there are already laws against vandalizing and attacking people. a vague law
infringing the right to free speach won't rebuild cemetaries and heal beaten
people. i am in no way one of those supporting absolute free speach, but if
even germany is against the proposed resolution, then that is an indicator to
me that the law is useless or contraproductive. as we all know, they have a
law that punishes antisemitic and racist speach, so they aren't against the
principle of limiting free speach, if it is for a good reason.

__________________

Plus, the majority of the attacks on French synagogues come from fundeamentalist muslims. But I suppose its all a "theoretical jungle"... go figure

Oh, great. Another dose of irrelevant rhetoric. Tell me, bob_m, why do we have a penal system? Imprisoning a murderer will not resurrect his victims, after all.

And why are you all so obsessed with protecting the free speech against the non-existent threats? One needs to be immensely paranoic to see some menacing characteristics in a resolution that simply denounces the modern forms of fascism.

The fact that Germany voted against the resolution defies all logic, considering their problems with the neo-Nazis, such as:
German neo-Nazi threat 'rising'
Neo-Nazi outrage stuns Germany
Plan to combat neo-Nazis 'failing'

So, The German Office for the Protection of the Constitution accepts its failure; the German Interior Minister says that "There have been hints that right extremists are really a great potential danger for our society... this has now been dramatically confirmed..." But when it comes to as much as publically condemning those fascists, Germany becomes an ostrich with its head in the sand. And that hypocrisy somehow convinces bob_m of counterproductivity and uselessness of the resolution...

Now, will the flamboyant advocates of the free speech please tell me whether the following facts deserve condemnation:

- The 1998 parade of the Waffen SS members through the streets of Latvia’s capital carrying banners with swastika and SS insignia. The march was authorized by the Latvian government and attended by the Chief of Staff of the Latvian Armed Forces. The parades have been occurring ever since on the annual basis. Waffen SS was found to be a felonious organization by the Nuremberg Tribunal. Nevertheless, its members receive pensions from the Latvian government

- Just a few months ago a SS memorial was unveiled in the Latvian town of Lestene. The event was attended by the country’s government, religious and military officials. Three military orchestras of the Latvian Defense Ministry provided musical background for commemorating "accomplishments and sacrifices" of the SS and its Latvian division in the name of Fuhrer and Fatherland. Surviving members of the Latvian SS legion marched proudly in Lestene, their "accomplishments" appreciated by their government

- Schoolchildren in Latvia learn that the SS heroically defended their country against Bolshevik hordes and sought an appropriate place for the Latvian uberman in the bright future of the Thousand Year Reich.

I will remind you that Latvia will become a member of the EU in less then 24 hours. And Europeans are trying very hard to ignore the SS marching in Lestene, Riga and Tallinn, and to not notice the memorials to Nazi murderers popping up here and there in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia.

__________________

these marches would be illegal in germany and probably not tolerated in switzerland
either. nevertheless i still think that the presented resolution is too vague and
impossible to enforce. the problem isn't the intention of the resolution, but the
wording. you could outlaw neo-nazi organisations and then you would have a tool
to prevent those parades, but outlawing intolerance is idiotic, because of the
impossibility to define intolerance in a legal way. it is a vague formulation that
automaticaly leads arbitrary judging.

__________________

I'm sure they wouldn't. However, what's disturbing are not the marches per se, but the level of support and participation those obscenities receive from the Latvian government. A bunch of senile fascists hardly poses any danger. But when those criminals are endorsed by the government, the murderers are no longer the society's outcasts. They are its honorable members, creating inspiration for people who just don't know any better, primarily the youth. Hence, the growing neo-Nazi menace
*sigh*
Such resolutions are not designed to outlaw or enforce anything. Even though this resolution was passed, it is not legally binding. It's up to the individual states to take actions, if any, be it passing the new laws or better enforcing the existing ones. And in most cases, the latter would be sufficient

Who's talking about outlawing intolerance? Hate propaganda, on the other hand, is outlawed in all civilized countries. It's just a question of how to enforce this law effectively.

__________________

On the contrary of the Nazi, the Commies were never judged for what they have done (despite 10 times the dead the nazis have done and thus during peace time).
There weren't any Nuremberg judgement of the communists and the impishly guilty Serbian leader Milosevici is supposed to have been the only one guilty for that all time communism mass murdering.
Nearly 15 years have passed and the Soviet Union is not a threat for anyone's freedom anymore and chinese communism is fading and those times are even forgotten by many that lived in there. The same applies to the nazis. Those anti-freespeech laws are damn stupid. I am wondering if they aren't made to support the jobs of the people living in those official human right organizations paid by governments to spread that filthy political correctness.
I don't bother about commies marching for the defunct Soviet Union nor those praising Hitler. Why ? Just because this is not my opinion but I certainly prefer having people expressing various beliefs and opinions peacefully as far as they do so for me.
Now about cemeteries been desacralized every week by arabs in European countries, the problem which appears as an anti-semitic threat (do they ever consider that arabs are semites too) and often (wrongly) considered as a resurgence of nazism is much more serious. People relieving their hatred on non living will not change their opinion, nor their behaviour and their children won't either.
What happens in Latvia is much of a joke. You can disaprove, be shocked or whatever, it is the only thing you can do against it in the best world we are supposed to live in.
That said the only matter where there could be a complaint is public education and EU may consider interference in such cases.

Another way of doing would be to analyze more seriously how and when those opinions appear and spread and further become a threat. The answer is always when jobless people meet each other to put the world to rights.

__________________
From SR

So the human rights organisations only exist to spread filthy political correctness.....

Where do you get all these wonderful ideas from? Who's your source for ideology, values and opinions? Rush Limbaugh? The spare tire in the back of your car? Aquaman?


Nice, blame the unemployed for everything.
How about changing the sentence to "when stupid people (feel free to include yourself :thumbsup: ) meet each other to put the world to rights"?

__________________