It seems like you have completely missed the earlier debate. As the constitution is applied in Sweden at the moment, the government is not allowed to do that. Likewise, while the freedom of the press does not cover everything, the Swedish government is prohibited against acting against any publication even if it is in violation of the FotP. It lies with the courts to handle such issues.
Of course, the Israeli government is not bound by Sweden’s constitution, so they can whine all they want, but they won’t get what they’re asking for.
If you quote the section to which you wish to reply, we will presume that you are not going to reply to the unquoted sections. This sort of comment is not necessary as it promotes even more personal hostility.
Telling other posters to “shut up” is provocative and unnecessarily hostile.
It is a rare day in this country, for example, that some politician, government entity or private individual (I’m looking at you, Rick Pitino) does not lambaste the news media for publishing/airing some news or opinion that is allegedly misleading, false, libelous, demagogic or bad in some way or other, demanding retractions/opportunity to respond, and no one gripes that they are attacking the institution of a free press (except for occasional martyr-like hints of such from the media involved). That’s just silly.
Sweden and Israel have both come off rather badly in this incident - Sweden for backtracking on an expression of regret and Israel for overdoing the angst directed at Sweden as a nation. I think such an article would have been ignored coming from an Arabic nation, as such tripe is all too common in what passes for the press in those countries. What blew a gasket in Tel Aviv was seeing it come out of a civilized Western nation. Better for Israel to just issue a calm recitation of the true facts (if any response was needed) and let it drop.
Oh, and regarding that old whine, repeated here, about how “you can’t criticize Israel without being called an anti-Semite”, that takes me down memory lane when one of our former board members was going on in this vein, and I asked him for examples of any commentators, groups or politicians who’d unjustly shot down criticism of Israel in this manner. His response was to bring up that very cartoon I linked to earlier in this thread - the one of a gigantic figure of Ariel Sharon eating a Palestinian baby (and which critics had labeled anti-Semitic/blood libel imagery).
Gee, it’s awful how such perfectly rational and reasonable critiques of Israel get silenced by charges of bigotry. :(:dubious:
Not only did I not miss the debate I saw quite clearly that nobody was able to back up that claim that the actual Constitution says nothing of the sort and that Swedish politicians have disagreed over how to interpret the Constitution, etc… You, in turn, pointed to the Committee on the Constitution and how they do not, in fact, function as a court and can make recommendations but cannot decide that a politician has violated constitutional law, even if they recommend that he or she be prosecuted for such.
And as I noted, there is absolutely nothing that actually curtails the actions of the press to have a citizen, governmental employee of otherwise, express personal aesthetic displeasure. It’s an absurdity to suggest that an explicit support of freedom of the press coupled with personal, subjective aesthetic disapproval in any way actually contradicts the Swedish Constitution.
If we’re going to frame this debate accurately, it’s not about the Swedish Constitution, but about the Committee on the Constitution’s interpretations of some limited parts of it. And it’s not actually about freedom of the press, even a little bit, but the fairly idiosyncratic interpretation offered up by the Committee on the Constitution that seeks to redefine 'freedom of the press" into “the ability for the press to operate freely and also to avoid any sort of criticism at all from the government.” We can all play straight here without trying to make this about some sort of challenge to Sweden’s legal system or freedom of the press, because it isn’t about either.
Yes, but nobody has demanded such a thing, have they? They’ve said that they want an apology.
And seriously, let’s at least look at this situation accurately rather than taking everything at face value. We’ve already discussed how the Swedish government was seen apologizing over the original “Cartoon Crisis” but that they realized they were ‘wrong’ and decided not to do it again. Except of course when they did it again a couple years later.
Right. Though the comments by the Committee affects the future actions of the government. They will of course try to follow the guidelines as well as they can to avoid being referred there. Still, because of the Ambassador’s mistake they have already been referred there by the SocDems.
Why should the government apologize for what an independent paper prints?
I don’t remember the exact events surrounding this, but what did they “do again”? As far as I remember they didn’t apologize, but said more or less “sorry that you were offended”, which is more alike “sorry for your loss”, which doesn’t imply responsibility, just expresses understanding of their feelings. And for the record, that was a different administration.
What’s wrong with changing your behavior after being corrected?
To be, well, be diplomatic about it.
Of course they don’t have to.
Much like if the NY Times published something that said that 98% of Swedes are secret members of Neo-Nazi organizations, we might expect our ambassador to your country to say “Sorry, that’s a pretty disgusting accusation but of course we have no real recourse due to our laws about freedom of speech. You could always sue them for libel though.”
It’s a weak apology, but it’s an apology.
And, I wager, it would’ve done here. “We cannot take any steps against the paper in question due to our laws about freedom of the press, but we apologize if you found its content offensive and we do not endorse its accusations.”
Reinfeldt actually said something similar. I’d wager that a polite diplomatic message of that sort would have solved matters. Or, as others have pointed out, if Sweden’s stance from the very beginning had been “no comment” rather than having their official representative (an ambassador) apologize and then retract that apology.
Well, the first question is as to how much of a change has actually gone on or if it’s just rhetoric.
The second is as to how much sense the change makes in the first place.
The third is whether or not such a change would have anything to do with freedom of the press.
The fourth is whether or not such behavior contradicts Swedish law or a non-judicial non-enforceable opinion that seems to be contradicted by the actual text of the laws in question.
But, even if we decide that Sweden shouldn’t have acted diplomatically and offered an apology (and I’ve argued that Israel should have just let it slide), I think we can at least all admit that this isn’t any issue of freedom of the press or opposition to Sweden’s sovereignty. It’s a question about what the correct diplomatic response should be to issues of this sort, and nobody does the debate any service by trying to conflate this with freedom of the press, or what have you.
It might be the case that the constitution has been interpreted too strictly in this regard. However, my stance is still that the government should stay out of these matters. The Muhammed response was already a dangerous precedent that should be reversed, or the government might have to start commenting or apologizing for any crap that hits the newspapers that offends somebody, or risk being assumed to agree (like Israel now does).
I don’t think that Reinfeldt said anything of the apologizing kind in that article. While I disagree with the Muhammed response, they did comment on a clear intended insult – as it was a reprint of what already caused massive outrage – while these allegations are less blatant and would require a deeper analysis to condemn.
The article was mostly shit, but Israel supplied the storm. This could have gone away much more quietly and caused much less damage. Sweden also made mistakes, but I think Israel went way further out of line.
Well, I think that Reinfeldt’s statement was a very (very) tepid apology, or at the very least a restatement of his desire for multicultural peace and understanding. I’d think that something of the sort could have worked in this case, too.
"I think it’s important to say two things. First, we are eager to ensure that Sweden remains a country in which Jews and gentiles can live side by side in a spirit of mutual respect and we acknowledge the centuries long traditions and lingering problems of European anti-Semitism. We also consider Israel a friend and do not endorse the current claims made in the article in question.
We believe that we have come a very long way. I am responsible for making sure we continue down this road and take the initiative to further enhance this reciprocity and respect.
We are also eager to stand up for freedom of expression, which is enshrined in the constitution and comes naturally to us, and which ensures that we do not make political decisions about what gets published in the newspapers. I want to make sure we keep things that way,"
I also don’t think that the allegations in the article were any less blatant than the Mohammed cartoons, especially if we’re just looking at them as instances of libel. As for issues of blame, I don’t have my blame O’ meter handy at the moment.
I have not, in fact, implied anything about your intellect.
I have (among other things) correctly pointed out your ignorance of history and the false-to-facts claims you have made. As well as how a lack of knowledge about the historical points we were discussing has hampered your ability to accurately describe that time period. Further, I rebutted your claims with actual facts which you were unable or unwilling to address and which you ignored rather than modifying, retracting or defending your claims.
You can certainly attempt to defend your mistakes now if you’d prefer, and I can elaborate on the many reasons why a superficial understanding of history-in-soundbytes misses out on the essential details and why an overly simplistic gloss that ignores actual facts for a nifty sounding narrative retards rather than enhances understanding.
It doesn’t belong in 1409, rather it belongs in Egypt or Jordan 2009. Or alternatively on some obscure Internet site.
It surprises me that no Jewish hacker group has taken it upon themselves to crash the Aftonbladet site or other Swedish Internet sites. That seems to be the way to go these days.
By the way, I think that your earlier mockery suggestion was a good one, albeit one that should’ve been played out by private Israeli citizens rather than the government. Something like the Israeli Anti-Semitic Cartoon Contest, perhaps.
That, at least, had hilarious results.
I’m kind of at a loss for jokes here, though. A contest for the best recipe for Palestinian-kidney pie?
I’d wager that some people still wouldn’t get the joke.
I think that’s a lot of the shock value here. We, well, we expect this sort of behavior from some of the state run Arab media outlets. It becomes much more noticeable when a major and somewhat respectable (or at least, not Weekly World News level) European paper gets in on the act. While it certainly seems that it was just the work of the article’s author and the paper’s editor, it is worrisome that this sort of stuff might be making a resurgence in European nations.
We’ve already seen, in both America and Europe, a resurgence of the claims that Jews with different political opinions are traitors to their home nations, minions of global-Jewry whose views can be ignored because their prime loyalty doesn’t lie with their actual home, in any case. If people started claiming that, for instance, WASPs who supported NATO really had Dual Loyalty and were willing to sell out their home countries at the first sign it would benefit the UK, that idea would be ridiculed. The problem, of course, is that historically it hasn’t been a very far journey from “the Jews cannot be trusted” to “the Jews aren’t real citizens of our country.” to “the Jews are a pernicious, foreign influence on our nation.” to “Something Must Be Done!”
“Are you not aware of the events of the “Cartoon Crisis”, or do you just have a ‘woosh’ like noise ringing in your ears?”
No, you’ve expressed your opinion. I have disagreed with that opinion. You are not automatically right just because it is you.
I’m not sure I want to bother discussing it with someone that ignores the entire period between WW1 and WW2 when trying to discuss what the Nazis want to achieve.
Sir, it is not me that is lacking in his understanding of history.
And if that had even a tangential relationship to what’s actually happened in this thread, you might have a point.
Since it doesn’t, you don’t.
It’s rather disingeous to pretend that when I respond with actual facts, which you will not or can not address and go on to deliberately ignore, that I’m responding with my opinion. Even now, you will not or can not even address the facts I’ve brought to the table, and would prefer to act as if I only supplied you with opinion.
This silly obfuscation about how I’m correct because “I’m me” is just the cherry on top. Here’s a radical suggestion, if I’m wrong, why don’t you, ya know, show why? Instead of pointing to some ephemeral non-point about something you claim happened in Germany that, you claim, proves you right without having to actually be mentioned, why don’t you actually identify wtf you’re talking about and why it has anything to do with what I’ve said.
Unfortunately, this too bears no relationship to actual reality as far as I can tell. None at all. Pointing to vague references does not, in fact, counter actual facts. Nor have I said anything that contradicts what happened in Germany between WWI and WWII. And most importantly, you have only vaguely hinted at something I may possibly in your mind have said that would do so.
This is not how a debate is conducted.
If you claim I am wrong, go to the truly radical and herculean steps of at least trying to point out what in specific I am wrong about and using facts to point out why that is “Germany between the wars” is not, in fact, a fact nor a refutation. It is a time period.
Actually it is. As I’ve shown and you’ve been unable to refute, a fact you’ve pretty much tacitly admitted by a repeated use of ad hominem fallacies and non sequitur responses about Germany between the wars.
I’m sure that if you’d at least try to point out what you believe are some of the facts of the matter, I could point out the other ones you’re missing. So far the closest you’ve gotten is “stuff happened between WWI and WWII, so I am right”.
Already you’ve shown that you are totally wrong about:
-why WWII was fought
-what the UK’s official policy on helping the Jews was
-what the change was in the UK’s immigration policies after Kristallnacht
-what the UK’s official policy on helping the nascent state of Israel was
-how the state of Israel was created
-what the UK’s role was in the creation of the state of Israel.
Now, none of your errors are particularly well defended by nebulous claims that the period between WWI and WWII holds some secret information that proves you are right but that is too cool for you to actually mention.
So, again, would you prefer to retract your claims as false, modify them in order to achieve what you believe is an accurate position, or defend your claims as you have written them with something more substantial than “Germany WWI -> WWII!”
I consider it straying off topic and you’re views are, well shall we say we could have a really big argument. And I can’t be bothered with that.
I haven’t said any Jews at all have a persecution complex. I’ve said that you are doing a good job of having one for them. I have no idea what your ethnic background is, much like you know little of mine. You may be Jewish, you may not be. Hell, I could be.
But none of that matters to the discussion at hand.
For someone who moans about people using strawmen, you seem pretty fond of using them yourself.
The government official criticising an privately owned newspaper for what it prints goes against the very concept of a free press. Which is against the Swedish constitution. Which people are now in trouble for here in Sweden.
It doesn’t condemn the free press, but it damages the strength of the free press as a concept.
Well, I’m sure in the Nordic regions they know a bit more about it than you, seeing as according to Freedom House five of the top six freest presses in the world comes from the Nordics, with Sweden at joint fifth place. Sweden did substantially better than both the US and Israel, which may help explain why people in those countries are having such difficulty understanding the matter at hand.
Well we’ve got quite used to people from Israel, especially those in Government, throwing the word around as if it is the latest playground slang.
Well, apart from the foolishness of treating Europe like some kind of large politically homogenous zone, there is the fact that of course it bloody exists. As does all sorts of other “anti-” things. As they do in every other country. I’d put money on the Muslims getting a harder time of it than the Jews. I doubt there’s a country in the world where it is so bloody marvellous that no form of hatred goes on at all.
I’m sorry to break it to you, but there are a hell of a lot of people that disagree with you on that one.
Here’s a starter for you:
Except that isn’t a retraction. It is the removal. A retraction is an actual statement saying that the original point was incorrect and, possibly, offering a corrected version.
And I said, I am impressed as I didn’t realise you were a scholar of Swedish Constitutional Law. I’d rather leave in the hands of people who actually know what they are doing.
Anyway, no country has true freedom of expression, there’s always a limit. In the US the “shouting FIRE in a crowded theatre” example is often given, not to mention the comical levels of censorship seen on American broadcast TV, hell even basic cable. The UK has the Obscene Publications Act. Germany is very strict when it comes to violence. Many countries have laws criminalising Holocaust denial.
So the fact that Sweden has an official film censor is immaterial. If that means they have no freedom of expression then pretty much no western country does. As far as official censors go, they don’t seem to have much power. Apparently DVDs and videos don’t have to go past them and films for TV don’t have to either. Oh and film festivals as well.
Here we go again, making out that I am some sort of idiot. I’m not, I just disagree with you. Deal with it.
Advice you’d do well to follow yourself.
Two things. Firstly, they DID change things making it easier for Jews to enter the country. The law wasn’t brilliant, but every bit helps. I am sure that those that were saved due to it would have a rather different view to you, for example. I recommend reading up on what “Kindertransport” was. According to Wikipedia (which no doubt is horrendously wrong according to you) approximately 90,000 Jews were allowed to settle in the UK:
Yes, you can always do more, but to outright deny that the UK did anything is just quite simply wrong. WRONG. Do some reading.
Secondly, I asked you what they were supposed to do. Open their borders completely? You’d have to be very naïve to believe that something like that wouldn’t have a huge effect on the country and, arguably, on the war effort that in the end left the country pretty much bankrupt. Anyway, I don’t remember seeing an answer to that.
The amusing thing here is that you seem to want to lecture me on how wrong I always am, how little I know about history and whatnot, yet you also seem utterly incapable of accepting the fact that you may just be wrong occasionally yourself.
This forum is called “Great Debates”, not “Great Lectures”.
One more thing about Kindertransport. You asked me exactly what the UK did after Kristallnacht. Kindertransport was a direct response to Kristallnacht. As I said, read up on it.
Actually it was a whole post about your factual errors in response to your challenge that your nebulous non-claims about a vague claim of “something happened in Germany between WWI and WWII!”
I see you’re still ignoring all the factual refutations of your claims.
Yet again, your mistakes are:
-why WWII was fought
-what the UK’s official policy on helping the Jews was
-what the change was in the UK’s immigration policies after Kristallnacht
-what the UK’s official policy on helping the nascent state of Israel was
-how the state of Israel was created
-what the UK’s role was in the creation of the state of Israel.
Care to address them any time soon?
I’ve already addressed this. In a post directed to you. You ignored me last time I did. Now you’re repeating the same debunked talking point. Yet again, the fact that you ignore Britain effectively closing its immigration policy to Jewish refugees but allowing in approximately 1/5 of one percent of those who were butchered is… odd.
Do you not know what a strawman is or were you yet again wooshed at supersonic velocity?
Okay, so you have an idiosyncratic definition of free press. Fair enough. Of course, the actual definition is different. Freedom of the press means that the press can publish whatever it wants as it does not break the laws against libel. Freedom of the press does not mean that the press can print whatever it wants and public figures cannot have an opinion on the aesthetic quality of what was published.
Excellent bandwagon fallacy. (With wiki link!)
You want to discuss that bit of bombast in order to avoid all the factual errors of yours that I’ve pointed out, please open a new thread.
I am impressed by your avoiding the issue with an ad hom fallacy. We’ve had the Swedish Constitution cited and it’s clear that it says nothing like what you’d like to claim it does. Quit this sillyness about constitutional scholars and either give proof or retract.
This is pure fiction. Who do you think you can fool, exactly? Your own cite puts paid to this fiction, why would you cite something that shows your claim is bullshit? Did you not read it or something? It clearly states that after Evian "Britain refused to allow further Jewish refugees into the country. " and that wrt proto-Israel in the 1930’s “Britain strictly limited immigration. This limitation became nearly absolute after the White Paper of 1939 all but stopped legal immigration”
Who do you think you’re fooling when you claim that the UK made it easier when your own cite calls bullshit?
:rolleyes:
I already commented on it. Days ago.
You’re conflating the handfull of children (about nine thousand, not nintety thousand) with the roughly 100K immigrants they let in before things got really bad.
I have done the reading.
You could start by reading your own cite.
Just a suggestion.
And you won’t remember one, because I’ve been way too busy pointing out your factual mistakes. Figure out what the actual history is, and maybe then I can try to point out some workable solutions. But as long as you insist on a counter-factual historical narrative that your own cites debunk, I’m not going to try to point out what alternatives were.
