What is this I hear about the EU criminalizing "racism"? Who thinks thats pathetic?

Racism, as defined by websters, The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

I dissagree with what you say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.


-voltaire

And thats only what you say, imagine his reaction if he heard his country, in the interest of being avant garde and liberal, LoL, was outlawing thinking.

I think outlawing racial discrimination is perfectly normal. Moreover, the EU never proposed to infringe upon a person's right to think and write what he so wishes. Show me some proof to corroborate your statement.

I fully support the right of all humans to believe and speak whatever they wish, no matter how vile or wrong the belief is.

However, I'm pretty sure the EU is talking about criminalizing racism in the sense that it is formed into government laws, such as "<such and such> race is not permitted to do <such and such> action", setting separate curfews for different races, etc. Think Jim Crow laws. If that is the case, I look more favorably on it.

The criminalising of "xenophobia" is stupider.

How can our tabloids ever function properly again?

Messer, racism and xenophobia are belief systems. Case closed.
If a man on the street said he was not fond of the idea of Germany becoming Turkey, thats a prison sentence.

No, that's not what EU legislation does. That man couldn't be charged legally but I bet a gang of Turks would probably beat him up severely if he utterred those exact words whilst walking through Kreuzberg, the Turkish neighborhood of Berlin.

He can too be charged legally, hence the criminilization of xenophobia and racism.

LoL why do you delight in watching your own people suffer from dissension within and envy and malice beyond? You got issues dude.

The point of the EU legislation is that it allows a court in one European country to extradite someone in another European country for these "crimes", without the person's home country having an say in the matter.

Consequently, a British national living in Britain could write a "racist" or "xenophobic" article in Britain, where "racism" and "xenophobia" isn't a crime ("incitement to racial hatred" is, but that's totally different and rarely used). If a prosecutor in a country where "racism" and "xenophobia" is a crime (which I believe it already is in several member states) wanted to prosecute the Briton, they could have him extradited and tried under their own legal system, for something he did in Britain where the legal system doesn't recognise it as a crime. The British authorities would be compelled to co-operate.

The problems of this system are twofold:
1)The idea that someone can do something in one country where it isn't a crime and be prosecuted in another where it is unacceptable. This seems to be another step towards unifying Europe in a federal superstate that only the politicians want.
2)Preventing someone from expressing an opinion is the worst kind of authoritarian control. Some countries, still remembering their war record too clearly, actually want this. Other countries should not have it imposed upon them by a foreign government they didn't elect.

But the EU want to make sure everyone receives their basic human rights, and as far as i'm aware, the ability to think what you like shouldn't be a crime, its a basic human right.

The new legislation is another step towards establishing a 'politicly correct' system. But it aien't the first step...

Even in the current system practiced by Western countries, I can sue you over simple words. If I can prove to the judge that the word 'apple' is offensive to my years, and yet you deliberatly said it while knowing that it offends me, I can easily demand moral compensations.

quote:

---

Consequently, a British national living in Britain could write a "racist" or "xenophobic" article in Britain, where "racism" and "xenophobia" isn't a crime ("incitement to racial hatred" is, but that's totally different and rarely used). If a prosecutor in a country where "racism" and "xenophobia" is a crime (which I believe it already is in several member states) wanted to prosecute the Briton, they could have him extradited and tried under their own legal system, for something he did in Britain where the legal system doesn't recognise it as a crime. The British authorities would be compelled to co-operate.

---

You're wrong.

There's no way one can prosecute a British editor for something he did in Britain.

As a matter of fact, his 'racist' editorial wont even be heard for the simple reason that any newspaper sold in Europe will refuse to accept such editorial.

So don't worry, you're British ass is safe.

That's not what the "xenophobic" Europe-hating elements of the British media say...

So, HP, You're in favor of orwellian thought crimes laws just so long as they don't supercede their jurisdiction?

No.

I'm just saying that you're over-reacting against a system that has been put in place years ago.

Thinking has been one of the biggest crimes since the dawn of humanity.

So, HP, You're in favor of orwellian thought crimes laws just so long as they are well established?

No.

But I am aware of their existance.