you have to take it on a case by case basis.

[Student Mullet]

My favourite ever letter to the newspaper was on this very topic after a debate in UCD was attacked;


Madam,
The UCD students shouting "No free speech for fascists" should be commended for fully explaining the meaning of the word 'oxymoronic'.

[Student Mullet]

We all have a right to free speech.

But people ignore the fact that with rights come obligations to use them properly. I can call you a paedo and say it's free speech, but I'd be sued for libel (or slander, whichever it is), and quite rightly so. You can't draw a line as to what you can say or what you can't say - you have to take it on a case by case basis.But calling someone a paedo is a matter of evidence, you either have proof of your statement or you don't. That's very different from having an officially sanctioned version of history.

[jebus]

We all have a right to free speech.

But people ignore the fact that with rights come obligations to use them properly. I can call you a paedo and say it's free speech, but I'd be sued for libel (or slander, whichever it is), and quite rightly so. You can't draw a line as to what you can say or what you can't say - you have to take it on a case by case basis.

Personally I wouldn't care less what you called me, I'd challenge to produce proof that I'm a paedo, and once you couldn't you'd instantly be dismissed as another crackpot tosser.

[osarusan]

If someone says something completely ridiculous, be it homophobic, racist, whatever, it is far easier to show them on a stage as the idiots that they are than it is by banning them


I'd challenge to produce proof that I'm a paedo, and once you couldn't you'd instantly be dismissed as another crackpot tosser.

But you are relying on the intelligence of the people to realise that the person is a crackpot/racist etc.

History has shown that large groups of people can be easily swayed by such baseless rhetoric, sometimes with tragic consequences.

How do you feel about the crime called "incitement to violence"? Do you see any conflict between that law and free speech?

[jebus]

But you are relying on the intelligence of the people to realise that the person is a crackpot/racist etc.

History has shown that large groups of people can be easily swayed by such baseless rhetoric, sometimes with tragic consequences.

How do you feel about the crime called "incitement to violence"? Do you see any conflict between that law and free speech?

If history will repeat itself then history will repeat itself. I feel that by not providing people like the BNP a platform you are actually making them a more attractive group to people who feel sidelined by society, which in general is where the numbers that will be swayed come from. If you completely make an idiot out of someone like Nick Griffin on a national stage, then the whole party and it's ideal view of society becomes a running joke, look what happened when Killroy was allowed back on the Beeb for a debate for that.

As for an incitement to violence, well again, if the majority view someone telling them that Jews/Muslims/etc. are whats wrong with the world today and people take that as a green light to verbally or physically abuse these people, then I would have to say that that side of the person's character was already in them, and would have come out regardless of whether they hear these speeches or not, so on that basis I would still argue that it would be better to allow these groups to speak, and to then humiliate them, as a way of perhaps getting through to their would be followers

[dcfcsteve]

This was a hot topic 10 years when I was President of my Students Union and involved in NUS. It was a hot issue 10 years before then, and it still will be ten years from now.

I belive in free speech, and am a liberal to the core. But I am uneasy with the concept of giving anyone a platform, regardless of their aims or beliefs.

I understand the premise behind it - that any view sufficiently abhorrent, absurd etc will be exposed as such if it is aired and then tackled openly.

However - that only really works in an ideal world. The sad truth of life is that there are people who are incapable or more importantly unwilling to scrutinise some views to the extent that proponents of the 'free speech/open platform' lobby would like. There are people who would get sucked-in by fascist rhetoric were it to be aired - particularly if it is well presented. That is not me speculating about the nature of humanity - the history of Western Europe in the 20th Century in Germany, Spain, Italy, England, Ireland and elsewhere has shown that there are plenty of people willing to suspend intelligent critique and/or willing to be be fuelled by inner mob prejudices, or bouyed along by stirring orators.

If you give the BNP an open platform, the simple fact of life is that their message will seed and flower in certain sections of society. Regardless of how well you argue against their vews, you canb be certain that that will happen.

So the question therefore is do we grant 'free speech' to those with abhorent views, who are unwilling to accept the responsibilities that come with free speech, and in the knowledge that no matter how well their views are countered there will be some who get sucked-in by them ? In other words, do we accept that a downside of complete free speech is the fuelling and growth of views and beliefs that are abhorrent and themselves anti-free speech (with the possible end point of the various fascist regimes and movements we had across Europe in the last century).

Or do we believe, as Pineapple Stu said, that with 'freedom' there also comes 'responsibility'. That those unwilling to fulfill their responsibilities should therefore be denied that freedom (much the same way as physical freedom is denied to physical criminals). And also that that the way to stop abhorrent views propogating in the first place is to deny them the oxygen of publicity ?

If you follow and accept the above arguement, the next big question is : how do we determine what is 'abhorrent' and should therefore be met with a 'no platform' policy ? This is a difficult one. The underlying principle I would use is this - the groups like BNP, holocaust deniers etc who argue in-favour of their free speech are almost always groups who advocate some form of 'hate'. Ironically, they would also deny free speech to others if they had the ability and influence to do so.

So denying a platform to these groups could be determined on the basis of whether otr not they propogate 'hate' against sections of the community, and whether ot not the natural conclusion of their beliefs would involve supression and/or ill treatment of other legitimate groups in society. As an aside, a lot of Western nations have laws against 'hate crimes' anyway - including verbal attack/incitement.

I accept it's a difficult area to define, and don't claim to have the answer, but I really don't feel comfortable with the woolly idealistic notion that you can argue down anything anyone says - because there will always be people who will buy-in to the most abhorent message should they be exposed to it.

Finally - as an aside. If we're saying it's ok to allow fascists, rascists, hoomophobes etc to air and propogate their views in public - so long as we can argue against them - should we also openly tolerate paedophiles - again, so that we can point out the error of their ways publically ?

[Student Mullet]

Finally - as an aside. If we're saying it's ok to allow fascists, rascists, hoomophobes etc to air and propogate their views in public - so long as we can argue against them - should we also openly tolerate paedophiles - again, so that we can point out the error of their ways publically ?Do you mean should we tolerate pedophiles speaking about pedophilia or practicing it?

[osarusan]

Do you mean should we tolerate pedophiles speaking about pedophilia or practicing it?


Jebus' arguement it that by allowing fascists/homopobes/racists etc a public platform, we also create a platform where their views can be shown up as ludicrous and untenable to the general public, thus actually helping to diminish the influence of those who hold such ludicrous views.

dcfcsteve's opinion is-

So the question therefore is do we grant 'free speech' to those with abhorrent views? ...........In other words, do we accept that a downside of complete free speech is the fuelling and growth of views and beliefs that are abhorrent.

He's saying, I think, that if you support total free speech, then an unfortunate consequence is that a paedophile, a member of NAMBLA (http://www.nambla.org/), for example, has much right to be heard as anybody else, based on the arguement that we also get an opportunity to criticise that view-

If we're saying it's ok to allow fascists, rascists, hoomophobes etc to air and propogate their views in public - so long as we can argue against them - should we also openly tolerate paedophiles - again, so that we can point out the error of their ways publically ?


Finally, here is a quote from George Orwell, entitled The freedom of the Press (http://www.orwell.ru/library/novels/Animal_Farm/english/efp_go), written concerning the reluctance of many publishers to publish his novel Animal Farm.


The issue involved here is quite a simple one: Is every opinion, however unpopular — however foolish, even — entitled to a hearing? Put it in that form and nearly any English intellectual will feel that he ought to say ‘Yes’. But give it a concrete shape, and ask, ‘How about an attack on Stalin? Is that entitled to a hearing?’, and the answer more often than not will be ‘No’, In that case the current orthodoxy happens to be challenged, and so the principle of free speech lapses. Now, when one demands liberty of speech and of the press, one is not demanding absolute liberty. There always must be, or at any rate there always will be, some degree of censorship, so long as organised societies endure. But freedom, as Rosa Luxembourg [sic] said, is ‘freedom for the other fellow’. The same principle is contained in the famous words of Voltaire: ‘I detest what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it.’ If the intellectual liberty which without a doubt has been one of the distinguishing marks of western civilisation means anything at all, it means that everyone shall have the right to say and to print what he believes to be the truth, provided only that it does not harm the rest of the community in some quite unmistakable way.

[Macy]

People should have the right to free speech. However, that doesn't mean the Oxford Union (or the Trinity equivalent or whoever) is obliged to give them a platform to spout their bile.

Free speech also gives the people that find their views offensive the opportunity to protest, and I don't see anything wrong with that. Nothing wrong with protesting against racist scum, and nothing wrong with protesting against tossers attempting to be controversial who are giving them a platform.

[Angus]

Hard to disagree with most of this but why are we, as a country, obsessed with what our rights are or are not ?

Most of the drivel that goes for public debate in Ireland is centred around somebody's claim to a "right" to do or say something.

Yes, legally, we have a right to free speech but the reality is you do not have a right to gratuously offend, slander, cause civil unrest etc. I have no formal legal training and cannot comment on how these various things are balanced but I know this (and with all respect to any lawyers here) - once conversations like this get into the hands of lawyers, we move further away from the solution.

Our books of laws are by and large very well written and by and large well observed and administered but there are exceptions. Some of the smartest people I have ever met are lawyers but unfortunately it is in those gray areas where lawyers are frequently asked to intervene and it becomes a legal discussion as opposed to a factual one.

Now, I have the right to stand in the middle of the Falls Road / Shankill Road with a Rangers / Celtic jersey on and sing the Sash / A Nation Once Again or to stand in the middle of Jerusalem and sing a homage to Bin Laden but not only would those actions be unwise, they would be gratuously and deliberately offensive and purely and utterly designed for the purpose of making an unnecessary legalistic point.

The Free Speech debate is an extremely important one but if it ever gets hijecked (and it has not been in this forum) by those who simply want to make legalistic points, it becomes invalid.

[superfrank]

Free speech for all. I agree with jebus points on attacking people's beliefs (if you disagree with them) with debate, rather then censoring them.

[kingdom hoop]

Good post Angus. As he says, people get carried away with their rights and forget about the constraints on those rights. People think 'oh, free speech, I can say what I like.' No, no you can't.

The right to free speech is of course enshrined in legal canons. Rightfully so. But there are numerous other provisions that tend to be lost in its long shadow. (such as incitement to hatred, and conspiracy to corrupt public morals) They deal with the ambiguity that is the interpretation of words/conduct so they are very difficult to prove, and because they are hard to prove, the court process is expensive, and often there is no definable injured party, cumulatively means that this is not an area that the legal domain can police effectively, but is left to carry the can when morality is ambushed by nincompoops.

To the best of my (reasonable) memory only two cases have ever been taken in Ireland under the incitement to hatred Act. That would seem disproportionately low to the amount of abuse/threats/insults etc that happen daily. Just for the sake of :rolleyes:, one case was successful. That was a case involving a Dublin Bus driver who called an African passenger a 'nig-nog' and told him to go back to his own country. The case that lost involved a Mayo politician who at a Western Health Board meeting likened travellers to 'pedigree dogs' - must've been the pedigree comment that saved him.

All in all, the law is definitely inadequate, and only comes into play after the offending behaviour. It doesn't promote good behaviour in any way. I can't see a resolution to that fact unless there is specific demarcation of certain issues that can never be discussed in public. That might be possible (surely we could outlaw some things??) but to be fully effective it would need to apply to the internet as well though, so obviously we'll never totally remove the soapbox for immorality.

[pineapple stu]

But calling someone a paedo is a matter of evidence, you either have proof of your statement or you don't. That's very different from having an officially sanctioned version of history.


Personally I wouldn't care less what you called me, I'd challenge to produce proof that I'm a paedo, and once you couldn't you'd instantly be dismissed as another crackpot tosser.
Probably an extreme example on my part, but still. You could indeed dismiss me as a crackpot (in this hypothetical example, of course!), but for that to work on a large scale requires people in general to be intelligent. That doesn't really seem to be the case from my experience. You could dismiss me as a crackpot, but people in general probably wouldn't if I made enough noise about it. How often do you see something completely false accepted as truth because people couldn't be bothered checking to see if it's true or not? Just look at Americans' views on the war in Iraq as an example to see how people are quite happy to believe a lie.

In your example above, it's possible for extreme right wingers to express views at a debate, have them debunked completely and yet have a good amount of people come away with the debunked stuff in their minds as fact.

I agree with the Orwell passage quoted there - free speech, with a responsibility to cop the f*** on when using it.

[Calcio Jack]

We had a great example of free speech in the Dail this week... Mary Harney told everyone what a great Minister of Health she is and all the great things she's done for the plain people of Ireland... and what do you know, she was so convincing that her colleagues gave her a resounding vote of confidence...tis a great thing this 'free speech'

[John83]

...there are numerous other provisions that tend to be lost in its long shadow. (such as incitement to hatred, and conspiracy to corrupt public morals)...
Tell me about that last one please? Would, to pick a topic, promoting equal rights for homosexuals be covered? Speaking against the institution of marriage? Abortion? What are the public morals? There are plenty of controversial topics now that were long kept out of public discourse because they were immoral. This is the problem with restricting free speech based on morality.

Angus, it matters not a whit while it works. It's when it fails that we're screwed.

[pete]

I think in this situation it was correct to have the debate. Free Speech can exist within the boundaries of libel laws. You can say something in a debate which would offensive if said face to face.

Sometime I think opposition to some viewpoints is used as an excuse to prevent free speech.

Recent example of a couple of academics recently wrote a book on US-Israeli policy lobbying. In the US critics tried to discredit calling it anti-Semitic which if we did not have free speech would be used to ban the book. :(

Book investigating Israeli lobby in the US (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7104030.stm)

[dcfcsteve]

Now, I have the right to stand in the middle of the Falls Road / Shankill Road with a Rangers / Celtic jersey on and sing the Sash / A Nation Once Again or to stand in the middle of Jerusalem and sing a homage to Bin Laden but not only would those actions be unwise, they would be gratuously and deliberately offensive and purely and utterly designed for the purpose of making an unnecessary legalistic point.



I'm not sure you would be able to do the above on the Shankhill/Falls, for example. You'd probably be cautioned/arrested for breach of the peace at the leats, if not for incitement. I'm sure any judge in the land would support the police in that if you took action.

So in reality there are plenty of sensible limits on free speech already in-place, or that the police can easily enforce.

[dcfcsteve]

Recent example of a couple of academics recently wrote a book on US-Israeli policy lobbying. In the US critics tried to discredit calling it anti-Semitic which if we did not have free speech would be used to ban the book. :(

Book investigating Israeli lobby in the US (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7104030.stm)

That is just a tactic used by the pro-Israel lobby to undermine and discredit anyone who questions the actions of the Israeli state - you are dismissed as beign an antio-semite, even if your views and valid and you are clearly not being anti-semitic. They will not allow anyone to de-couple the Israeli state from the Israeli/Jewish people.

No-one wants to be slurred as an anti-semite, as you can't defend against such allegations and it wouold serioously hamper any author, documentary maker etc in the US. so as a tactic it works to suppress open debate and questioning of Israel in the US. Ironically it does more to suppress free speech than any notion that such books might be banned would be likely to do.

It is a debating tactic - not about free speech. It's no different than the English Labour party in the 1990's discrediting its own members who supported the principle of Free Education by labelling them all 'Trots', to steer people who feared the left of the party away from supporting the principle and towards supporting Tuition Fees

[Student Mullet]

That is just a tactic used by the pro-Israel lobby to undermine and discredit anyone who questions the actions of the Israeli state - you are dismissed as beign an antio-semite, even if your views and valid and you are clearly not being anti-semitic. They will not allow anyone to de-couple the Israeli state from the Israeli/Jewish people.

No-one wants to be slurred as an anti-semite, as you can't defend against such allegations and it wouold serioously hamper any author, documentary maker etc in the US. so as a tactic it works to suppress open debate and questioning of Israel in the US. Ironically it does more to suppress free speech than any notion that such books might be banned would be likely to do.But is this not basically the same as the 'no platform' argument you described earlier? The Israeli lobby has decided that there views are so terrible that they shouldn't be allowed to be aired, the difference being that you disagree with this particular decision.

That's the problem I have with the argument. I'd have no problem with a budding young fascist being prevented from organising but looking at the three people denied a platform recently in UCDD; Justin Barret, Michael McDowel and Éamon Ryan, it's pretty clear that the logic is being abused. Probably to the point where free speech would be better.

[BohsPartisan]

Jebus' arguement it that by allowing fascists/homopobes/racists etc a public platform, we also create a platform where their views can be shown up as ludicrous and untenable to the general public, thus actually helping to diminish the influence of those who hold such ludicrous views.

That worked ever so well in the Weimar Republic.


Justin Barret, Michael McDowel and Éamon Ryan, it's pretty clear that the logic is being abused. Probably to the point where free speech would be better.

Thats bull. Eamon Ryan was not denied a platform. I know one of the students involved in that protest and they have been completely misrepresented by the college authorities and others.

[Lim till i die]

That worked ever so well in the Weimar Republic.

Fine.

You're the boss of Weimar Germany.

What's your approach to Adolf and the boys??

[jebus]

That worked ever so well in the Weimar Republic.

Lads people referencing the rise of the Nazis in the Weimar Republic as a reason why people shouldn't be given the stage are way off in my opinion. The Weimer Germans at the time would have latched on to anything, be it religion, a new political group or a sovereignty if they thought it would put bread back on their table. I've always maintained that if I had lived in Germany during the 20s and 30s I'd have believed ever last word that Hitler said, given the way his party turned that economy around. But I still maintain to suppress one groups ideals totally will lead us down a path where people will eventually start banning religions, other political groups and organisations that go against what the ruling party believe (that is if you don't already think that the control governing parties exert over the media isn't total already) and then we're right back in Fascism country. Better to put these cretons on show and hammer it home to people what level of nonsense they believe than have them simmer away, picking people up here and there as the economy starts failing

[BohsPartisan]

See I think you misunderstand the No-Platform position. It is not anti-free speech per say it is stopping Fascists from organising. If there is a picket on a Fascist meeting it is saying - you will not be allowed organise. You will not be allowed grow in strength. I also believe that people like David Irvine should not be allowed present blatant lies as truth.
The right to freedom of speech is an abstract. Freedom of speech in its fullest sense has never existed anywhere. There have always been barriers to dissidents. Maybe not direct ones like stopping them from talking but misrepresentation of someones beliefs (as happens all the time to us Socialists in the press) and giving disproportionate time to the representatives of the ruling class than to their opponents. That is the reality of class society.

[jebus]

What would you know anyway, sure socialists believe that total anarchy will ultimately lead everyone back to your party










:p

[dcfcsteve]

But is this not basically the same as the 'no platform' argument you described earlier? The Israeli lobby has decided that there views are so terrible that they shouldn't be allowed to be aired, the difference being that you disagree with this particular decision.

Not at all. There's a huge diference between views that any sane person would consider vile and hate-filled being held-up as such, and claiming that views that are not broadly considered as vile - but that are just contrary to yours - being labelled as vile from a deliberate tactic of dismissing and undermining them.

As an example. if a black person accused me of being rascist, it is extremely difficult for me to prove that I'm not - even if their intentions in doing so are scurrilous. It's massively more so when it's black organisations branding you rascist. likewise - when the Jewsish lobby brands you as anti-semetic, the fact that you were merely raising issues with the actiosn of the Israeli state in a non anti-semetic way are lost. Once you're labelled a Jew-hater by the Jewish lobby, it sticks. Particularly in a country like the US, where that lobby is extremely powerful in important areas like the media.

[Student Mullet]

Not at all. There's a huge diference between views that any sane person would consider vile and hate-filled being held-up as such, and claiming that views that are not broadly considered as vile - but that are just contrary to yours - being labelled as vile from a deliberate tactic of dismissing and undermining them.I understand what you're saying but the only way to draw the distinction is to allow the views to be heard so that sane people can consider them to be vile and hate filled.

If there was such thing as a committee of wise old people we could trust to decide what's best for us to hear then I might agree but there isn't. The government's track record on censorship contains at least as much bad as good and I think the records of smaller organisations like students' unions is worse.

I'd be happy to accept a trade off between preventing the next Hitler at the cost of the occasional student debate getting canceled (I'll leave aside the discussion about what exactly prevented Éamon Ryan from speaking in UCDD. If we don't like that example there are plenty of others) but I really don't think that that's what's on offer. The next 'thing as bad as the Nazis' won't look exactly like the Nazis, a good example from history being the Czechoslovakians who voted in the communists because communism was the exact opposite of fascism.

I don't think that upholding a law that says no one is allowed deny the holocaust will make any difference to the next budding young totalitarian regime because if they need a scapegoat they're going to pick something different. Having in place a system where the government or some other group can decide what opinions are allowed is more likely to help than hinder such a regime.

[CollegeTillIDie]

A number of issues have occurred to me in connection with this thread.
1) David Irving and his ilk denying the holocaust are just totally WRONG. The Nazi's themselves kept meticulous records of the throughput from the camps. They hardly made that up themselves now did they? I would ask Mr. Irving what the purpose of Belsen, Auschwitz and Dachau was... they were hardly knitting circles.....

2) With regard to the Weimar Republic, their electoral system was overly representative which led to lots of minor parties and independent candidates ending up in the National Parliament. They have learned from their mistakes in that regard. The current German Constitution, The 1949 Basic Law, as amended, has a provision that any organisation which puts a candidate up for election, has to achieve 5% of the national popular vote before they can get a seat in the Bundestag( Federal Parliament). In addition extreme fascist organisations and extreme communist organisations are banned.

As the country has regional parliaments, this allows the regional protest movements to have a say at local level without wasting the time of the National parliament. The former East German communist party still has support in the ex-DDR but their representation is confined to the Laender parliaments mainly.

[Macy]

The current German Constitution, The 1949 Basic Law, as amended, has a provision that any organisation which puts a candidate up for election, has to achieve 5% of the national popular vote before they can get a seat in the Bundestag( Federal Parliament).
Something we should bring in to deal with our own right wing tools...

[CollegeTillIDie]

Something we should bring in to deal with our own right wing tools...

I agree Macy. Germany uses strong tactics to protect it's democracy. Something the Weimar Republic (1919 -1932) failed to achieve. Given that they have a strong liking for authoritarianism in some shape or form,in their political culture, it was a good tactic to get the post 1949 regime some respect among the populous at large. It is an offence to be wandering abroad without I.D in the Federal Republic, and the Police can arrest and detain you for this. German residents have National I.D. Cards, visitors are encouraged to carry some photo I.D. when they are out on the streets over there. I personally do not have a problem with the concept of National I.D. cards as having same can become very convenient. It makes it easier to get a bank account opened etc if you have a photo I.D. and easier to prove your age where that is an issue into the bargain. The only people who have anything to fear from I.D. cards, in my opinion , are people who are up to no good! Another place where a national I.D. Card can be of use
is in cases where people are suffering from amnesia. A quick check of the National I.D. card would soon reveal who it is.

And if one of our right wing tools is misbehaving and doesn't have his I.D. he has committed two offences and will spend longer in jail. Which perversely he should agree with :D


With regard to the Israeli situation, given there are Israeli Arabs (citizens of the State who happen to be non-Jews) and a minority Christian population the branding of Israelis being automatically Jewish, is almost as insidious as the age old Irish/Catholic automatic identifier in the public mind as large. I am reminded of the fact that 2 of our Presidents(Head Of State - First Citizen etc.) were non-Catholic despite not having more than 10% of the population at large and that at one point we had 3 Jewish T.D.s at a time when if all our Ireland's Jewish population had resided in the one constituency they would have struggled to reach a single quota for one seat.

I know the whole purpose of the establishment of the State of Israel was to have a homeland for the Jewish diaspora but nevertheless it has become much bigger than that since 1948.

[pete]

Who decides who are banned from representation? How do they decide in Germany who is fascist & communist? Surely that is a denial of democracy? The lack of democracy in Pakistan for example possible encourages extremism as no democratic means of opposing Musharaf...

[pineapple stu]

If there was such thing as a committee of wise old people we could trust to decide what's best for us to hear then I might agree but there isn't.
You could argue that there was up until 15-20 years ago - the Church. Is then the Church's position's decline in society a good or bad thing?

[John83]

You could argue that there was up until 15-20 years ago - the Church. Is then the Church's position's decline in society a good or bad thing?
That probably depends on whether they were buggering you or not.

[BohsPartisan]

That probably depends on whether they were buggering you or not.

And whether you liked it or not.

[Student Mullet]

And whether you liked it or not.

I find this offensive. I propose, to the grand committee, that Bohs Partisan have his freedom of speech revoked.

[BohsPartisan]

I find this offensive. I propose, to the grand committee, that Bohs Partisan have his freedom of speech revoked.

No no you've got it all wrong. The next time I am speaking at a public lecture, you organise a protest and stop me from entering the building. :D

[CollegeTillIDie]

No no you've got it all wrong. The next time I am speaking at a public lecture, you organise a protest and stop me from entering the building. :D

Burn :D

[CollegeTillIDie]

pete

The Nazi Party is banned and the Communist Party is also banned. That's why you have neo-fascist organisations and pseudo-communist organisations in operation. Political organisations have to register and apply for licences to operate. If your party constitution and stated aims are deemed to be in breach of the Basic Law... you're out.
I think those controversial borderline decisions come before the Courts.

It's strict but even handed. The way every democracy should be. And the authorities protect the democratic rights with an Iron fist, which has earned the democratic regime legitimacy and respect among a populous who had a historic expectation of being governed by autocratic or authoritarian rule.

[BohsPartisan]

CTID, The Communist Party wasn't banned it just changed its name. The old east-german communist party changed its name to PDS (Party of Democratic Socialism) and then merged with the left formation WASG (Work and Social Justice) to form the LinksPartei (Left Party.)

[CollegeTillIDie]

CTID, The Communist Party wasn't banned it just changed its name. The old east-german communist party changed its name to PDS (Party of Democratic Socialism) and then merged with the left formation WASG (Work and Social Justice) to form the LinksPartei (Left Party.)

What you say about the ex DDR Communists is correct . I was referring to the old West German Communist Party.

[dcfcsteve]

. The only people who have anything to fear from I.D. cards, in my opinion , are people who are up to no good! Another place where a national I.D. Card can be of use
is in cases where people are suffering from amnesia. A quick check of the National I.D. card would soon reveal who it is.

But what is the benefit of an ID Card ? Particularly given the huge expense involved in them ?

The Labour numb-skulls in England casually losing the full identity details of 25m people has effectively undermined any arguement for ID cards there....