Recent attacks in Norway by a lone rightwing radical got me to thinking. How did he get so far? I mean, what rights, if any, do radical (esp. rightwing) groups and individuals have in Europe?
And in case you need more of a question than that, I am talking about in the areas of (1)freedom of opinion, (2)freedom of association and (3)freedom of expression.
I know in the US, people have almost unlimited freedoms in all the areas. Actually, the only one that is even limited, if I am correct, is freedom of expression. And even then, the govt. can’t limit the content of your speech. Only if it creates a situation of imminent lawlessness.
If you want a document to further go by, try the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I believe most of the rights charters in Europe were based on it.
Why just right wing groups? How did the leftist Victor Van der Graaf get so far that he was able to kill the gay Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn? Perhaps the media criticism of Fortuyn motivated him to do it?
Anyway, most European countries have laws against inciting hatred. That is what Geert Wilders was recently found not guilty of doing in the Netherlands.
Standard “You can’t treat Europe as being all the same” disclaimer (less for the OP, more for future posts).
Anyway, by and large in the UK - a reasonable large amount. I would tend to consider the BNP, for example, to be a fringe group, and they have at time had local councillors and run for parliament. We’ve got laws against speech inciting violence.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Germany had considerably stronger laws on this, but I don’t know first-hand.
In the Netherlands: all rights of gathering, expression, including the right to form a political party and get elected. The only laws used to reign it in a bit is, as Chen019 posted, the law against inciting hatred. We recently had a political debate if the law against blasphemy could still be used to calm down the anti-muslim side, but that was found to lead nowhere.
What it boils down to is that everybody can say and write everything they want, unless they specifically incite violence or utter specific enough threats.
Getting a gun is, as you know, very hard in the Netherlands. That keeps guns out of the hands of most malcontents who just want to bitch and occasionally beat someone up.
But even here, determined, lone madmen like van der Graaf (the killer of Fortuyn) and that Norwegian guy always manage to get hold of a gun no matter what your gun policies are.
From what I’ve read in the wake of the incident, gun laws in Norway are surprisingly liberal. Breivik went through all the necessary legal channels to get his guns.
In some European countries Nazi political parties are illegal. In some parts Communist parties are illegal. Some places both are illegal. In Denmark neither are illegal. Holocaust denial is illegal in some countries. Communist genocides denial illegal in some other countries. In other countries (Denmark) neither is illegal. In general the places where Nazism is illegal have tried to have this made euro-wide, whereas the places where Communism is illegal have tried to have this made euro-wide, but generally the Nazi-illegals do not want to go to bed with the Communist-illegals, so, so far nothing have come of it.
Generally in the EU it is illegal to incite violence against others.
Just because you have the right to say something, doesn’t mean that anyone else is obligated to listen to you or help you say it.
Breivik was such a loon that sane people had no interest in listening to him.
In Spain, those rights are granted so long as they don’t break a specific law or regulation. For example, there is the right of association - but there is also a crime called “criminal association”: it’s ok to join with whomever you want, so long as you’re not doing it in order to plan or assist crimes. There’s other limits to freedom of association: for example, police forces now have unions but they used to be barred from having them.
There’s also laws and regulations which forbid specific expressions (insulting people, insulting or damaging entities such as flags which are considered representative of a country - which is viewed as insulting the country). There’s instances where something is ok to do as a private individual in public but not at work (I can call my brother a moron to my heart’s content, with no more consequences than him calling me an idiot; repeatedly calling a coworker a moron is grounds for dismissal).
As for opinion, how the heck is anybody supposed to restrain that? You can restrain the expression of that opinion, whether in word or action, but last I checked telepathy didn’t work outside of movies.
Oh, don’t be so naïve:). There are all kinds of ways governments can suppress thoughts (though people do have to reveal them first in various ways, true). Here is a good Wikipedia article about it (just scroll down to “Suppression” [and beyond]).
Some people think making it illegal to privately possess certain books is a thoughtcrime. In the US in fact, many people make the argument making criminal possession of pornography (involving consenting adults, of course) is a thoughtcrime. There also is this mechanical instrument (I can’t provide a cite, because I forget the name just now) that fits around the penis and reveals hidden sexual thoughts. (That last one though may be more an example of violating the right to privacy of thought, not freedom. But it was worth mentioning to show not every thought is safe.) I could go on and on…
