EU considers plans to outlaw racism

[Roland]

Imran:

"Ugh.. that Article 1 of the Dutch Constitution is what I find abhorrent. Why should discrimination be prohibited."

Because of an idea called equality before the law ?
(Art 1 refers to state action, not private action, in case that's not clear esp wrt to Mark's interpretation).

Dino:

"Put forth a question for debate and see what happens."

Limitation/regulation of freedom of speech, I put that forward already, didn't I ? But it seems us two are the only ones interested in that.

"Don't automatically assume that people want a troll fest."

A propos.... Chris:

"Spin, spin, spin, spin,"
"The point is Roland, we address our problems, not try to bury them in retoric, as you and the boy try to."

Why don't you go trolling elsewhere with those infantile shortcuts ?

"You shouldn't think this website is a good cross section of the USA..."

You shouldn't think this website is the only place where I have contact with Americans.

[Saint Marcus]

(Art 1 refers to state action, not private action, in case that's not clear esp wrt to Mark's interpretation).

I'm not sure that in this regard the line between state and citizen can be drawn correctly, nor do people draw it here. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by state action, but here Article 1 is used to cover all forms of (open) discrimination done by any person/organisation, not just the state. Every case against acts of discrimination is based on Article 1 (in addition to some "lesser" laws that I can't seem to find right now). I've seen this (and Article 9, freedom of education) used in cases where christian private schools refused people tuition because they weren't christians. And this same article is used now to get a conviction of the muslim imam for his anti-gay remarks.

Ugh.. that Article 1 of the Dutch Constitution is what I find abhorrent. Why should discrimination be prohibited. You gave reasons for outlawing Nazi speech (which I also disagree with), but what is the reason for outlawing ALL discriminatory speech?

Like Roland said, equality before the law. And you'd be surprised (or probably not) by the number of things found in the American Constitution that we in Holland find abhorrent.

[Roland]

"Every case against acts of discrimination is based on Article 1 (in addition to some "lesser" laws that I can't seem to find right now)."

Those "lesser" laws may refer to Art 1 of the constitution, esp to the discriminations mentioned there, but the suits need to be based on those lesser laws. I do not think that Art 1 is invoked directly.

"Like Roland said, equality before the law."

Which is directed against discrimination by the state, not by privates. Extending anti-discrimination rules to citizens in their "private capacity" is a completely different problem.

[Kyle]

And you'd be surprised (or probably not) by the number of things found in the American Constitution that we in Holland find abhorrent.

Okay, start naming and don't say anything about guns.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Mark L
Dutch communists are openly pro-Lenin

Does that mean that Stalinist parties are banned there? If not, why not?

Furthermore the reasons you listed only work for Holland not Europe as a whole. For example, why isn't the Communist Party banned in Germany or even Poland?

Lenin did make some mistakes, but can in no way be compared to Hitler or Stalin.

I don't see why the man should get points for having the misfourtune to die before he really got going.

For instance, both Lenin and Trotsky believed that terrorism should be used as an instrument for overthrowing bourgeois governments. Once power had been achieved they also advocated the use of terroristic methods as a means for both coping with domestic enemies and for dealing with international strife. I could go on with more if you wish.

Roland: 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.

Could you translate this or was this point addressed to Chris only? I would run it through bablefish, but if experience is any guide, it wouldn't help me in the slightest.

Limitation/regulation of freedom of speech, I put that forward already, didn't I ?

Possibly. However it looks like the heart of your point is in German, a language I can't read, and is therefore lost on me.

[Saint Marcus]

Does that mean that Stalinist parties are banned there? If not, why not?

To my knowledge there isn't a Stalinist party here nor has there ever been one. But if there would be one, and that party would openly support Stalin's actions then I'm sure it would be banned as well.

Furthermore the reasons you listed only work for Holland not Europe as a whole. For example, why isn't the Communist Party banned in Germany or even Poland?

Since my knowledge of German law is somewhat limited, and my knowledge of Polist law is non-existant I can't answer that one. Though I don't think that the German or Polish communist parties are openly pro-Stalin.

For instance, both Lenin and Trotsky believed that terrorism should be used as an instrument for overthrowing bourgeois governments. Once power had been achieved they also advocated the use of terroristic methods as a means for both coping with domestic enemies and for dealing with international strife. I could go on with more if you wish.

Sure Lenin wasn't perfect, but he wasn't a monster like Hitler was. And one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. The French Resistance in WW2 were terrorists, but are now seen as heros.

Okay, start naming and don't say anything about guns

Why no guns? It's a part of the american constitution, isn't it? Anyway, I have to look up the text of the American constitution to get a better picture of all that is in that document.

[Caligastia]

Discrimination means choice. If you cant discriminate then you cant choose. I hate it when people say "discrimination" when what they really mean is "racial discrimination". Because of this confusion it seems that people seem to think of "discrimination" as always being a bad thing... Stupid people.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Mark L
Sure Lenin wasn't perfect, but he wasn't a monster like Hitler was.

You still haven't answered my question about why a dictator should get bonus points for having the good grace to die before he had a chance to kick his government into high gear.

The French Resistance in WW2 were terrorists,

I would dispute this description.

Anyway, I have to look up the text of the American constitution to get a better picture of all that is in that document.

How can you know that you find anything abhorent about it if you don't even know what is in the document?

[Saint Marcus]

I'm sure some of these things are outdated, but they are still in the Constitution. I just scanned throug it quickly, not finding out when these parts were written, ratified or repealed. I'm also not sure if I understand all that's written either, so I might make some mistakes here. Just posting some segments of the constitution that I don't quite understand, or that are totally ridiculous.

One question, is there a part in the constitution that allows capital punishment, or at least lets the states themselves decide to have capital punishment or not? I know "cruel and unusual" punishment is forbidden, but it's obvious that the electric chair or the gas chamber isn't considered cruel or unusual in the USA. So there must be some part of the constitution that deals with this.

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

and excluding Indians not taxed

[Saint Marcus]

Because of this confusion it seems that people seem to think of "discrimination" as always being a bad thing... Stupid people.

Not true. Differentiation, the "discrimination" you are refering to, is legal. Discrimination, as stated in the Constitution, is illegal.

I would dispute this description.

Assasinations, kidnapping, bombings, etc. But I don't want to go into an argument here about who is a terrorist and who is not. But feel free to give me a definition of "terrorist".

How can you know that you find anything abhorent about it if you don't even know what is in the document?

I don't know the exact words, so I don't want to get pinned down here before I could actually read the thing.

[Saint Marcus]

I will try my best to read the whole thing (as if the dutch constitution wasn't bad enough). the whole ratification/repeal routine is rather tedious though. New parts were added and repealed with in a few decades. That's just silly.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Roland
Why don't you go trolling elsewhere with those infantile shortcuts ?

Why don't you address your nation's shortcomings instead of always trying to cover them up?
You sure seem to be all hellfire for an anti-USA crusade, but show your own dirty laundry we get more Spining than a Clinton caught with a hand in the cookie jar.

In other words, those who live in glass houses...

You shouldn't think this website is the only place where I have contact with Americans.

Never said it was, and if that is the case, than you really do know better, and have been deliberatly trolling.
Which is it?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Mark L


Not true. Differentiation, the "discrimination" you are refering to, is legal. Discrimination, as stated in the Constitution, is illegal.

Differentiation and discrimination are two different words with different uses and meanings. If you are hiring someone for a job that requires a lot of trust would you "discriminate" against someone with a criminal history? Of course you would.

[Roland]

Dino:
Sorry for leaving that open.

"Und wenn wir schon dabei sind...."

-> And when we are at it, cultural differences do not mean that you necessarily do not understand, but only, that cultural background should be considered. Namely the US-american understanding of fundamental rights is in no way universal, not even for the northern-atlantic region. Quite to the contrary, it is a rather unique approach. Even Canada is closer to the ECHR here than to the Bill of Rights.

Chris:

"Why don't you address your nation's shortcomings instead of always trying to cover them up?"

You're talking bollocks. When was the last thread about austrian politics etc ? The fact stays that freedom of speech is barely affected by those laws on the books.

Now if you want to discuss the "dirty laundry", fine. You'd just have to know where it is. Like the abuse of Libel/slander laws by certain judges and the pussyfooting around of the constitutional court on that issue. Then we could go to our braindead government abusing public PR funds to spread their vomit-like propaganda. What else... well, related to that is the MediaPrint concentration in the publishing sector, and politicians with their pants full of **** not daring to unwind that merger. Extending to other issues, I could go on for pages.... one of my favourites is a couple years back, the Matzka connection that turned the entire enforcement of foreigner and asylum laws into a constitution-free zone, and took years to clean up.

But freedom of speech is barely affected by those laws on the books.

If you want to wash our laundry in public, then stop picking the clean pieces.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Roland, I think Mark believes that Article 1 also refers to individuals. Saying individuals can't discriminate. That is what I find most offensive.

[Roland]

You either need specific laws or general clauses in civil law through which you take the "anti-discrimination" content from the state to individuals. This varies a lot in europe. France has quite strict laws on that, while in austrian newspapers it is not unusual to read job or rent ads with "nur Inländer" (only Austrians).

It is a very complex issue - a simple application would mean you could not "discriminate" in things like chosing your spouse....

[Saint Marcus]

Roland, I think Mark believes that Article 1 also refers to individuals. Saying individuals can't discriminate.

I'm no law student, but I know that Article 1 of the Constitution is always mentioned in discrimination cases that appear in court. Of course, I'm sure many lesser laws are about the issue too, and there are lots of gradations of what is discrimination and what is not, and in what cases limited discrimination might be accepted. Please note that positive discrimination also is not permitted (though it happens from time to time, and when it does you can expect yet another heated debate and probably a case in court).

That is what I find most offensive.

Funny that you want the right to discriminate. Even more funny that you find discrimination less offensive than a ban on it.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Mark L
Funny that you want the right to discriminate. Even more funny that you find discrimination less offensive than a ban on it.

If you dont have the right to "discriminate" it means you dont have the right to choose. To discriminate is to choose. English isnt your first language is it?

You should really specify what kind of discrimination you are talking about. Its less confusing that way.

[Saint Marcus]

English isn't my first language, and everyone here knows the discrimination I'm talking about.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, there should be the right to discriminate. It is freedom of speech, and that should not be abrogated, except in the cases where it causes DIRECT physical harm to other individuals.

[Joe R. Golowka]

Europe is becoming as repressive as this side of the Atlantic.

And yes, we are the bastard children of Europe.