Free Speech in Europe

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

reckless,

That’s funny. I wonder why you didn’t post the commentary about the aclu.

A european/liberal not admitting error?

NO!!!

Let’s start the lesson.

I wrote:

“Then why so many wars and massacres? Oh, I get it, you don’t insult people, you invade.”

You responded:

“We live in relative peace over the last 50 years. And last time I looked it wasn’t us that was invading.
Sorry, not one of your best arguments.”

Really?

I assume you meant since the end of WWII.

Let’s begin.

Algeria (1954-62): 675 000
From Alistair Horne, A Savage War of Peace (1977)
Official French statistics:
Europeans:
Soldiers: 17,456 killed
Settlers: 2,788 killed and 500 disappeared
Muslims:
Combatants killed by French: 141,000
FLN, internal purges: 12,000
Civilians abducted by FLN, presumed dead: 50,000
[TOTAL: 223,744]
To which should be added:
Killed in France by terrorism: 4,300
Pro-French Muslims killed in Algeria in post-war reprisals: 30-150,000
Britannica largely agrees:
French: 10,000
Muslims: 250,000
The Algerian government claims that one million were killed in the war.

Dan Smith, Encarta, and Our Times seem to agree with this number, but in vague or confusing ways:
Encarta says “French casualties were about 100,000, Algerian more than 1 million”. The textbook definition of “casualties” includes wounded, so if Encarta means it by the book, then it agrees with the French estimates that perhaps 275,000 were killed. The problem is that “casualties” is widely misused as a synonym for “killed”, so if Encarta means it that way, then it agrees with the Algerians that around a million were killed.

Our Times: “killed … up to a million Muslims.” (phrased to allow for the possibility that it might be lower)

Dan Smith: The War Atlas (1983) does not give a specific number, but Algeria is filled with the color which indicates that more than a million died in all wars fought between 1945 and 1982.
Horne (op cit.) personally believes that the French are too low and the Algerians too high, and that the real number falls somewhere between them.

Anthony Clayton, Frontiersmen: Warfare In Africa Since 1950 French military deaths, all causes, including colonials and Foreign Legion: 35,000
Civilians: 3,500 French and 30,000 indigenous, plus 150,000 revenge killings
FLN: 141,000 KIA and 12,000 killed by Amirouche and 4,000 k. in France.
Deaths in resettlement camps etc: 300,000
[TOTAL: 675,500]

Harff & Gurr: 30,000 to 150,000 Harkis, OAS supporters were victims of retributive politicide, 1962
WPA3; also Hartman
French soldiers: 17,456
French settlers: 2,788
Algerian Moslems: 1,000,000
Eckhardt: 82,000 civ. + 18,000 mil. = 100,000

Next:

Franco Regime (1939-75): 365000 + 100000

Next:

Greek Civil War (1943-49): 158 000

Next:

Yugoslavia, Tito’s Regime (1944-80): 200 000

Next:

First Indochina War (1945-54):
French dead: 92,707

Next:

Romania (1948-89): 150 000
Communist Regime
Rummel: 435,000 democides, 1948-87
Robert Kaplan, Balkan Ghosts (1993): 100,000 forced laborers died building the Danube-Black Sea Canal, 1949-53
Both Chirot (Modern Tyrants) and Mazower (Dark Continent) number the total living labor force on the Canal at 40,000.
24 Oct. 2000 AP: 100,000 peasants and prisoners perished in prison or building the canal.
George Hodos, Show Trials (1987): 75,000 executed during 1st 4 years of Communism.
8 Jan. 1990 Time: A Romanian court found Ceausescu guilty of genocide, with 60,000 victims

Next:

Bosnia and Herzegovina (1992-95): 175000

Next:

East Germany (1949-89): 100,000

Next:

Mozambique, Anti-colonial war (1961-75)
Hartman:
3,500 Portuguese

Next:

Bulgaria (1948-89): 30,000

Next:

Hungary (1948-89)
Communist Regime
Rummel: 27,000 democides, 1948-87

Next:

Poland (1948-89)
Communist Regime
Overall
Rummel: 22,000 democides, 1948-87
1946-49
Tina Rosenburg, The Haunted Land: Facing Europe’s Ghosts after Communism (1995): 30,000 Poles died as Stalinists crushed opposition.
East European Politics and Societies 11:2 (22 March 1997) “Rebellious Poles: political crises and popular protest under state socialism, 1945-89” by Grzegorz Ekiert: 8,668 people were killed as a result of repressive actions against the opposition, 1944-48
1956 Uprising
WPA3: 53 killed
WHPSI: 31,082 political executions (1953-57) + 536 deaths by pol. viol.
Tina Rosenburg: 38 (officially) or 75 (independant sources) k.
Grzegorz Ekiert: ca. 100 k. during 1956 revolt.
1981 Martial Law
Tina Rosenburg: Acc2 post-Communist Congressional committee, of the115 deaths under martial law, 25 killed during protests, 29 murdered by Interior Ministry, 24 non-political and 37 unknown reasons

Next:

Dutch East Indies, rebellion (1945-46)
9 Aug. 1995 AP
Dutch KIA: 4,750
Massacred by Dutch in Rawagedeh, Dec. 1947: 20 (Neth. officially) or 431 (local history)
13 Sept. 1999 Evening Standard (London): 622 British KIA
Tariq Ali, The Clash of Fundamentalisms: Crusades, Jihads and Modernity
British & Indian: 620 KIA + 320 MIA
Japanese (“alongside the British”): >1,000 k.
Indonesian: 20,000 d.
23 Aug. 1995 Daily Yomiuri: 100,000 Indonesians and 6,000 Dutch killed in fighting.
Hartman (“casualties”, [incl. wounded?]):
Dutch: 25,000
Indonesian: 80,000
S&S (incomplete)
UK: 1,000
Netherlands: 400
Eckhardt: 4,000 civ. + 1,000 mil. = 5,000

Next:

Albania (1945-91)
Communist Regime
Rummel: 100,000 democides (1944-87)
15 Feb. 1994 Washington Times: 5,000 to 25,000 political executions.
WHPSI: 5,235 political executions (1948-52)

Next:

Czechoslovakia (1948-89)
Communist Regime
28 May 1991 CTK National News Wire, citing the Czech weekly, Reflex:
Executed: 260
Killed during arrests, in camps and prisons, etc.: 9,000-10,000
Disappeared: 1,800
TOTAL: 11,560 ? 500
20 May 2000 Czech News Agency:
Opponents of communism executed: 238
3 Nov. 1999 Philadelphia Inquirer: 20,000 d in prison communism, plus 250 executed.
Rummel (1987): 65,000 democides, 1944-68

The list goes on and on and on.

If that’s your idea of peace, you can sure as hell have it.

Source: Twentieth Century Atlas - Death Tolls

Oh, please be unique and admit your error.

JeffR

22

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Just because you have freedom of speech, it doesn’t meant that people who hear you don’t have the right to get pissed off. This is something the Dixie Chicks learned the hardway.

That’s what I meant.

“don’t suppress my free speach, but feel free to suppress any idea’s that I don’t share”.

That’s the kind of democracy every dictator loves.

[/quote]

I still don’t see how anyone was interfering with the Dixie Chicks’ rights to freely express themselves. They were certainly not threatened by the government, and to my knowledge they weren’t threatened with violence by anyone else either (though such threats would be less about freedom of expression and more about enforcement of laws against making threats, aka assault).

Do you really think that boycotts, organized purely by private parties, amount to stifling free speech? What about the rights of the fans/boycotters to express their own opinions?

I’ve said this before, but I’ll say it again: Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism for your wacky opinions. Nor does it mean “freedom” to make people buy your crappy records if they decide they don’t like you and what you stand for. What it does mean is that you won’t be prosecuted or subject to other retributive action by the government (e.g. hate speech laws) for advancing your unpopular political opinions.

23

Van Gogh was killed because made a movie with Hirsi Ali about the way women are treated in Islam.

Van Gogh was murdered by a religious fanatic because that is the kind of thing that fanatics do. Fanatics want to force their ideas onto everyone else. Fanaticism is one of the central tenets of Islam. Fanatical unquestioning obediance to mohammed is the way of Islam.

Mohammed was wrong about women. Which means Mohammed was a false prophet.

Van Gogh pointed out the truth and they couldn’t handle it. That’s why they killed them.

24

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

Do you really think that boycotts, organized purely by private parties, amount to stifling free speech? What about the rights of the fans/boycotters to express their own opinions?

I’ve said this before, but I’ll say it again: Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism for your wacky opinions. Nor does it mean “freedom” to make people buy your crappy records if they decide they don’t like you and what you stand for. What it does mean is that you won’t be prosecuted or subject to other retributive action by the government (e.g. hate speech laws) for advancing your unpopular political opinions.[/quote]

Of course, boycotts organised by private parties can silence free speech. And this boycotts sole purpose was just this.

But you make an interesting point. If everybody has total freedom of speech, does that include the freedom to tell somebody else to shut up?

And you can’t MAKE people buy your records. You can try to persuade them to buy them, but you can’t MAKE them buy them. And doesn’t “freedom of speech” cover the right to perform and try to sell your records?

Apparantly not when your a dixie chick.

But you make an interesting point. If everybody has total freedom of speech, does that include the freedom to tell somebody else to shut up?

Some people think it’s ok when they don’t share the views that were expressed. I guess you’re one of those.

This kind of freedom of speech is helt in high regard in every dictatorship. Nobody has ever been arrested, boycotted or harassed for jumping on a table and praising the leader.

It looks like y’all are very much in favor of free speech, just untill someone comes along that insist on telling things you don’t like. Then perhaps it would be ok to shut them up, just a little.

25

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Van Gogh was killed because made a movie with Hirsi Ali about the way women are treated in Islam.

Van Gogh was murdered by a religious fanatic because that is the kind of thing that fanatics do. Fanatics want to force their ideas onto everyone else. Fanaticism is one of the central tenets of Islam. Fanatical unquestioning obediance to mohammed is the way of Islam.

Mohammed was wrong about women. Which means Mohammed was a false prophet.

Van Gogh pointed out the truth and they couldn’t handle it. That’s why they killed them. [/quote]

Van Gogh was killed by a fanatic. And he was killed because he went out of his way to provoke them. He was a fanatic himself.

Fanatism is not essential to the Islam. In fact, most muslims are moderate and rational people. But this also means they won’t make headlines.

When we look with modern eyes, Mohammed was wrong about women in the same way that the Bible was wrong about women.

And anybody who talks about “us” vs “them” is a borderline fanatic himself.

This conflict is not between “us westerners” against “them Muslims”. It’s a conflict between “us moderates” and “them fanatics”. And you can find those fanatics everywhere. Right now it looks like the fanatics are winning.

Let’s hope us moderates can make reason prevail and keep the lines of communication open.

26

Hey JeffR,

I notice Wreckless isn’t replying about Europe in the last 50 years being a place of “peace”. I wonder why that is?

Wreckless, you’re welcome!

27

[quote]Wreckless wrote:

Van Gogh was killed by a fanatic. And he was killed because he went out of his way to provoke them. He was a fanatic himself.

[/quote]

So just blame the victim?

28

[quote]Cream wrote:
Hey JeffR,

I notice Wreckless isn’t replying about Europe in the last 50 years being a place of “peace”. I wonder why that is?

Wreckless, you’re welcome![/quote]

I just didn’t want to get into a pissing contest of who killed the most natives where…

29

[quote]bluey wrote:
Wreckless wrote:

Van Gogh was killed by a fanatic. And he was killed because he went out of his way to provoke them. He was a fanatic himself.

So just blame the victim?
[/quote]

Of course not. But should we be blint to his mistakes are eager to repeat them?

30

Maybe the US should invade Europe and spread more Freedom of Speech??

31

I was joking by the way, lets not get in a hissy fit about what I said…lol

32

reckless wrote:

“I just didn’t want to get into a pissing contest of who killed the most natives where…”

You guys have us beat without any contest. You are directly/indirectly responsible for more historical deaths than any other continent bar none.

Most likely, you got your ass handed to you by a “dumb American.” You couldn’t handle your preconceptions being changed so radically. That explains the time off and the weak retort.

Best of luck next time.

JeffR

33

Well, it seems the discussion has taken off on the wrong foot. Perhaps it was the “fascism … always seemed to land in Europe” that sidetracked me into believing you have the impression that free speach in Europe is in trouble.

Anyway, let me give you an example about what raises some eye-brows in Europe.

Early jan 2005 Lawrence Summers, president at Harvard, noted only few woman hold high positions in universities and science in general. He wondered that, besides the obvious obstacles as discrimination and the choice of motherhood, perhaps genetics was involved. Couldn’t it be that women were less “extremely” gifted? And this “extremely” has to be taken quite litteraly, meaning very much, but also hardly any. So Summers suggested ever so carefull, that perhaps the fact that women are underrepresented in high positions in science is somehow linked to the fact that they are also outnumbered in mental institutions.

He was crucified for it in the US.

He wouldn’t have been in Europe. In fact, he would have gotten broad support as his assumptions are nearly accepted as fact.

Why is it that you can not say in the US what is nearly accepted as the truth in Europe?
Why are the liberals so entrenched in political correctness that they prefer to ignore the obvious?

Again, I don’t want to start a pissing contest here. I’m just saying that the rules of public discussion are different in the US and Europe.

And regarding our relations with Muslims, we are not blind to their problems and potential risk. But we choose to have an open dialogue with most of them.
And we don’t support people that think it would be a good idea to liven up this discussion by introducing words like “towell heads” “ragheads” “cameljockey’s” or “goatf*ckers” (the latter one being Van Gogh favorit expression).

34

JeffR, ahy are you so bitter? You seem to have had some bad experiences… let it out dear, get it off your chest…lol

35

shorty_blitz wrote:
“JeffR, ahy are you so bitter? You seem to have had some bad experiences… let it out dear, get it off your chest…lol”

When in Europe, I’ve had a few good natured encounters with people.

For instance, an Englishmen tried to convince me that they were close to winning the Revolutionary War. I said, “You may have won if you hadn’t insisted on wearing bright red uniforms and marching in straight lines.”

He said, “Fair enough!!!” We had a great conversation after that.

I did mock some french “men” who were heckling an Englishman. They were making hissing noises as he was talking about the English Navy. I pointed out their Navy’s sorry ass battle record. As is typical of the french, when confronted with size and intelligence, they decided to walk away.

That’s been about it.

The rest of the time, the Europeans were on their best behavior around me.

I know full well that they pick on guys name Dave that weigh around 150 pounds. Dave is usually a grad student who doesn’t know anything about history. He stands between 5-9" and 5-10". He has a Canadian backpack on. He is into grunge. When pushed, he will say derogatory things about his home country.

I don’t like Dave one damn bit!!!

Anyway, you will see me immediately smack down the Europeans who act “holier than thou.” They invented/practiced/practice the worst behaviors known to humanity.

Immediate calls of hypocrite from this corner!!!

JeffR

36

reckless wrote:

“And regarding our relations with Muslims, we are not blind to their problems and potential risk. But we choose to have an open dialogue with most of them.
And we don’t support people that think it would be a good idea to liven up this discussion by introducing words like “towell heads” “ragheads” “cameljockey’s” or “goatf*ckers” (the latter one being Van Gogh favorit expression).”

Bullshit.

Here you go-the most recent example of European tolerance.

CORDOBA, June10 , 2005 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) ? Fear and discrimination against Muslims have been on the rise in Europe since the September attacks on the United States, with many governments turning a blind eye to the problem, delegates told an international conference on racial and religious intolerance.

Speaking at the conference of the55 -country Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), held in the southern Spanish city of Cordoba, delegates highlighted that the so-called “war on terror” has tremendously fuelled bias against Muslims.

“Islamophobia is now becoming the central challenge of European countries in the field of discrimination and racism,” Doudou Diene, the United Nations’ Rapporteur on Racism and Xenophobia told Reuters Thursday, June9 .

Since the9 /11/ 2001deadly attacks, assaults against Muslims and the Islamic places have been tremendously increasing in many European countries.

“Muslim communities have begun to be perceived in some Western countries as ‘the enemy within’, posing potential threats to the values of Western civilization,” Turkish Minister of State Mehmet Aydin told the conference.

The meeting brought together representatives from Europe, North America and Central Asia to discuss the anti-Muslim and anti-Christian discrimination as well as the anti-Semitism.

The Vienna-based OSCE – which groups countries from Europe, North America and the area of the former Soviet Union -? held the conference in Cordoba because of its heritage of religious tolerance under the Muslim rule from 711 to1236 .

Anti-Muslim Hatred

It was the first time by the OSCE to discuss the issue of Islamophobia in its meeting which was mainly focused to discuss the anti-Semitism, which is also on the rise in Europe.

?Islamophobia has replaced anti-Semitism as the new sharp end of racist issues in the world wherever you go,? Abduljalil Sajid, adviser to the Commission on British Muslims, told the meeting, according to Reuters.

He added that a conclusion of an EU report revealed that “hatred against Muslims and crimes against Muslims increased tremendously” after the September 11 attacks, according to the Scotsman.

Sajid also criticized a draft final statement of the conference for not explicitly using the term Islamophobia, stressing that Europe has no choice but to face the reality that millions of its people are now Muslims.

?Muslims are not going anywhere. They are going to stay,? Sajid said.

A report revealed Monday, July19 ,2004 , that more than nine out of 10 white Britons have no or hardly any Muslim or other ethnic minority friends, raising warnings against growing racial hatred and belief in racist propaganda.

British Muslims have repeatedly complained of maltreatment by the police and stop-and-search operations under the Terrorism Act for no apparent reason other than being Muslims.

New Racism

The Secretary General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference maintained that anti-Muslim hatred represents a new form of racism in Europe.

“The world is witnessing the birth of a new racism in Europe,” Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu said.

Saad Eddine Taib, an OIC delegate stressed that Islamophobia has historic roots but was clearly fuelled by the September 11 attacks.

?We are very worried,? said Taib, adding that September 11 was a crime, which Islam prohibits.

?For Muslims,9 / 11was a dark day in their history,? he said.

The final statement of the meeting, the “Cordoba Declaration”, reiterated pledges to collect reliable information on racist crimes and called on member states to legislate against religious, ethnic and sexual discrimination and train their police to implement them.

But some delegates expressed frustration the OSCE failed to live up to promises made at a Berlin conference last year, amid signs discrimination and racism in Europe continued to rise.

“We need to do more to convert these sound words and goodwill to fight anti-Semitism and intolerance into action and its clear a number of states have just not taken that step,” New York Governor George Pataki, head of the US delegation, told a news conference.

The OSCE has no powers to force member states to implement its recommendations, besides expelling a country from the group.

The United Nations Commission on Human Rights adopted Tuesday, April12 , a resolution calling for combating defamation campaigns against Islam and Muslims in the West.

A recent report released by the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights (IHF) said Muslim minorities across Europe have been experiencing growing distrust, hostility and discrimination since the9 /11/ 2001attacks.

On January13 , UN Secretary General Kofi Annan called for halting harassment and discrimination against Muslims, that have been on the rise in the West since the9 / 11attacks.

?Since the September 11 attacks on the United States, many Muslims, particularly in the West, have found themselves the objects of suspicion, harassment and discrimination,? Annan told the seminar on Confronting Islamophobia: Education for Tolerance and Understanding.

?Too many people see Islam as a monolith and as intrinsically opposed to the West,? he said. ?Caricature remains widespread and the gulf of ignorance is dangerously deep.?

add your comments
more
by more Friday, Jun. 10, 2005 at 11:53 AM

A conference on racism sponsored by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in Cordoba, Spain failed to approve a joint declaration condemning “racism, anti-Semitism and xenophobia” Wednesday after some delegates demanded that xenophobia appear before anti-Semitism in the resolution’s text.

Delegates from Great Britain, the Netherlands and Belgium demanded the change at the two-day conference, which opened Wednesday. No agreement was reached Wednesday, but a source close to the negotiations said the declaration would probably read in accordance with the demand of the delegates from the three countries.

Before the conference opened, the delegates from the three countries had demanded that the agenda not be limited to anti-Semitism, as the Spanish hosts had originally intended. The three argued that Islamophobia and xenophobia were more serious problems in present-day Europe than anti-Semitism. Subsequently, it was agreed that the first day of the conference would deal with anti-Semitism and the second day with other aspects of racism.

Last year’s conference, and a prior one in Vienna, focused exclusively on anti-Semitism.

The U.S. ambassador to the OSCE, Stephan Minikes, said there is “still too much opposition”
within the OSCE to dealing with anti-Semitism and treating it as a separate problem.

Most of the heads of Jewish organizations present left Cordoba shortly after addressing the conference. Israel was represented by Deputy Minister of Education, Culture and Sport Michael Melchior and the head of the Foreign Ministry’s Diaspora and religions department, Nimrod Barkan.

Kicking off the meeting, Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos said the 60th anniversary of the liberation of the Nazi death camps gives the world an opportunity to renew its fight against all forms of anti-Semitism. “Unfortunately, far from having definitively vaccinated our societies, the experience and memory of the Holocaust have not been enough to eliminate attitudes and manifestations that clearly attack the dignity of Jews,” Moratinos said.

Moratinos said that in Medieval times, the southern Spanish city of Cordoba was a flourishing place where adherents of Islam, Judaism and Christianity lived side-by-side in peace. "If in the past, it was possible to live together in harmony, we must not resign ourselves into thinking that it is impossible today, he said.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/586094.html

Thanks for the laugh, hypocrite.

JeffR

37

I know that there are some nice Muslims out there. I go to the halal market at the end of my street quite often.

The thing that gets me is this. A koran gets mishandeled at Gitmo and muslims were up in arms and people died.

But where was the outcry of moderate Muslims when a mob in Iran destroyed the worlds only Baha’i structure?

Where was the outcry of moderate Muslims when the Bimiyan Budda’s were being destroyed by muslims.

The moderates seem to be a minority. I would like to be proven wrong on this, because I have had freinds who are muslim.

38

It is a bit difficult for moderates to get their voice heard when our own government here in the UK gives refuge to someone like ‘Sheikh Abu Hamza’ and allows him to preach his hatred to the west from a mosque in central London.

39

[quote]JeffR wrote:

Bullshit.

Here you go-the most recent example of European tolerance.

…

“Too many people see Islam as a monolith and as intrinsically opposed to the West,” he said. “Caricature remains widespread and the gulf of ignorance is dangerously deep.”?

…

Thanks for the laugh, hypocrite.

JeffR

[/quote]

I couldn’t agree with this more. And stupid people like Van Gogh where fuelling these feelings. That’s why we have laws to shut them up if they’re not able to clean up there act.

But I guess you’re right. While we are trying to do the right thing, we’re not always able to do as we preach. At least we’re not preaching hatred. Unlike some.

I fail to see the hypocrisy. And I fail to see the humor.

Oh wait, I do see some. How about being called to tolerant towards muslims first and no tolerant enough a couple of posts later.

40

[quote]Sifu wrote:
The moderates seem to be a minority. I would like to be proven wrong on this, because I have had freinds who are muslim.

[/quote]

Check out Malayasia, you know, the place where the tsunami hit? They aren’t a bunch of rifle-toting, wife-slapping assholes. And there’s a BUNCH of muslims there.

I think that the violence is a cultural history thing. They’ve been fighting in the middle east since time immemorial.