Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Mannahnin wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
To be fair, comparing European political parties to the KKK doesn't really help either.

Maybe, but if you're familiar with the political landscape in Europe right now it's an understandable comparison. Many European countries have explicitly xenophobic/nationalist and/or fascist political parties. Like the BNP in Britain, or Ataka in Bulgaria, or the Golden Dawn in Greece. Historically (at least since WWII) these parties have usually been pretty marginal and tiny, but with the passage of time and recent economic uncertainty and concerns about immigration in many countries, these kind of racist and reactionary parties have been growing in prominence and actually taking a scary number of elected seats in places.

In that context, where parties which are not very far from the KKK in political policy (especially since the KKK isn't nearly as violent as it used to be) are actually winning seats, European policies on restriction of fascistic or race-baiting speech become more comprehensible.

Which, I though, was KO's point. If the KKK had members winning elected seats here, running as The KKK Party, Americans in general might feel that the issue was a bit more nuanced and complex. Rather than always defaulting to "Let's never restrict anyone's speech".

I suppose if you are only comparing them to the KKK of today, which I agree is less violent and really only a shadow of its former self, then it is more of a valid comparison. But to me, the KKK has a much larger amount of violent baggage that comes with it - I don't think it should be separated from its more violent past. I'm familiar the the political landscape in Europe and I realize that many of the nationalist parties are (rightly) not well-liked by many, but comparing to them with what in the past has in essence been a terror group, or very close to one, isn't really fair or productive. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to criticize parties like the BNP and I certainly would encourage people to do so, but comparing them to the KKK strikes me as a bit more sensationalist than is appropriate.

And to be fair, the KKK has had members who won elected seats in the past. If it somehow happened again, I don't think that would be a good time to start restricting people's speech. It'd be a time to encourage people to speak out as loud as they are able.

 Mannahnin wrote:

 Valion wrote:
Man, Europe sure does love overbearing, asinine political correctness.

This is the kind of statement which doesn't help the discussion. It just annoys people, and causes them to form opinions about the person writing it.

Form away. Anyone who buys into this sort of charge isn't the holder of opinions I value particularly highly.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
The term 'race', based of 'roots' means many things, and that is today its only saving grace. 'Race' and 'culture' have often been used without much distinction, although I agree that we could lose that usage entirely. Regardless, the raciologist use of 'race' was still warranted, because it is clearly used in this context to designate the semite immigrants.

And you got that she clearly designated a group of people based on their race from this, were there is no mention of race or national origin whatsoever?

"For those who want to talk a lot about World War II, if it's about occupation, then we could also talk about it (Muslim prayers in the streets), because that is occupation of territory," she said at the gathering in Lyon.
"It is an occupation of sections of the territory, of districts in which religious laws apply. It's an occupation," she said at the rally that was part of her bid to take the party leadership when her father steps down in January.
"There are of course no tanks, there are no soldiers, but it is nevertheless an occupation and it weighs heavily on local residents," the 42-year-old noted.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/8197895/Marine-Le-Pen-Muslims-in-France-like-Nazi-occupation.html

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
The amnesty you refer to is more akin to a parliamentary tradition (privilege) observed. That she had the expectation that she would not have to face a judge for what would be otherwise the case for any other citizen doesn't constitute for me a legitimate reason to disregard her actions. Its akin to a plea by ignorance ; it's just not a good enough reason. The Parlement is sovereign, it can decide, to a certain degree, on how it operates, and when to make exceptions.

Have you read the information that I provided above regarding functional amnesty?

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Again, this is opportunism in targetting a person who is an afront to the democratic political process. Political backstabbing it might be, but for once, it's for the right cause.

So the ends justify the means. Just so long as it is "the right cause", which is determined by whom precisely?
Any reason you can think so why she is only facing action three years after the fact, and not closer to when she made the comments? Or why her opponents could not use the democratic process themselves to counter her instead of a secret ballot and retrospective action?

 Valion wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:

 Valion wrote:
Man, Europe sure does love overbearing, asinine political correctness.

This is the kind of statement which doesn't help the discussion. It just annoys people, and causes them to form opinions about the person writing it.

Form away. Anyone who buys into this sort of charge isn't the holder of opinions I value particularly highly.

That's the friendly advice part. Please bear in mind that posts which serve just to insult a nation or other group are usually considered trolling or flame bait.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hordini wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
In that context, where parties which are not very far from the KKK in political policy (especially since the KKK isn't nearly as violent as it used to be) are actually winning seats, European policies on restriction of fascistic or race-baiting speech become more comprehensible.

Which, I though, was KO's point. If the KKK had members winning elected seats here, running as The KKK Party, Americans in general might feel that the issue was a bit more nuanced and complex. Rather than always defaulting to "Let's never restrict anyone's speech".

I suppose if you are only comparing them to the KKK of today, which I agree is less violent and really only a shadow of its former self, then it is more of a valid comparison. But to me, the KKK has a much larger amount of violent baggage that comes with it - I don't think it should be separated from its more violent past. I'm familiar the the political landscape in Europe and I realize that many of the nationalist parties are (rightly) not well-liked by many, but comparing to them with what in the past has in essence been a terror group, or very close to one, isn't really fair or productive. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to criticize parties like the BNP and I certainly would encourage people to do so, but comparing them to the KKK strikes me as a bit more sensationalist than is appropriate.

And to be fair, the KKK has had members who won elected seats in the past. If it somehow happened again, I don't think that would be a good time to start restricting people's speech. It'd be a time to encourage people to speak out as loud as they are able.

Okay, the KKK has a lot of violence in its past. And Nazi parties, or openly fascist parties in countries like Germany or Italy don't?

The KKK has never, to the best of my knowledge, had members run openly as KKK Party candidates, with a stated platform of violently ejecting minorities from the country. If, say, they did, and won 20 seats in Congress (see Golden Dawn last year), would you think people were crazy if they opined that maybe stronger measures might be needed to combat fascist, openly racist political parties? I'm about as big a free speech advocate as you'll find, but I recognize that there are very few absolutes in this world, and different places and contexts can reasonably justify different policies.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

And you got that she clearly designated a group of people based on their race from this, were there is no mention of race or national origin whatsoever?

Yes, by the amazing power of this little thing called 'inference'.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Have you read the information that I provided above regarding functional amnesty?

Yes, but only after I posted that reply.

So the ends justify the means.

Sometimes, yes. Note that I didn't advocate her murder, only extraordinary measures to enable her prosecution for what would be in other circumstances perfectly reasonnable to prosecute.

Just so long as it is "the right cause", which is determined by whom precisely?

By debate amongst reasonnable people. While the specifics of what makes an 'ideal' social situation might be blurry, those of what makes the worst possible social situation seems to me to be easier to determine. Inciting racial fear like Le Pen does (one of her speach literally compared all muslim immigrants to serial murderers) is one of those things which seems to me to be clearly in the 'negative'.

Any reason you can think so why she is only facing action three years after the fact, and not closer to when she made the comments? Or why her opponents could not use the democratic process themselves to counter her instead of a secret ballot and retrospective action?

There have been a lot of coverage lately on research showing a marked increase in racism in France. One map was posted here last week or the one before. Yesterday I skimmed over an article that stated that about 1/3 of muslims visiting France experienced racism, compared to 1/5 in Germany and 1/8 in Belgium. Its a stretch, but maybe it plays in what's currently happening.

Otherwise, I can't say. I'm also surprised about the timing. It might just be a case of 'we didn't get around to it until now'.

The KKK has never, to the best of my knowledge, had members run openly as KKK Party candidates, with a stated platform of violently ejecting minorities from the country.

Well of course not, the KKK isn't a political party, and got into office being part of other political parties, much like how the Tea Party runs as Republican. There have been people who ran for offices that ran openly as members of the KKK, just not as a distinct political party. The openness dissipates as you go from local to state to national, but there are still quite a few politicians that were Klan members back in the day. I agree it is not like running under a political party that espouses this kind of crockery, but they have existed.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Yes, by the amazing power of this little thing called 'inference'.

"Inference is the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inference
It is wonderful that you could derive a logical conclusion that she was clearly talking about race... by not talking about race. What's that amazing little thing called were you leap to a conclusion, but without the evidence to support it?

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Sometimes, yes. Note that I didn't advocate her murder, only extraordinary measures to enable her prosecution for what would be in other circumstances perfectly reasonnable to prosecute.

No one claimed that you did. It would be perfectly reasonable to prosecute her...... if she didn't have functional immunity at the time the statement was made.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
By debate amongst reasonnable people. While the specifics of what makes an 'ideal' social situation might be blurry, those of what makes the worst possible social situation seems to me to be easier to determine. Inciting racial fear like Le Pen does (one of her speach literally compared all muslim immigrants to serial murderers) is one of those things which seems to me to be clearly in the 'negative'.

Still talking about race when Ms. LePen was not I see. Also where in her words (that I provided above) did she speak about "muslim immigrants"?

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
There have been a lot of coverage lately on research showing a marked increase in racism in France. One map was posted here last week or the one before. Yesterday I skimmed over an article that stated that about 1/3 of muslims visiting France experienced racism, compared to 1/5 in Germany and 1/8 in Belgium. Its a stretch, but maybe it plays in what's currently happening.

Otherwise, I can't say. I'm also surprised about the timing. It might just be a case of 'we didn't get around to it until now'.

Again, Islam is not a race.
The 'we didn't get around to it' excuse is not exactly a viable reason for suddenly deciding to take action, there were three years in which action could have been taken. If hate speech is on the rise in France I can't imagine the case load getting so light they have enough time to clear a backlog.


Again, I do not agree with what she said, but I also do not agree with only taking action against her now and doing so in a manner that may end up being beneficial for her

I can't tell if you are purposely ignoring what KO is saying, or just not understanding it. At no point does he say that Islam is a race, he points out that in the instance we are discussing Islam and race are conflated issues. The Muslims that the women is talking about are foreigners, by and large, which gives it a racial element that one would have to be blind to not see.

 Ahtman wrote:
I can't tell if you are purposely ignoring what KO is saying, or just not understanding it. At no point does he say that Islam is a race, he points out that in the instance we are discussing Islam and race are conflated issues. The Muslims that the women is talking about are foreigners, by and large, which gives it a racial element that one would have to be blind to not see.

Politician makes a comment about people praying and their religion. She makes no reference to race. Religion is not tied to race. But saying unpleasant things about a religion = racism?
Again, I provided the words in question. They are there for all to see. They do not mention "race", "foreigners', nor "immigrants". The comments are made against a religion, race is being foisted on the statement.

I don't agree with this womans opinions however I do think removing her privilege may have something to do with the increasing right vote in France over the last few years. We had a similar thing happen over here a few years ago when a bumpkin/right wing party gained a small part of the vote.

Bullockist wrote:
I don't agree with this womans opinions however I do think removing her privilege may have something to do with the increasing right vote in France over the last few years. We had a similar thing happen over here a few years ago when a bumpkin/right wing party gained a small part of the vote.

That's the vibe that I'm getting too. In the last presidential election I believe that she got 18-20% of the vote (please correct me if I'm wrong). So it could be a case that her opponents fear taking her on in the ballot box.

 Mannahnin wrote:

Okay, the KKK has a lot of violence in its past. And Nazi parties, or openly fascist parties in countries like Germany or Italy don't?

Nazi parties and openly fascist parties are already illegal in Germany. I'm not sure about Italy but I wouldn't be surprised if it was the same. We're not talking about violent hate groups though, we're talking about actual right-wing political parties that have extremely distasteful ideologies. I'm not trying to defend these groups or say that they shouldn't be criticized - I'm saying just the opposite. But I also feel like comparing them to actual violent hate groups isn't really an apt comparison when there are more legitimate criticisms. I also don't think that it's healthy for democracy to simply change the rules because there is a right-wing party that gets a few seats. What is happening in the country for parties like this to be able to actual gain seats? I feel like politicians should actually be addressing these problems and get more people to vote for them, rather than trying to figure out a way to disqualify right-wing parties and politicians from the democratic process. It seems to me that if the decent parties already participating in the political process can't beat some of these moronic right-wing parties legitimately, they must be pretty sad.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
I can't tell if you are purposely ignoring what KO is saying, or just not understanding it. At no point does he say that Islam is a race, he points out that in the instance we are discussing Islam and race are conflated issues. The Muslims that the women is talking about are foreigners, by and large, which gives it a racial element that one would have to be blind to not see.

Politician makes a comment about people praying and their religion. She makes no reference to race. Religion is not tied to race. But saying unpleasant things about a religion = racism?
Again, I provided the words in question. They are there for all to see. They do not mention "race", "foreigners', nor "immigrants". The comments are made against a religion, race is being foisted on the statement.

You have to consider the broader picture and not make it about semantics i.e. 'she didn't mention the word race specific so it can't possibly have any race angle'. Pointing out that in this instance that the two are connected requires looking at the specifics of the situation. In the US the Muslim population is far more diverse, but in France, and to the people she was specifically referring to, it is not. Pointing out that most Muslims in a given area are of a certain ethnic background is not the same as saying that Muslim is a race. It is recognizing that the overwhelming majority of people that she is attacking are of a different ethnicity, so it will be a component to the discussion. Shrewd politicians know how to make race an element without ever mentioning race, and some count on it.

Lee Atwater wrote:You start out in 1954 by saying, "[see forum posting rules], [see forum posting rules], [see forum posting rules]." By 1968 you can't say "[see forum posting rules]" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "[see forum posting rules], [see forum posting rules]."

So it's really about race, despite the fact that France already has a large, well established population that originated from their former colonies in Africa and the Middle East (Algeria, Morocco, Ivory Coast, Senegal etc.) who are relatively well integrated, who aren't all Muslim, and that she was talking solely about religion?

 Hordini wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Okay, the KKK has a lot of violence in its past. And Nazi parties, or openly fascist parties in countries like Germany or Italy don't?

Nazi parties and openly fascist parties are already illegal in Germany. I'm not sure about Italy but I wouldn't be surprised if it was the same.

But that's what I'm talking about. The subject of this thread is just an extension of the same concept. Having an actual Nazi party in Germany is illegal, so naturally anyone so inclined gets as close as they can without actually declaring themselves as being so.

 Hordini wrote:
We're not talking about violent hate groups though, we're talking about actual right-wing political parties that have extremely distasteful ideologies. I'm not trying to defend these groups or say that they shouldn't be criticized - I'm saying just the opposite. But I also feel like comparing them to actual violent hate groups isn't really an apt comparison when there are more legitimate criticisms.

If they're inciting violence against racial or religious minorities, there's not a very dark line to be drawn between them. Especially when the actual group that they were compared to doesn't commit so many violent acts anymore.

 Hordini wrote:
I also don't think that it's healthy for democracy to simply change the rules because there is a right-wing party that gets a few seats.

If you think Ataka, Golden Dawn, or the BNP are just "a right-wing party", then I don't think we can meaningfully communicate here. That's a pretty nasty insult to most of the right wing as we conceive of it here in the US.

 Hordini wrote:
What is happening in the country for parties like this to be able to actual gain seats? I feel like politicians should actually be addressing these problems and get more people to vote for them, rather than trying to figure out a way to disqualify right-wing parties and politicians from the democratic process. It seems to me that if the decent parties already participating in the political process can't beat some of these moronic right-wing parties legitimately, they must be pretty sad.

Substitute "racist, fascistic, nationalist, xenophobic" parties for "right-wing", and substitute "scary" for "sad", and I think you'll more accurately describe the situation. And we KNOW what's happening. Economic downturns turn people against one another, and give reactionary elements an opportunity to direct people's fear and anger toward minorities and immigrants.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So it's really about race, despite the fact that France already has a large, well established population that originated from their former colonies in Africa and the Middle East (Algeria, Morocco, Ivory Coast, Senegal etc.) who are relatively well integrated, who aren't all Muslim, and that she was talking solely about religion?

Again, have to think you aren't really paying attention or are willfully choosing to misunderstand. Having race be a factor is not even remotely like saying that "it's really about race"; it is about both things, and more. Sure it would be easier if we could just pretend it was that singular of an issue, but there are a lot things tied up together here: religion, race, immigration and colonialism, just to get started.

 Mannahnin wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
I also don't think that it's healthy for democracy to simply change the rules because there is a right-wing party that gets a few seats.

If you think Ataka, Golden Dawn, or the BNP are just "a right-wing party", then I don't think we can meaningfully communicate here. That's a pretty nasty insult to most of the right wing as we conceive of it here in the US.

I tend to agree. And I think the idea of retroactively removing someone's immunity seems sketchy and odd. Of course, I also think them having that immunity (to abuse) in the first place is sketchy and odd. I just tend to cut the Europeans a bit of slack when they're dealing with semi-Nazis.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Again, Islam is not a race.

Again, 'race' has many meanings, and when employed regarding humans, it can be used to denominate a culture or a group sharing a cultural characteristic.

Regardless, do you pretend to mean that falsely designating a group as a race prevent people from making racist comments against that group? It seems obvious to me, for example, that the fact that mexicans aren't a race doesn't protect them from racism and from being viewed as a race. If you want to build an argument in favour of Marine based on the variation between islamophobia as racism and islamophobia as xenophobia, go ahead, it'll remain a ridiculously shaky argument.

 dæl wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
The prosecutor will be facing arguments that the trial is not being held within a reasonable time (Article 6(1) European Convention on Human Rights)

The trial would be well within the statute of limitation, so is in reasonable time.

that her words were perfectly lawful when she said them (Article 7 ECHR), freedom of expression, as well as privilege and protection in the form of the immunity that she enjoyed at the time the comments were made.

Her words were not lawful at the time, she was just unable to be prosecuted for them. There is a very big difference, and Article 7 is not intended to perpetuate any previous immunity.

Evidently France doesn't have freedom of speech. It must be the escargo.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Still talking about race when Ms. LePen was not I see. Also where in her words (that I provided above) did she speak about "muslim immigrants"?

The mass murderer comment predates the 'Nazi occupation' comment.

IIRC, a muslim was convicted in 2010 for a series of murders. The comment was along the line of ''How many Mohammed (I dont recall his last name, but I do recall his name being Mohammed) are currently sailing to our shores? How many future serial murderers are there amongts the children of those immigrants?''

Edit ; Mohamed Merah.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hordini wrote:
Nazi parties and openly fascist parties are already illegal in Germany. I'm not sure about Italy but I wouldn't be surprised if it was the same. We're not talking about violent hate groups though, we're talking about actual right-wing political parties that have extremely distasteful ideologies.

The two keep a close relation ;

Rue89.com wrote: In 2012, on Holocaust Memorial Day, Marine Le Pen was a guest of the Austrian Freedom Party at a ball in Vienna organized by the neo-Nazi Olympia society. Olympia bans Jews or women from its membership, once proposed that the Nobel Peace Prize be awarded to Nazi Rudolf Hess, and organizes celebrations of Holocaust denial featuring prominent revisionists like David Irving.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
It must be the escargo.

Escargot*... which is really good. Escargot pizza is simply delicious.

 Ahtman wrote:
Again, have to think you aren't really paying attention or are willfully choosing to misunderstand. Having race be a factor is not even remotely like saying that "it's really about race"; it is about both things, and more. Sure it would be easier if we could just pretend it was that singular of an issue, but there are a lot things tied up together here: religion, race, immigration and colonialism, just to get started.

I'm showing that she didn't mention race with her own words,
You're saying that Kovnik Obama isn't saying that Islam is a race,
Kovnik Obama keeps using a very elastic definition of race to bring Islam into it's definition.
Seems that you may wish to pay more attention to the community member that you have elected to speak on behalf of, rather than insist that others are not reading his words.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Again, 'race' has many meanings, and when employed regarding humans, it can be used to denominate a culture or a group sharing a cultural characteristic.

Regardless, do you pretend to mean that falsely designating a group as a race prevent people from making racist comments against that group? It seems obvious to me, for example, that the fact that mexicans aren't a race doesn't protect them from racism and from being viewed as a race. If you want to build an argument in favour of Marine based on the variation between islamophobia as racism and islamophobia as xenophobia, go ahead, it'll remain a ridiculously shaky argument.

You're trying to make the definition of race so elastic as to be absolutely meaningless.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
The mass murderer comment predates the 'Nazi occupation' comment.

IIRC, a muslim was convicted in 2010 for a series of murders. The comment was along the line of ''How many Mohammed (I dont recall his last name, but I do recall his name being Mohammed) are currently sailing to our shores? How many future serial murderers are there amongts the children of those immigrants?''

Edit ; Mohamed Merah.

The comment was along the lines of, or it was? I managed to provide the text of her comments that the charges seems to have stemmed from I'd be much obliged if you could provide the actual comment in return, and show that it is this that she is being charged in relation to.
She is being charged with her comments comparing followers of Islam to Nazi occupation. Your mass murder comment is coming across as little more than smoke and mirrors, and an attempt to show that she isn't a nice person (which we already know)

 Mannahnin wrote:
I tend to agree. And I think the idea of retroactively removing someone's immunity seems sketchy and odd. Of course, I also think them having that immunity (to abuse) in the first place is sketchy and odd. I just tend to cut the Europeans a bit of slack when they're dealing with semi-Nazis.

I agree too that it is very sketchy, and it sets a dangerous precedent. I would be more supportive of the actions against Ms. LePen had they been taken shortly after the comments were made. That action is only taken three years later is a little odd.