next »

[measdale]

I can't think how such a law could be enforced?  Can it be?  What is the penalty for breaking the law?  What type of proof is required to determine that the law has been broken?

It's mainly used to prosecute people who make statements in public (ie. on record), including media figures, academics, journalists and authors, etc. Mainly it's in Germany and Austria that they're most enforced.
A few years ago, a number of European countries (including France, Austria and Germany) tried to incorporate it into EU law. Thankfully it was blocked by the UK and others.

[measdale]

Out of interest, why are you against it? Free speech?

Definitely.
It's the same issue as muslims trying to get laws passed saying no-one should portray the prophet. How can we defend "the freedom of the press" and "free speech" when we have a law like that?
(The remnants of blasphemy legislation should be scrapped as well! )

Modern Western civilisation is based on open debate and dialectic, in order to discover truth.
As soon as you start censoring people, fencing off subjects as somehow not appropriate for discussion, you cripple that process.
It's only a tiny shift from censorship to fatwah.

[Yamor]

I'm not specially pro holocaust denial legislation, but i can see another side - there are definitely some things which should not be, and are not, allowed, like racist views. The question is only where to draw the line, and these countries believe this falls within that boundary.

[Yamor]

When i say racist views aren't allowed, i don't mean thinking them, i mean expressing them in a public way, which is all that is illegal with holocaust denial.

[Yamor]

Nope, i don't think so. It shouldn't be legal for someone to publicly say racist views. It incites, and influences, besides for majorly degrading and hurting the people abused.

[AL1874]

I believe criminalising Holocaust Denial is wrong, as was said before it can be defeated by argument and facts.

It is the same with creationism, people with opposing views / beliefs have the right to hold and express them.

In this country (I'm talking about the UK) the laws are already in place to protect with regard to hate crime. To take this any further would be a dangerous road to travel down and one I would not be comfortable with.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but apart from EU legislation I do not believe that British Law protects "freedom of speech" specifically like it does in the United States constitution.

It is an ideal that is often expressed but I don't think it is a right laid down in law.

[AL1874]

You're right about the rights in the UK. I actually have had big arguments with my American cousins. I always tell them I much prefer the English way with no written constitution, and all rights are accepted by everyone, and have been refined over a thousand years - that is, constantly evolving with time as our understanding of what these rights should be improves. This, rather then the American method of a written constitution, with constant squabbling over the meaning of a comma or full-stop, which in all probability the founding fathers never even thought about!

I'll let that one go shall I

But agreed,

The right to bear arms is 100% unadulterated wank, you end up with some inbred militia full of good old boys with a bloody howitzer because it is in the constitution and they like hunting.

If you are going to bestow such a privilege on anybody why does it have to be those US OF A tossers

Sometimes I despair, thank God they are not the only superpower.

[AL1874]

Sorry, I did not notice that you are on the phone.

I highlighted that you posted "the English way" in your original post, that was what I was letting go, I added the wee wink smiley to indicate that it was a joke (or meant to be).

I would say that Russia are still a superpower and now China are emerging as one (if they are not already there).

[measdale]

How to define a superpower.

I'd have said a superpower can effectively be defined by the way it interacts with other superpowers, in a fashion different from how normal states interact.
Looking at the Cold War, when there were two universally accepted superpowers and they were permanently interacting, they seemed to be set apart by
a.) being able to act anywhere on the globe (outside the other's immediate sphere of influence)
b.) with a choice of overwhelming economic, political or military leverage (each used all three methods).

So I'd define a superpower as being able to act in that fashion - ie. to be able to globally act militarily, economically and politically.
In which case I'd have had to cast my vote against Russia being a superpower, since they no longer have the capability to act globally politically (they're rebuilding their economic and military might, but political influence will take longer - look at their complete failure over Kosovo).

And, as yet, I'm not convinced the Chinese military is capable of effective action in any continent other than their own (and even there, their late 20th century is a history of spectacular defeats and they've been pretty cagey about exposing themselves since). So far economially and politically, China has shown itself at least as adept as the US. The Pacific and Africa are their obvious main spheres, but that's expanding.

So, I'd say the US and maybe China, but not Russia any more.

[bestofbarry]

I see Andrew's been causing trouble in Manchester