Then the day is mine.
Munch,
The debate about this was that the government can’t interfere with the juridical power.
I said from the very beginning that the POWERS in Belgium are separated.
if you want to make of this that POWERS mean to indicate that private companies get some sort of contracts to deliver judges and administration and politicians, weel then I don’t know where your mind was at the moment.
I think such very strange reasoning is your problem and not mine.
I never heard of any state where judges pop up from some private company and then get an appointment by government and king, which makes them independent acting and undismissable judges for the rest of their career.
Maybe you live in such a place, I wouldn’t know.
Salaam. A
Captain A.
Yes, and I think this is the point of confusion here.
Belgians refer to the “government” only for the members of the two Chamber and Senate.
Salaam. A
Captain A.
Yes, and I think this is the point of confusion here.
Belgians call only the members of the Parliaments “the governments”.
Salaam. A
Well, Aldeberan, if you’re responding to the thread again (some of us thought you’d left), how about answering some of my questions about the rights of Citizen X and Citizen Y?
Could you at least point out where exactly in this thread I was “ranting”, as per your earlier accusation?
I know I shouldn’t…
It’s a waste of time…
Why am I here?..
To those who actually care:
As this site points out (and it’s a anti-revisionist site), it is a criminal offense in Belgium to distribute, publish or write a “Denial, trivialization, justification or approval of genocide committed under National Socialism during the Second World War.” It is punishable by “8 days to 1 year in prison and a fine of 26 to 5,000 Belgian francs.” That law was enacted by the Belgium parliament in 1995. It’s been enforced by the judiciary, as I indicated in my earlier cite. Other such laws are in effect in Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Spain and Switzerland, as well as in Israel. Great Britian is also, as I understand it, currently debating the issue.
I remain highly amused that Aldebaran has to stoop to semantic game playing and name calling. Amused, but not in the least bit surprised.
Hamlet,
I’m not scholared in Belgian Law… But didn’t I say repeatedly that there exists something like the anti discrimination law and that denial or minimalising the Holocaust most probably can be considered as falling under that law?
Yes I did.
More then once.
So what are you talking about?
Byt the way: Do you know all the laws Made In Your Country?
Do you know every single little detail of them,as there is if and when people violating one of these laws are punishable and by
what?
By the way: Take notice that Belgium even isn’t My Country.
Salaam. A
By the way, I looked for a second at what is behind your link. It is an article titled:
Combating Holocaust denial through law in the United Kingdom
What has that to do with Belgium?
There is - literaly - a very deep water between both nations.
Salaam. A
Until you have something of substance to say, I’m only involved in this thread to clear up misinformation you continue to spew out. Lo’ and Behold there some more right there! That didn’t take long at all. The link discusses the Belgian law that we’ve been talking about for 6 effin’ pages. I know the relevance of it may be beyond your ability to comprehend, but it’s out there for anyone else who is interested.
Well, at least you are reading cites, rather than dismissing them out of hand because you are afraid they might contradict you.
The link is to an article produced in the UK, discussing the possibility of passing laws making it an offense to deny that the Holocaust occurred. Part of that report covered laws against Holocaust denial in other countries, like Belgium.
That’s the relevance.
So, to briefly recap -
[ul][li]Belgium has laws restricting speech that denies the Holocaust[/li][li]The US and UK do not[/li][li]You contend that Belgium has freedom of speech, but the US does not[/li][li]Here is an example of Belgium restricting speech[/li][li]You allege that this doesn’t count, because courts in Belgium are not part of the government[/li][li]The Belgian laws restricting speech on the Holocaust were not passed by the courts, but by the government[/li][/ul] So, in this example at least, the US has freedom of speech that Belgium does not.
Regards,
Shodan
Can you please put aside the Belgian Law questions entirely (since even you admit you’re not 'scholared" in it) and respond to the generic case of Citizen X vs. Citizen Y, which is much closer to the heart of the Sarandon/Robbins issue that supposedly prompted you to start this thread in the first place?
Aldebaran, first I offer to you my apologies for bringing up earlier in this thread some of the problems that Belgium has that the US does not. That was irrelevant to your post.
Also, I commend you on your use of English as a second language. I would not be nearly so good in a second language.
In America most people hold freedom of speech in extremely high regard. There are Jewish Holocaust survivors who live here who supported the right of the Nazis or neo-Nazis to parade through the streets of Skokie, Illinois, a Jewish neighborhood, against the Jews themselves. That’s how important freedom of speech is to us.
Not all Americans uphold this right as strongly, but I think that most of us do.
It is a mistake to make generalities about “Americans.” We are a mixed lot and our beliefs differ as much as your beliefs do with some of the people who post to this thread. It would be the same as if I made a statement about “Europeans.”
Please understand, also, that we do have access to other news sources outside of our own country. We are aware that our country is held in low regard by many, many other countries in the world. I am among those who don’t blame them – except for one thing: **They should not confuse the government of the United States as it is at this moment with the government as it has been through the years – and will be again. Nor should they confuse the government with the citizens of this country.
Finally, boycotting has been used traditionally as a way of exercising our freedom of speech – usually disapproval. Generally, I don’t boycott artists – not even conservative ones. I do boycott industries and companies which depend on slave labor for some of their products and those companies that are indifferent to our environment.
Sodan,
-
Read my explanation about the State structure of Belgium again. The Juridical power does not “make laws”. That power is for the governments.
-
I find protecting people against discrimination not limiting “free speech”.
So you find that if you forbid your child to use vulgar language, if you forbit your child to spit on others, if you forbid your child to curse, then you limite his/her “free speech”? So you let them say and do what they want to whomever they want?
If you like to raise children who don’t know how to behave, that is then your choice. I would say that you have no clue how to raise them.
That is the difference here. The difference between decency, culture and morality and Wild West situations.
Salaam. A
Zoe,
I know that the term “free speech” has a very different sound in US ears then in thatof others. That has become a part of the debate here.
But the main debate is about people being intimitated, being threatened, being boycotted because they use that so called “free speech” and do that publicly about an issue that lies very sensitive for the US’ers this day. Thus they don’t have real “free speech” at all.
As for you remark about your government: I do hope together with about the rest of the world that your current one doesn’t get a second term. I do hope it also for the USA.
And no, I don’t confuse the US government with the US citizens. Some posters around here are very much occupied with activities designed to “spread the message” that I do, which isn’t exactly something new on message boards where a poster doesn’t go along with some other peoples ideas or views. Let be when that poster is an “outsider”. And in this case: a complete outsider.
Thank you for your compliment about my English, but you shall see that it differs by the day, and even by the minute sometimes.
It is also a bit funny that the same people I talk about here are now posting that I’m some sort of imposter who lies when he says he never studied English. One of them even claims to be a teacher of English.He came with some opinions on my grammar and said that I even use “slang”… Knock me dead, I have no clue what he talks about. When people start using dialect I’m completely lost.
Yet I had some year ago the same experience on an other message board, where even a host came on the board to accuse me to be an “imposter” posing as an foreigner while in his opinion I had to be American.
I have no clue what can ever provoke such strange reactions, but I find it extremely funny. As I am a linguist, I know very well that my grammar knowledge of this language is somewhere at the level of a 12 year old. If it reaches that far. And a kid of that age has a vocabulary that overclasses mine by some 10.000%.
Salaam. A
That’s a false dichotomy: either we have decency, culture or morality or we have the Wild West. In fact, it’s quite possible to be in between the two.
Also, as far as I know, no-one was defending a right to spit on people, so that’s completely irrelevant. Also, the issue of child-rearing comes out of nowhere. But since Aldeberan seems to feel that people who challenge him are childish and immature, I guess likening us to children is just par for the course.
If I had a child who stood up to Aldeberan and anyone else with similarly irrational and restrictive views on free speech, I’d be quite proud of that child.
So, what about Citizen X and Citizen Y, by the way? Are you just going to leave them hanging?
So at last Aldebaran’s position becomes clear: he thinks the government should treat its citizens as if they were children. 
funny; at one point I remember you saying that you were a historian…
Yes, I am a linguist being Arabist. And next I’m also historian. Of both Islamic and European history. Is that so weird?
Salaam. A
Wumpuus,
If you defend “free speech” at all cost, you must agree that every child can say what the child wants because when the parents interfere, they limite the child’s “free speech”.
The same when a teacher tells the child to be silent during class. The child has in the opinion of many US posters here “free speech”. It doesn’t need to listen to parents or teacher when it wants to talk, and can say whatever it wants whereever it wants to whomever it wants.
When you project that reasoning to a government, then whatever law that government votes in which the government regulates the way people interact with eachother, is limiting their “free speech”, or not so? Every regulation ever invented limits your “free speech”.
If you are tomorrow in the company of the president of your country, you can freely tell him he is a brainless pig that deserves to be shot dead instantly, and that you can’t wait to see that happen and that in fact you want to drink his blood.
Nobody is going to protest that, nobody is going to prevent you to say more, nobody is going to dragg you away from that place… Nothing is going to happen to you at all. OK. Show me.
So the remark that a law in Belgium which prevents people from denying historical facts about one of the most horrible genocides in recent history is an extreme example of limiting “free speech” holds no ground at all. It is an anti discrimination law that protects the rights of those who were victim of this historical extremely detailed cruelty.
But iIn my opinion, someone who is crazy enough to say this didn’t happen doesn’t need to be sued at all. He needs to be placed in the care of a psychiatrist in a madhouse to try to have his twisted braind turned back to normal.
Salaam. A