Thought Crime pt. Deux

Here's a european's perspective on rights in the USA (some of the things I noticed when I moved here):

You mean nudity is forbidden on American television, and you can't say the word "shit"? It's OK to see people being blown up or murdered, but not OK to see people having sex?

I read a cover article in Time Magazine about how Scientology defrauds thousands of people out of money (and brainwashes them), and no one makes it illegal?

When I applied for my first job (at a defense contractor), I was asked "Have you ever been a communist?" I thought all political parties were legal?

When I apply for a job, they want me to take a drug test?

The USA still has the death penalty, violating one of the most fundamental human rights, the right to life?

A friend of mine (a teacher) says the books he use at school are so old they don't mention that man has walked on the moon?

etc..

I agree that many of the freedoms in the USA are worthwhile, especially the freedom of expression. But when you look at the kind of things that would be forbidden in Europe, for example starting a political party in Germany that says kill all the jews, you figure that most people don't care enough to make it an issue, and most of those that do care probably don't like nazis anyway.

In the USA, I'm a member of the ACLU, that defends those prized civil liberties, but I notice that for most people ACLU seems to be a derogatory term.

------------------
Jacques Kilchoer
Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains.

[Cardinal]

Well, let's see...

Scientology. Yeah, I know what you mean. The problem with that in the States is that they claim to have a religion going. I know and you know that they did that after they figured out the tax benfits, and the IRS has been on their tail for a long time, but if you claim to have a religion, it's a very touchy thing in the U.S. to restrict it. This all comes from being descended culturally from people who were running from being told exactly what God was, etc. So, the American take on it is, if they're claiming you get a spiritual benefit from the exhorbitantly priced classes, and that sort of thing is unquantifiable, then we'd probably better leave it alone, as long as people are not actually being kidnapped or robbed (charges that have more or less actually come up when dealing with S., actually).

Drug tests: No one is E. would test for drugs? Even for airline pilots, etc? That strikes me as overly trusting. I'm not sure what you mean with that.

The communist thing I'm surprised at. When was that? I do, however, appreciate somewhat the position of a defense contractor, charged with holding national defense secrets, interviewing someone who openly holds an ideology once headed by someone who announced "We will break you!" Not that that in itself is a total excuse for not hiring someone.

Death penalty: I don't know that, frankly, everyone does have a right to life. If they have demonstrated a complete inability to get along in society to the point where they have actually with forethought taken other people's lives, it is at least arguable that society can reserve the right to remove them in the most permanent fashion.

After all that, I don't want this to degenerate into a death penalty argument, or any Great Debate, so let's remember I'm asking for other views, such as those provided by Msr. Jacques. Thanks.

[Boris B]

Most European countries are founded on a very different set of political theories. It is considered normal for states to act "in defense of themselves". The Algerian Insurrection led de Gaulle to invoke a provision of the Constitution which allows the President to make decrees with the force of law. Germany outlawed the Communist Party of Germany (although the German Communist Party is perfectly legal). It is illegal to advocate theocracy, communism, fascism, or federalism in Turkey.

There are tradeoffs. Gaullists agreed that for de Gaulle to become a de factodictator, temporarily and legally, was far better than a military coup. We've never been that close to a military coup in the United States. Kudos to our military for staying away from politics (the barracks are preferable to the statehouse, trust me).

From the OP:
When I recite these lists of restrictions, I start to have a little understanding for where the outlaw militias in the States are coming from, intellectually speaking.
Isn't this terribly ironic? Aren't these militas in the wrong country? Members of the outlaw militias believe the Federal government is already oppressive and overbearing, and often believe it should be overthrown. Talking like this and stockpiling guns would get you arrested in the blink of an eye in most European countries, but it's legal here.

The conclusion I draw: the "slippery slopes" so often warned of by American civil libertarians don't necessarily exist. Banning a party that advocates violent revolution does not necessarily lead to banning all (or all but one) political parties. Banning the Church of Scientology does not immediately precede banning the Lutheran church. The Europeans have drawn their line between security and liberty in a different place than the U.S. - that doesn't mean the line is moving. I prefer the U.S. model, because I think extremist parties are more dangerous when they're underground, not because I think there is something inherently "fascist" about banning fascist parties.

Drug tests: No one is E. would test for drugs?

I'm sure some do, but hell, I'm a programmer! (database administrator now) I have asked several of my friends in similar jobs (in Europe) and have never heard of any of them needing to take a drug test.

The communist thing I'm surprised at. When was that?

1987, Hughes Aircraft Company, California.

RE: Death Penalty, Scientology -

The reasons you give for justifying the US position on those have some merit. Remember, however, that Europeans will come up with equally valid arguments to defend the European point of view on issues you think are "strange."

By the way, was the "Msr Jacques" indicating gender confusion?

Jacques is a french masculine name. English version being James. (remember Jacques Cousteau) By some strange perversion, in the USA people will give the name "Jacque" to women. Go figure!

------------------
Jacques Kilchoer
Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains.

[Boris B]

Krushchev said "We will bury you". A bad translation of a Russian expression meaning, "We will survive you" or "We will outlast you". Marxist doctrine claims that capitalist systems destroy themselves; according to Krushchev's professed beliefs, the Soviet didn't have to do a thing to destroy this West, they only had to wait around for Western workers to lose their chains.

Don't worry, I'm not putting blood-spattered expansionists like Stalin in the same category as Krushchev. I just wanted to get in my two bits on "We will bury you".

[Lumpy]

Regarding Scientology, I
Post deleted due to copywrite violation

[Stoid]

Scientology:
unfortunately, what they do doesn't constitute fraud. You willingly pay money to take classes and to support an organization that you have every right to support and believe in. You and I may think they are loony, but that's subjective.

The commie/defense thing. Well, duh. I think everyone can believe in whatever political system turns them on, but if you are going to have anything to do with defending MY political system, I'd like to know you support it.

Drug test: SUCKS!!! However, you have the right to refuse, and they have the right to refuse to hire you because of it. Nobody's real rights are being violated. I think most drug testing is ludicrous, especially since it doesn't usually cover alcohol, but I do like knowing the pilots and other folks responsible for the safety of others are not drug users.

ACLU being a durogatory term: ain't that a bitch? Never ceases to amaze me. I thank heaven for the ACLU. They are the last defenders of freedom in this country, I don't even want to contemplate how ugly things might get without them. They are fighting an uphill battle as it is.

stoid
unrepentent liberal most of the time

[Beadalin]

What's a copywrite violation?

Copyright, I've heard of.


Sorry....

------------------
"It says, I choo-choo-choose you. And it's got a picture of a train."
-- Ralph Wiggum

The commie/defense thing. Well, duh. I think everyone can believe in whatever political system turns them on, but if you are going to have anything to do with defending MY political system, I'd like to know you support it.

This is turning into a Great Debate or something! So what is YOUR political system? Are you saying one can't be an american and a communist at the same time? Maybe they should have asked me if I voted Republican and was in favour of the vietnam war.

Drug test: SUCKS!!! However, you have the right to refuse, and they have the right to refuse to hire you because of it. Nobody's real rights are being violated.

Heck, they should be able to ask me to prove I'm not gay then, right? I have the right to refuse their question, and they have the right not to hire me. They should also be able to ask me my age, number of children (because if I have kids I'll be taking off early), etc... All perfectly OK!

------------------
Jacques Kilchoer
Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains.

[Beadalin]

No, actually, no employer can ask you those kinds of questions, as they are illegal. This thread talks some more about those questions, if you're interested.
http://www.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum3/HTML/002734.html

My guess is that the questions you listed refer to legal activities, whereas a drug test is to find out if you engage in an illegal behavior. The Communist question should never have been asked, as far as I know.

------------------
"It says, I choo-choo-choose you. And it's got a picture of a train."
-- Ralph Wiggum

[Diceman]

The Communist question should never have been asked, as far as I know.

Uh, Beadalin...
Have you been following the Chinagate scandle? To sum it up, a Chinese guy with communist symathies was hired by a nuclear research facility, and promply sold all of his work to China. Now China (a country with an abysmal human rights record) has the USA's multiple-warhead technology, which means that they can park 12 nukes in your back yard with the push of a button. Defense contractors have every right to grill their employees about their political beliefs, because those beliefs can directly affect the security of the nation and the world.

------------------
"I had a feeling that in Hell there would be mushrooms." -The Secret of Monkey Island

[Manda JO]

Hughs Aircraft is a defense company, and presumbably you were interviewing for a position that required a security clearance. Refusing a security clearance on the grounds that someone at one time was a member of an orginization that activly supported a nation that was openly hostile to our nation is a far cry from preventing you from joining a political party or acting publically as a member of that party. Being a communist was (and probably still is) considered a "risk factor" for being a spy for a communist country.

[Cessandra]

Dave Swaney said:

. . .let's remember I'm asking for other views, such as those provided by Msr. Jacques. . .


to which Jacques Raymond Kilchoer responded:

. . .By the way, was the "Msr Jacques" indicating gender confusion? Jacques is a french masculine name. English version being James. (remember Jacques Cousteau). . .


Not to put words in Mr. Swaney's mouth, but I think that "Msr." was supposed to be an abbreviation for "Monsieur" (sp?). Is that not the correct abbreviation? I haven't taken French in ages; I've forgotten.

You may now resume the discussion. . .

[Melatonin]

"You mean in America you can't hang out in the park and drink a beer?"

------------------
"There is nothing you ought to do, for the simple reason that you know nothing, nothing whatever- make a mental note of that, if you please."
-V. Nabokov

[Cardinal]

I have recently run into a number of Europeans in the States, and there are aspects of each other's government and culture that we just don't understand about each other.

FI:

They just can't grasp the concept that it's legal to be a Nazi here. Especially the German kid. He was astounded. I guess it was something that was so assumed to be illegal in Germany that he honestly didn't know there were Western industrilized countries where it wasn't.

As a libertarian-leaning American, I defend openly Nazi's rights to be complete buttheads in the space of their own minds, as long as it doesn't bring itself into illegal activity (a likely story).

I was against the flag-burning amendment that was bandied about a few years ago for the same reason. I don't like the idea of America having any form of hate crime. As long as it's your flag burning, and you didn't steal it to burn it, I say, well, don't catch the drapes on fire.

These same people find it incredible to see the ads for cable boxes that it would be illegal to actually use or anything.

I find it incredible that these people so willingly lay down for their government restrictions and control. Controlling the tv stations? Taxing up to like 50%, and then basing benefits on *not* working (Sweden)? Telling you what political opinions you can have? When I recite these lists of restrictions, I start to have a little understanding for where the outlaw militias in the States are coming from, intellectually speaking.

So, any Euro's out there who wish to respond on whether they like their monarchical descended governmental attitudes? Honestly, in America, if you even proposed some of the restrictions I hear about from some of these visitors, your office would have to rent a separate room just for the hate mail.

[Cardinal]

Cessandra, that's exactly what I meant to be saying. If you hadn't said anything, I would have assumed that my flippant attempt to show my worldly sophisticatin had gone horribly aray (which I know is spelled wrong, but it's midnight, and I'm having a complete mental block so that I can't even find it in the dictionary). Is not Msr. the abbreviation for Monsieur? Did I forget *everything* from high school French?

I thought the points about security clearences and communism were well made. When the consequences are so high, *civil rights* and such start to lose their grip on the top of even the American hierarchy of principles.

I find myself being very American. That German kid I mentioned also had problems with all the Turks moving in. Not because they were dark, but because they had a different culture and because "Islam says that anyone who dies fighting for Islam will go straight to paradise." Thus meaning that it lends itself readily to extreme reactions to percieved threats. A charge that has been made in many other places.

But I told him, you're not going to get an American like me to support your attempts to keep your culture "pure" or whatever. I refuse to define myself as anything but an individual for the most part, because I end up wishing to distance myself from large parts of most every group, even my religion (and sometimes *especially* my religion).

Also, it's going to be centuries before the rest of the world doesn't have an automatic reaction to any sentence with the words, "German," "immigrant," "culture," and "resentment" in it. Watch it there, bub. Your history (well, not yours individually, but there is such a thing as the demonstration of a culture's beliefs over time) is not the cleanest, in the way that Half Dome is not a rock for the kids to play on in the backyard.

From my OP: "I don't like the idea of America having any form of hate crime."

I meant to say thought crime. Hate crimes are a different issue I don't really feel like getting into right now, although I'd have to say that I do tend to lean that way on that issue, but I haven't thought about it enough to really say much.

A small point: "Isn't this terribly ironic? Aren't these militas in the wrong country? Members of the
outlaw militias believe the Federal government is already oppressive and overbearing,
and often believe it should be overthrown. Talking like this and stockpiling guns would
get you arrested in the blink of an eye in most European countries, but it's legal here. "

Just because there are more freedoms here in this regard than in somewhere else doesn't make it "free enough." It's always possible that the person who is the more extreme of the two still isn't going far enough.

I just reminded myself: What is it with the "Euro" attitude toward guns? I mean that I honestly don't understand what the facts are. There have to be quite a number of hunting rifles through Europe, but they consider American gun laws to be clucked at. Do you have to jump through three hoops of fire and be married to the p.m.'s daughter to own a pistol? I realize that I'm lumping together quite a number of governmental systems here, but is there a general pattern? (And you should hear real Africans react with derision at the American tendency to say things like "African colors" or, and yes, it's actually said, "The African flag." Just comes to mind when talking about lumping disparate peoples together.)

[NanoByte]

I was born and grew up in this country, but I take a similar view of it to that expressed by JRK. . .all except as to the ACLU. I was a member of the ACLU years ago. It has degraded into pretty much just another politically correct special-interest group, just politically correct interests, not the corporate special interests. I've been to ACLU meetings; there has been a very wide generation gap there. I have corresponded with them on legal points; they just make up the rules they want, and which their special interests support -- and lie like hell about the law, just like any other lawyers.

The death penalty is about the worst aspect of this country. However, an even worse one is that cops can chase any fugitive at any speed they can reach at any time of day under any traffic or weather conditions, no matter what information they have or don't have on why the fugitive is fleeing, or anything else about the fugitive. If, in the process, they kill half a dozen completely innocent bystanders/bydrivers, they simply charge the fugitive with a murder in each case, and nobody can have any recourse against them or their jurisdiction, so long as that jurisdiction has certain irrational legal double-talk written into its codes. This is particularly true in CA-US.

I think legally defense contractors can ask about having been a member of any communist party (there are or were at least two in the US), though maybe they technically are supposed to refer to such parties as ones which advocate overthrow of the US. This would be so that they can later more easily get a security clearance for you, not because you are, on hiring, applying for one.

I thought the standard abbreviation for 'Monseur' as simply 'M.'. Checking with my dictionary, that's what it says.

Diceman's description of the Los Alamos national-security problem centered on a Taiwanese-born Chinese-American employee is sick. The employee apparently just violated some security standards; he didn't "sell" anything to China. The CIA is now bragging that, in the process of checking this stuff out, they got more secret info from China than China did from us. . .whatever mathematics you use to calculate such things.

I totally don't understand the controlling attitude toward guns in private hands in this country, particularly relative to most European views. I think all the gun nuts here, including all Libertarian Pary members, should go hunting in the manner of the Springfield, OR kid who survived the school shootout in that town. He just went hunting with his brother and was promptly shot to death accidentally by his brother. Any gun a private individual wants to own should be left at his rifle range. Tonight's TV says 3000 guns sold by police recently have turned up as those used in crimes. Chicago's angry because some came from Miami. CA-US and FL dump their criminals in each other's state. It's all fun and games, but the games are almost never aimed at making the place safer, only providing more fun and games.

Beyond its natural resources, the US is a great country. . .only on many pieces of paper, supplied by clear-cutting the continent's forests.

Ray

Drug test: SUCKS!!! However, you have the right to refuse, and they have the right to refuse to hire you because of it. Nobody's real rights are being violated. I think most drug testing is ludicrous, especially since it doesn't usually cover alcohol, but I do like knowing the pilots and other folks responsible for the safety of others are not drug users.

Yes, our real rights are being violated. I don't like people poking around in my piss.
The attitude "if you don't like it, go elsewhere" is kind of ridiculous considering 98% of Fortune 500 companies now drug test.

Also, most drug tests DO test for alcohol, the problem being that alcohol only stays in your system for about 12 hours.

Cocaine, meth, and other stimulants stay in the system about a week or less.

Metabolites of THC stay are stored in the fat for up to a month, thereby putting marijuana users at a tremendous disadvantage when the cup is held up to their crotch.

And yet another point that could make you think twice about testing is that there are some drugs they just can't test for! You can drop 1000 mcg of LSD an hour before a drug test if you want, and it'll make no difference.

I can understand drug testing for occupations
where an inebriated person could put lives in danger, but I mean COME ON! It has gotten out of hand when you drug test an office worker. What's he gonna do? Drop a keyboard on his foot?

[Fyodor]

There isn't much employment related drug testing in Canada. Companies who tried to implement it found themselves in court. Drug testing is legislated for some critical jobs but generally Canada has resisted it as a human resources policy. One of the main arguments is the accuracy of the tests. The consequences are potentially so severe for a positive test (the complete destruction of careers and reputations) that even the squeeky clean are opposed.
Here's a logic concept :(I hope I get this right, you're a tough crowd). You have a test for something (X) that is 99% accurate and you are looking for X that occurs in 1% of the population. If someone tests positive how likely is it that they have X? 50/50. The test may be 99% accurate but the results are only 50/50. But as X increases in the population The test results become more reliable. If you have a vested interest in the War On Drugs industry you are going to encourage the spread of drug testing and you are going to encourage the belief that drug use is widespread throughout the population.
Nobody really has an accurate idea how many drug users there are in any group chosen for testing and this is a factor in the accuracy of the tests. Drug testing spreading beyond the military, airline pilots, etc. must be opposed to protect the very small minority that will be harmed by false results.

Dave Swaney:
The french abbreviations are:
M. Monsieur - as mentioned by another poster
Mme Madame
Mlle Mademoiselle
Don't let your spelling go awry!

Re: communism and defense job.

The point I'm trying to make is that, compared to Europe, the paranioa in the US surrounding communism is humorous. In Europe, the communist party is just another political party. The assumption in the US is that you cannot be a member of a communist party and be a loyal american at the same time. Why not? Why didn't they ask me if I was Jewish? Because then, I of course would automatically sell all my secrets to Israel.

A better question would be "Under what circumstances would you feel it appropriate to reveal defense secrets?" And if you think no one would answer that question in a way that would jeopardize their chance of getting a job, keep in mind that someone intending to spy would not reveal that they were a communist anyway.

Nanobyte said:
It has degraded into pretty much just another politically correct special-interest group, just politically correct interests, not the corporate special interests.

Then why do they defend the Ku Klux Klan's right to have parades?

Beadalin says:
My guess is that the questions you listed refer to legal activities, whereas a drug test is to find out if you engage in an illegal behavior.

One of the questions I mentioned was "Why don't they ask me if I'm gay". The latest information I have says that approximately 19 states still have laws criminalizing sodomy. So then it should be acceptable for a company to ask me if I'm gay? My argument is that my company has no business knowing if I smoke pot on the week-end. If it's for safety reasons, then why don't they ask about alcohol?

------------------
Jacques Kilchoer
Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains.

That German kid I mentioned also had problems with all the Turks moving in. Not because they were dark, but because they had a different culture and because "Islam says that anyone who dies fighting for Islam will go straight to paradise."

Also, note that the attitude from that German kid is also widely held in the United States. Most of the movies that show terrorists attacking the USA have the terrorists portrayed as muslims. After the Oklahoma City bombing, the local Arab-American Friendship association in my county received many hostile phone kills, e.g. "I hope all your children die."

------------------
Jacques Kilchoer
Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains.

[Boris B]

Dave SwaneyAs a libertarian-leaning American, I defend openly Nazi's rights to be complete buttheads in the space of their own minds, as long as it doesn't bring itself into illegal activity (a likely story).
I hope no one will mind if I make a constrasting point to the one I made above about Europe and the U.S. having broadly different political philosophies. (I still think that point is true but I'm going to put it bed for a while.) Now I'm going to make the point that the difference may be quite a bit narrower, and lie in the definition of treason.

The OP makes the point that membership in any party is okay as long as it doesn't lead to illegal activities. The same is true in Germany, only their definition of "illegal" is broader. So the real question is, what is illegal? "Treason" is illegal everywhere, but its definition can range from "only giving aid and comfort to the enemy" to "making fun of the Mayor".

I don't know of any country where crimes are limited to physical actions; in Germany, this can include advocacy of crimes, and plenty of things the Nazi want to do are blatantly illegal. In the U.S., advocacy of crime is not a crime itself, but conspiracy is - and conspiracy is still just a state of mind. I don't think either counts as a thought crime in the Orwellian sense ... the Germans just cast their nets a little wider than we Yanqs do.

[Koxinga]

Say that I'm a German, I'm not a member of any neo-Nazi party, but I genuinely believe that the Holocaust didn't take place and I tell people so--in print, on the Internet, or talking on the streetcorner. It's my understanding that I would be prosecuted for merely touting such an opinion.

If I'm right, isn't that a qualitative difference between Germany and the US? Maybe "advocacy of a crime" and "conspiracy to commit a crime" is (arguably) only a difference of degree, but being prosecuted for just saying you don't believe something--isn't that thoughtcrime in the purest sense?

DHR

[Boris B]

Well if you're right, Doghouse Reilly, then my last point is wrong. I've never heard that you could be prosecuted for disbelief in the Holocaust in Germany. However, I'm totally out of my depth here. All I know about is the political party stuff.

Good point, in any case.

[Andy]

It certainly is a crime in Germany to deny that the Holocaust occured.

Some of my 'european' (i don't consider myself european, i'm British) observations....
The complete obsession with the American flag, there are thousands of them everywhere! Is this in case people forget what it looks like?
The shock/horror/surprise when some gunman shoots someone/some people....you want guns, live with the consequences.
Senate rejects nuclear test ban treaty...great signal to the rest of the world.
Position on China...condemn human rights...renew most favoured nation trading status every year (since Reagan?)
Almost laughable in approach to Cuba...David and Goliath?
'World' Series in baseball.
Oklahoma City bombing...step forward McVeigh, young white american, not the expected Arab terrorist.
Obsession with labelling and further dividing community into African/Polish/Irish/Mexican etc Americans. In my country, people are British, in France they are French, simple.
These are just observation, i don't mean to insult anybody.
I do expect a list ten times the length of this one to be compiled with all the faults we have.

[Moonshine]

Ooops, prepare a spot in the BBQ pit!

Having lived all over in Europe and North America (erm, Canada, hang head in shame) I can confirm Android's view that sometimes these things do look peculiar to Europeans, just as all that obsession with old stuff probably looks peculiar to North Americans. And how 'bout that warm English beer!

Going back to the OP, there really is a big difference in thinking on both sides of the Atlantic about how much the State should take care of its citizens and suck up the additional cost/ loss of freedoms on the one hand (ie high taxes in return for universal health care), and how much liberty to allow, with the knowledge that it may be abused on the other (ie freedom to own guns with the occasional massacer). Mind you, from what I've seen opinions are just as divided within countries as they are between countries.

[Momotaro]

In my opinion, android209, this is your most interesting remark:

"i don't consider myself european, i'm British"

I never did understand that one. I'm slowly beginning to, though. I live in Japan, and I know of a few Japanese who don't consider themselves Asian, but it's still pretty wierd when I hear that.

[Koxinga]

It certainly is a crime in Germany to deny that the Holocaust occured.

Wouldn't it be ironic if the Germans held book-burnings to get rid of all tomes that deny the Holocaust?

BTW, in all the years since I took German, my favorite song has been "The Thoughts Are Free" (excuse my poor transliteration):

Die Gedanken sind frei, wer kann sie erraten?
Sie fliegen vorbei, wie naechliche Schatten.
Kein Mann kann sie wissen, kein Jaeger erschiessen,
Mit Pulver und Blei
Die Gedanken sind frei.

Ich denke was ich will, und was mich bedeutet,
Doch alles in der Still, wo niemand erschicket;
Mein Wunsch und Befehren kann niemand verfehren,
Es bleibet dabei,
Die Gedanken sind frei.

That's all I remember, and I'm sure I've made some mistakes. I'll translate in a later post if anyone's interested, but I'm sure there's some native German speakers out there who can do a better job than I could. I'd like to know if this is a well-known song in Germany?

DHR

-------------------------

[Ilsa kisses Indy] That's how Austrians say "goodbye". [Leaves room]

[Nazi steps in front of the chair] And this is how we say "goodbye" in Germany, Dr. Jones! [Punches him in face]

[Shirley Ujest]

Ohh, all this talk of Germans and here I am. I can't get away from them......

Another interesting point that I discovered whilst in Germany 2 years ago regarding the Turks. In the In laws small (15,000) home town in northern Germany nearly everyone who lives there hates the Turks. Being the outsider (and relying on hubby the translator) the hatred was the fact that the Turks were coming into Germany and taking jobs away from the the germans and were not as anal clean as the krauts like it. Nothing was brought up about religion. Hell, half of the inlaws in Germany only attend services at holiday time.

BTW, if I understand this correctly, in Germany you automatically belong to the Church ( I'm fairly sure Lutheran, but this again, is based on a small town views and there were no other kinds of churches in the area. Maybe in the southern, more Catholic section of Germany it's different.) and you have to pay your dues to them whether or not you go. If you don't ( this is where I get really fuzzy in detail) and you die, they can refuse to do your service at your funeral. (I learned this interesting segment during a drinking game, so it's a bit blurry.)

Interesting story sorta off track but to show you the difference in how WE think to how THEY think. When we were in Germany 2 years ago in this very quiet little farming town, there was a big uproar of a 16 year old kid trying to rob a younger 14 (?)kid of his money so he could buy drugs. The younger kid had a knife ( not a larger " Now THATS a knife" knife, but probably a Swiss army blade type) on him and protected himself and basically garrotted the older boy. ( He was in the hospital for months after the attack.) The cops arrested the 14 year old and he was in jail for several days and everyone we talked to agreed this 14 year old should go to jail for trying to kill this older kid. I blinked when I figured this out in the translation, I mean, this younger kid was defending himself fer cryin' out loud. Hubby and I just shook our head and said, " If what we are told is true and this 14 year old did defend himself, he should go free." The kid eventually did and the locals were in an uproar about it. I dunno, maybe the krauts just think anyone they really don't like or any rule breaker should be imprisioned for life.

------------------
Everyone wants to save the world, but no one wants to help Mom with the dishes.-P.J. O'Rourke

[Andy]

Momotaro, i'll try and elaborate a little...
I certainly am European from an American pespective, when it's used as a way to describe my geographic origin...but in Europe itself, many people describe themselves as european over and above their own nationality (this is particularly common among Italians). I could never, ever subscribe to this theory...i suppose this is intrisically linked to the momentum within europe to create a United States of Europe, which i dislike.
When you hear things like this....
"The process of monetary union goes hand in hand, must
go hand in hand, with political integration and ultimately
political union. EMU is, and always was meant to be, a
stepping stone on the way to a united Europe"

Wim Duisenburg

Imagine how the average American would like to have their highest court in, say, Mexico, their central bank in Canada and the inability to vote for or against the legislative executive. I hate it. But i'm probably in the minority in the UK in terms of strength of feeling, although very few feel any warmth towards the EU.

Die Gedanken sind frei, wer kann sie erraten?
Sie fliegen vorbei, wie naechliche Schatten.
Kein Mann kann sie wissen, kein Jaeger erschiessen,
Mit Pulver und Blei
Die Gedanken sind frei.

Ich denke was ich will, und was mich bedeutet,
Doch alles in der Still, wo niemand erschicket;
Mein Wunsch und Befehren kann niemand verfehren,
Es bleibet dabei,
Die Gedanken sind frei.


Thoughts are free, who can guess them?
The fly over, like nightly shadows.
No man can know them, nu hunter can shoot them
With powder and lead;
Thoughts are free.

I think what I want, and what impoorts to me;
But all in silence, where no one can spy on me;
No one can forbid my wishes and desires,
Therefore it remains,
that thoughts are free.

I had to dust off my high-school german for that one! Though it seemed to me that some of the words were wrong, so I did a search.

The song (and a translation) can also be found at
Die Gedanken sind frei (http://www.oac.uci.edu/indiv/franklin/doc/DieGedanken/L.Cohen.html)

That site claims it's a Leonard Cohen song.

------------------
Jacques Kilchoer
Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains.

BTW, if I understand this correctly, in Germany you automatically belong to the Church ( I'm fairly sure Lutheran, but this again, is based on a small town views and there were no other kinds of churches in the area. Maybe in the southern, more Catholic section of Germany it's different.) and you have to pay your dues to them whether or not you go. If you don't ( this is where I get really fuzzy in detail) and you die, they can refuse to do your service at your funeral.

Same thing in Switzerland. The government automatically sends part of your tax money to either the Catholic or the Protestant church in your neighbourhood. You can have yourself declared as a member of another religion (or an atheist), and then no money would be taken away for church donations. Presumably then, when you go see the local priest for a religious service, he could say "I thought you were an atheist!" In practice, the priest would probably assume you are "repenting" and would help you out.


------------------
Jacques Kilchoer
Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains.

[KentT]

Sweden only recently separated church and state, so anyone born before 1990 was automatically a member of the church. All members pay a church tax of about 1% (of a total 30% income tax), and for that they have access to the church for weddings/funerals and so on at no cost.

If you want to, you can just leave the chruch. Which I have by the way, as I consider myself a devout atheist. Nowadays I even refuse to so much as set my foot in a church.

That said, I would like to point out that the people in Sweden are probably the least religious in the world even though 90% are members of the church.

I have never personally known anyone who actually practices religion nor have I ever heard god/religion mentioned in politcs.

Christian tradition is common but religion is not.

[matt_mcl]

I just reminded myself: What is it with the "Euro" attitude toward guns? I mean that I honestly don't understand what the facts are.

I can only speak for the Canadian attitude towards guns, but it may have something to do with the fact that 1) our *per capita* murder rate is one quarter of the American rate; and 2) last year guns were used in fewer murders than knives. It seems to be working.

[matt_mcl]

I'd also like to say that I diverge with my government in saying that I don't think any type of speech should be forbidden. Not Nazis, not homophobes, nobody. Because the second your government tells you what you are permitted and forbidden to know, no matter how pure the motives, they're setting themselves up to do this with any idea.

Besides, with exceptions such as "I'm going to kill you" or "Fire!", which are not really ideas or arguments, one's point of view is incapable of harming anyone as long as it stays a point of view.

I mean, I'm gay, and I can sit there and listen to Fred Phelps all the day long if I so choose without having any harm done to me. (Of course, if he or anyone else lays a finger on me their ass is grass.)

As someone once said, "I've never heard of anything so dangerous we can't even *talk* about it!"

This of course goes double for sex, debatably the target of the world's silliest censure. I mean come on, you can show someone on TV getting killed, but not getting fucked? What is that?

[KentT]

I find it incredible that these people so willingly lay down for their government restrictions and control.

Some government control is necessary.

Controlling the tv stations?

I think you're confusing Europe with the former Soviet states.

We have BOTH state television/radio funded by TV/Radio-licences and commercially funded tv/radio where the latter are the lion's share. The reason for this is mainly to ensure diverse programming, state owned channels (there are two) have fixed percentages for entertainment/news/culture/educational and so on.

But this issue goes mainly to freedom of speech, and I think we have plenty of it. Despite what you might think all forms of media censorship is illegal.

It was only a few years ago that possession of child pornography was outlawed, and that required a fairly extensive constitutional change. Not because we condone it in anyway but because any restrictions on freedom of information is taken VERY seriously.
(Note: Sale/Purchase/Distribution/Production/Public Display of Child Pornography has "always" been illegal)

Furthermore our government can't keep much information about its citizens, no political opinions may be registered for instance.

Taxing up to like 50%, and then basing benefits on *not* working (Sweden)?

I don't quite understand what you mean.

Telling you what political opinions you can have?

I assume you're referring to nazism, which by the way is not illegal in Sweden, probably because we weren't directly involved in WW2. The countries that adopted anti nazi laws were either those countries who feared nazism or more often those who were ashamed of it. This is more of a desperate attempt to prevent history from repeating itself than to restrict political thinking. I don't think you fully understand the effect the nazis had on europe.

Besides, McCarthy's anti-communism wasn't all that democratic. The difference is that nazism is inherently undemocratic and violent, "evil" if you will. Communism is not. Also Europe had seen the effects of nazism at home, they had every reason to fear it.

[Moonshine]

The Slippery Slope argument re Germans making naziism illegal has plkainly held no water, as the state has forbidne those views for the last 50 years, but not forbidden others. It is very difficult to understand the German attitude towards the extreme right if you haven't lived there and seen how deeply rooted the national guilt is, even in younger Germans who really didn't have anything to do with it and have no recollection of the war. The only parralel I can think of is the view that people had of militias a few years ago, as a bunch of nuts running around the couuntryside with guns, playing wargames and putting on cammoflague paint and stuff; a bit nutty but basically harmless. Now that these militas have proved themselves not to be so harmless after all people are becoming much more concerned about them. Now imagine that one of these militias had plunged your country into war with the entire world, killed half its own people and been the instigator of a horrific genocide which guilt and responsibility, because you share a birthplace, is yours by association. It began becaus people with those opinions were tolerated, and the first priority is to make sure it never happens again; the freedom to hold whatever half-baked ideas you want to hold only comes second. I know the analogy isn't strictly speaking accurate, but its the best I can do.

[Koxinga]

It began becaus people with those opinions were tolerated, and the first priority is to make sure it never happens again; the freedom to hold whatever half-baked ideas you want to hold only comes second.

I think it may be tragic if that really is the rationale behind such freedom of speech restrictions, because to me they only seem to be fostering what they try to prevent. It wasn't toleration of "people with those opinions" that led to the Third Reich: it was the existing auhoritarian tendencies of the German state (at least until Versailles) and the German people's conditioning of obedience that allowed to Nazis to impose such a horrific regime once they did take over. And treating all citizens like children, with the state deciding what "half-baked ideas" they should be allowed to play with, only encourages authoritarianism and the cult of obedience.

The Slippery Slope argument re Germans making naziism illegal has plkainly held no water, as the state has forbidne those views for the last 50 years, but not forbidden others.

After fifty years, those kraut bastards STILL DON'T GET IT. "Die Gedanken sind frei"--until the German state and the German people understand that, and understand that violation of this principle was their first and primary crime, the crime whence all others came, then the world still won't trust them even after another 1,000 years.

DHR

[Koxinga]

Sorry for using the term "kraut bastards"--composed in the heat of the moment.

DHR

[Cardinal]

[quote]I assume you're referring to nazism, which by the way is not illegal in Sweden[\quote]

Well, I do distinctly remember reading a few years ago about two American teenagers who were arrested for making the Nazi salute at a punk concert. It would never occur to American kids that making a gesture could be illegal. Isn't this gesture illegal there? If so, there's not a lot of difference in my mind between that and the party being illegal. It's still making "thoughts," or allegiences, a crime.

As for the tv stations, I'm referring more to things like the Sex Pistols not getting their singles on the radio because the BBC *was* radio in Britain, and they absolutely refused to do so. When the government controls the means of information dissemination, there's going to be a price paid. Everyone wants to preserve their position, and monarchical governments do not have the best historical record of encouraging or tolerating dissent.

[quote]The OP makes the point that membership in any party is okay as long as it doesn't lead
to illegal activities. The same is true in Germany, only their definition of "illegal" is
broader. So the real question is, what is illegal? "Treason" is illegal everywhere, but its
definition can range from "only giving aid and comfort to the enemy" to "making fun of
the Mayor".[\quote]

This is not the case, clearly. It is *illegal* to *advocate* the Nazi party in Germany. It is also illegal to be historically wrong and say that the Nazis didn't mean to kill all those people, they just did a bad job of running the camps. These are clearly thought crimes.

Treason is illegal everywhere, because it is an action. The only thing in America that comes even close to being a thought crime is advocating violent overthrow of the elected government. In America, I can say, should I be so sociopathic, "Let's kill all the lawyers! I mean, let's really kill all the lawyers! Let's elect a govenment that will pass a law that will make being a lawyer a death penalty offense!"

Note that I did not actually plan to personally kill anyone, and that I planned to do it only if I could get the populace to actually elect a government that would authorize the actions. To prevent by law the advocation of a view for the government to hold is clearly making a thought crime.

I've been holding off, but really, this is too easy. "Making fun of the Mayor?" This is your example of things that are illegal, but aren't thought crimes? Also, fairly implicit in this whole paragraph is an inconsistant thought. The German government lets you join any party and advocate what you want, as long as you don't do anything illegal, oh, which by the way, can include saying certain things, holding certain opinions, joining certain political parties, and making certain gestures.

Other than the restrictions, they don't have any restrictions. Or, the only illegal things are the ones that are illegal. And they get to decide which things those are.

[Cardinal]

Ya know, I thought I understood this quote thing. I even went back and tried to find the info on writing the code. Couldn't find it. What the heck is it?

[Ringo]

You should be using a forward slash at the end quote instead of a backslash.

[Monty]

Boris: the number one reason our military stays out of politics (to the extent of a coup de estate (sp?)) is that most of us, and especially our leaders, take the oath and constitution seriously.

That is not the case in countries whose leaders have traditionally used "the divine right of kings" as their reason for being in charge.

[Lawrence]

Somewhat off the original post, but related to the thread. In Spain:

Burning the Spanish flag is illegal.

Inciting racial violence is illegal, though I'm not sure how thoroughly this is applied. There is a Nazi bookstore here in Barcelona that supplies racist material to much of Europe. It is still open, though the government has taken steps to close it down. The case has been in the courts for years.

It is illegal to insult the King or the royal family. It is legal to criticize him, however, and I've heard of no cases of anyone actually tried for lese-majesté. Still, the press and the political parties walk on tiptoes when dealing with the King.

If an investigating magistrate believes he has serious grounds to suspect you of a crime, you can be held in "preventative prison". If you have money, your lawyers will find some kind of way to get you out eventually. If not, not. We've seen this come up recently in the fraud cases of Mario Conde and Javier de la Rosa, high-rolling Michael Milken types with political connections, and in the cases of government ministers like Jose Barrionuevo and Rafael Vera, involved in anti-terrorist death-squads. Those guys all kept bouncing in and out of jail before trial. Guys without the high profile just sit there and wait.

The libel and slander laws are much tougher than in the US. Pedro Pacheco, a politician, got thrown in the slam for calling one of his opponents a "crook".

We have 6 broadcast TV stations here in Barcelona. Two are run by the Spanish government, two by the Catalan government, and two are in private hands. The government-owned stations are generally considered to manipulate coverage in favor of the party in power. Very recently the Socialist Party timed the relative coverage given on the govt-owned news to various politicians. Eight of the most-covered pols belonged to the Popular Party, in power. Only one was Socialist, the opposition party.

You can own a long gun for hunting or target shooting, but it has to be registered and you have to have a licence, which is not easy but not impossible to get. Pistols are very difficult to obtain legally but available on the black market if you have plenty of cash and the necessary connections. Petty criminals usually can't get pistols, but the real professionals can.

The death penalty has been illegal since the death of Franco.

Discrimination on the basis of age is not only not illegal, but encouraged. The government gives tax breaks to companies who hire workers under 30 or over 50. Unemployment is about 15%. This makes it hard for you to find a new job if you lose yours and you fall into the 30-50 bracket. Sex discrimination is technically illegal but widespread...want ads openly call for "girls under 30" or "men".

Prostitution and drugs are illegal but tolerated. The police bust big-time dealers and traffickers and pimps, but leave hookers and users alone. I guess if you shoot up in front of the police station, they'll run you in.

Pornography is widespread and open. Right there at your newsstand you have the daily papers, the newsmagazines, and stuff imported from Sweden with titles like "Dopplefick". Extreme violence and softcore sex are common on TV. I remember seeing "Reservoir Dogs" on one of the government channels at the dinner hour, and one of the private stations specializes in B-grade kung fu flicks and Italian shoot-em-ups.

Spanish is the official language and the Constitution says that it is the duty of every citizen to know it.

[Lawrence]

I know I'm being long-winded, but a few other points that I'd forgotten. In Spain:

The Roman Catholic Church is the established church and the government gives it some funding every year, which mostly goes to church-run charities and schools. There's a check-off box on your income tax form, so you can say if you want a few bucks of your tax money to go to the Church or not. Most people check yes. The Church really doesn't have too much power anymore.

Gay rights is not nearly as big an issue as it is in the US. Here gays are tolerated and generally left alone--there's kind of a "what you do is none of my business" attitude among most straights, which is reciprocated by a lack of "in-your-face" attitude among gays.

Immigrants, mostly black African and North African, are none too popular, though there aren't many of them. There was a nasty little race riot in Terrassa, a suburb of Barcelona, a couple of months ago. Gypsies are widely discriminated against.

I have never heard of anyone except professional athletes getting drug-tested in Spain.

Everyone has "free" health care. Well, it costs me 8% of my monthly paycheck, which my employer has to match, which is a lot more than I'd pay for health insurance in the US. Dental is not included and neither is anything they determine to be "optional", which includes prostheses. Then again, I'm also paying for widows and orphans and stuff. Everyday care is lousy, but emergency care is excellent.

[ruadh]

In my country, people are British, in France they are French, simple.

ha, too bad my Scottish Nationalist roommate is out of town, this could be fun :)

Seriously though android. It is true that Americans tend to identify with our ancestors' homelands more than Europeans do. But things aren't quite as simple over there as you put it. You aren't just British; you're English, Welsh, Scottish; I hear there's a Cornish movement coming back as well. I know at least some Scottish who don't consider themselves British.

Meanwhile in France there are Bretons, Basques and Catalans, amongst others. I know of Bretons who don't consider themselves French; the Basques in France probably don't either, and dunno about the Catalans (I believe some of the Catalans in Spain don't consider themselves Spanish - Lawrence??)

Here, we might "label and divide" but we still all consider ourselves Americans.

[ruadh]

oh, except for the Texans, that is.

[nasargent]

One of the questions I mentioned was "Why don't they ask me if I'm gay". The latest information I have says that approximately 19 states still have laws criminalizing sodomy. So then it should be acceptable for a company to ask me if I'm gay? My argument is that my company has no business knowing if I smoke pot on the week-end. If it's for safety reasons, then why don't they ask about alcohol?

Frankly, it is perfectly legal for an employer to ask you if you are gay. The reasons most don't are:
they don't really care
they are afraid of a lawsuit

Even though asking if you are gay is legal (caveat, on a federal level it is legal, some state and local laws actually do prohibit it), someone who was not hired beacuse of sexual preference would likely find a lawyer to represent him or her and sue the dickens out of the company. Even though the company would probably win, they would have to hire their own lawyers to defend the suit. Further, there is some theoretical support for bringing such as lawsuit. Our federal civil rights laws protect people from job discrimination based on "sex." Some legal theorists believe that this probhibits discrimination against homosexuals. However, that is not the current view of the courts. If the Supreme Court wanted to expand the protection, conceivably they could by accepting an appeal of such a case and just making a ruling stating that "sex" extends to protect a person's sexual preferernce. Not that there is a lot of support for this view among jurists. Even if this interpretation were adopted, simply asking if you are gay would not break the law, but refusing to hire you because of it would.

As for smoking pot on the weekends, I personally agree that it's none of their business. However, an example is useful in showing why the companies care. Let's say you show up at the office stoned. First, you will probably be less productive than normal. Second, if you injure a coworker in your altered state, the coworker could sue the company on a negligence theory (e.g., negligent hiring, negligent supervision, negligent retention) and argue that the company should have known about your drug habit.

As for alcohol, most companies have policies that prohibit workers from using alcohol on the job or being drunk at work, for much the same reason.

[Moonshine]

Doghouse, "I think it may be tragic if that really is the rationale behind such freedom of speech restrictions, because to me they only seem to be fostering what they try to prevent."

You are correct, it is true that the Germans are more authoritarian than many other, so perhaps a different way of dealing with their past with a view to preventing it from happening again was called for? To date it has worked and extreme-right sentiment has remained in its kennel where it belongs, this particular restricition of free speech has certainly not fostered what it was designed to prevent, though if you have sources that say something else I'd be more than happy to have a look.

This is not to say that there are no incidences of neo-facism in Germany, however that is also true of England and France, both of whom have had members of more or less openly right-wing parties elected to their parliaments in the past. The incidence of such behaviour just seems higher in Germany because right-wingers in Germany make for better headlines than right-wingers anywhere else.

Germans believe in free speech as much as the next man, and nobody likes having the state tell them what to do. However the wholesale slaughter of several milion innocent people seems like a pretty good reason to try anything at all that might help prevent it reoccuring and the Germans themselves seem fine with giving up one tiny littel freedom to hold an opinion that most people find repugnant anyway, so where is the problem?

It is very easy to judge something that is so far away, historicaly as well as geographically, and to make fine claims for intellectual freedoms. However in the Holocaust we see that, under some circumstances, the consequences may be much much larger than anyone could imagine. Implying that the Germans' "cult of obediance" was somehow the root of the problem is condecending and very simplistic. Whenever I have seen war criminals held to account for their actions in court, whether they be German camp guards or French collaborateurs or whatever, it always strikes me just how much these men look like anybody else.

[Andy]

Ruadh, of course it was a simplistic answer. I think people are slowly withdrawing from a British identity to a more local identity, for me English/Lancastrian but, and this is the big difference, the goverment would never make this choice for me and start calling me British-Indian or whatever [i]they [i/] thought was appropriate.

[Lawrence]

Ruadh, good question. I live in Catalonia, which for simplicity's sake we'll divide into three parts: the city of Barcelona, the Barcelona industrial suburbs, and the countryside. Barcelona city is about half Catalan-speaking and half Spanish-speaking. The industrial suburbs are 90% Spanish-speaking (most people who live there moved up from southern Spain in the 50s and 60s), and the countryside is 90% Catalan-speaking. We just had elections yesterday, of all convenient things. About 10% of the people in all of Catalonia voted for ERC, which is the Catalan independence party and whose voters consider themselves only Catalan, not Spanish at all. About 40% of the votes went to Convergence and Union, the Catalan nationalist but not pro-independence party. I'd guess that about one-fourth of the Convergence voters would also like to see an independent Catalonia and that most of the rest consider themselves more Catalan than Spanish. The other 50% of the votes went to parties that are not Catalan nationalist. So yeah, it's true that some Catalans consider themselves non-Spanish, and that there is a strong nationalist identity, but that many Catalans consider themselves to be Spanish as well as Catalan...and in the industrial suburbs, a lot of people consider themselves to be Spanish, not Catalan at all.

[ruadh]

I think people are slowly withdrawing from a British identity to a more local identity, for me English/Lancastrian but, and this is the big difference, the goverment would never make this choice for me and start calling me British-Indian or whatever [i]they [i/] thought was appropriate.

Where's the "big difference"? Our government doesn't either.

On the other hand apparently ticket sellers at Wembley get to decide who is English and who is Scottish :)

ps Thanks Lawrence.

[Isosleepy]

The Nazi related activities and expressions illegal in Germany are relatively well defined. I.e. you can hold and express views only marginally different, and be in compliance. The reason for making the Nazi related activities and expressions is a good one: after the war, part of the process of punishing at least some of the evil that was done was declaring various Nazi organizations illegal (done by allied war tribunals) A lot of current German laws find their roots in that. Also, I imagine when the allieds decided to let (west) Germany become an independent country again, they wanted some reassurance that they would not have to fight that same war again, making some of these laws a necessary part of the new country's constitution. Germany has enforced these pretty strictly probably for two reasons: First, to be able to normalize and tighten relationships with the rest of Europe, which eyed Germany with understandable wariness. (And still does, we liked Germany a whole lot better when there were two of them) Second, out of a sense of shame. Imagine if it was not just your countrymen 7 generations ago that held slaves, but your actual parents and neighbours. Political correctness would go a whole lot further than the currently much debated quotas and reverse discrimination.

[Cardinal]

Iso makes a good point. I understand why the situation exists, considering the way the Allied conquerors would have felt about letting the warmongers they just defeated to remain around. I don't really blame countries like France being nervous about a unified Germany, especially if it ever had a uptick in Nazi activity. Maybe this isn't the same as the BBC kind of stuff I was mentioning earlier.

I think it still remains true, though, that European countries place more restrictions on the populations. There are still remnants of the monarchy/feudal system there, if I see things correctly.

Someone else pointed out that for a bit it was for practical purposes illegal to be a Communist in America. If not arrested, one certainly could be a social outcast, fired, and placed under intense scrutiny from org.s like the FBI.

[ruadh]

Android: so what? Clinton isn't giving these groups a label that they don't already use to describe themselves.

I've heard Tony Blair refer specifically to Scots and Welsh, too.

[Andy]

Ruadh...it seems different to me...maybe though, i just accept so easily the age old divisions we have but find it harder to accept such reinforcements when they seem to further divide along ethnic grounds. To me, the division of the British into the Scots/English/Welsh is of no consequence (we know we are very different) whereas here in the US, it seems at the very least unhelpful. It's not very convinving i know, but that's the way it appears to me.

[Andy]

Ruadh, the big difference is that i have heard Clinton use, on many occasions, the phrases African/Mexican/Italian etc Americans....