Defend freedom of speech
From Fontpage Magazine:
"The free world should be standing resolutely with Denmark, ready
to defend freedom of speech. Insofar as it is not defended, it will
surely be lost. On Wednesday (Mar. 15) publications all over Europe--in
France, Spain, Germany, Italy, and Holland--published the cartoons
to demonstrate their support for this principle. But in a grim
reminder of the dhimmitude and multiculturalist fog that still grips
us, the editor of France Soir was fired for doing so. The defense of
free speech and free thought will not be easy, and is not the matter
of just a day."
Complete article at this link:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21127
...or click on the title of this post.
jk
"The free world should be standing resolutely with Denmark, ready
to defend freedom of speech. Insofar as it is not defended, it will
surely be lost. On Wednesday (Mar. 15) publications all over Europe--in
France, Spain, Germany, Italy, and Holland--published the cartoons
to demonstrate their support for this principle. But in a grim
reminder of the dhimmitude and multiculturalist fog that still grips
us, the editor of France Soir was fired for doing so. The defense of
free speech and free thought will not be easy, and is not the matter
of just a day."
Complete article at this link:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21127
...or click on the title of this post.
jk
posted by Joe at Tuesday, March 21, 2006
21 Comments:
I will defend the freedom of speech when it applies for all ethnicities and religions.
Can I under most Western Laws publish similar cartoons about a Rabbi or may be question the Holocaust without going to jail?
Here I am not supporting the Holocaust deniers, but bringing your attention to the double standard going all over the world including the West, which always claims that it stands on higher moral ground.
Of course you can publish whatever cartoons you want in the United States. And yes, there are those who question the holocaust. They are not arrested. How silly.
Do you really think either one of these examples is valid???
Just an example of the double standard:
Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that first published the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that have caused a storm of protest throughout the Islamic world, refused to run drawings lampooning Jesus Christ, it has emerged today.
The Danish daily turned down the cartoons of Christ three years ago, on the grounds that they could be offensive to readers and were not funny.
In April 2003, Danish illustrator Christoffer Zieler submitted a series of unsolicited cartoons dealing with the resurrection of Christ to Jyllands-Posten.
Zieler received an email back from the paper's Sunday editor, Jens Kaiser, which said: "I don't think Jyllands-Posten's readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them."
....
http://talkleft.com/new_archives...ves/ 010126.html
Cartoonist Faces Jail in Greece Over Jesus Cartoon
This is pretty amazing. Imagine you publish a book in Europe where you are protected by the laws of your own country, and that without your knowledge, it gets published in another, less free country. You may be summoned to court in that country, tried in abstentia and sentenced to jail. That's what's happening to Gerhard Haderer, an Austrian cartoonist.
Haderer published a 40-page book titled, The Life of Jesus. The book contained a cartoon of Jesus, depicting him as
...a binge-drinking friend of Jimi Hendrix and naked surfer high on cannabis.
Unbeknownst to him, the book was published in Greece. He found out when he received a summons to appear in court in Athens in January, having been charged with blasphemy.
....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4733820.stm
Holocaust denier Irving is jailed
David Irving arrived at court carrying a copy of one of his books
British historian David Irving has been found guilty in Vienna of denying the Holocaust of European Jewry and sentenced to three years in prison
.....
In Europe Sam... not the U.S.
That is exactly why I am arguing for freedom of speech NOW. Even countries in Europe that used to be more civilized have fallen to the multiculturalist nightmare.
Someday you and I may not be able to discuss issues like we are if people are allowed to shut down whomever they disagree with.
Even cartoons that are offensive have to be allowed because you never know who will be offended and by what.
Freedom of speech is one of the surest sign that things CAN improve. Suppression of speech ensures things will get worse.
The cartoons were published in Europe Joe not the US.
In an ideal world I agree with you in supporting free speech, but then it has to be provided equally to all. The problem right now is that that most societies are not ready for the kind of freedoms you and me are calling for, therefore we will have to be little bit sensitive to people’s feelings.
Right now you still can not go naked in most American cities, or you will get arrested. Gay people still can not get married in the US. The US still struggles with limiting peoples freedoms in order not to offend its own religious community, so why you are expecting people in other countries to be further ahead from your own country, which you consider as an example in freedom.
I don't expect others to be further ahead. The U.S. has to lead the way because we have the most free country in the world.
Where there are issues in the U.S. that need to be resolved, it is still proper to defend the principles that will ensure individual rights.
And as for being sensitive to peoples' feelings... not when their feelings threaten the freedoms of all, and not when they act like animals.
"The U.S. has to lead the way because we have the most free country in the world"
Joe, I have to say that this is the funniest statement I ever heard. I am not sure if you are speaking about the same US with the 2 party electoral system, or the only western country with the death penalty, or the country were gays can not get married because of the Christian right.
May be you want to put the propaganda aside and deal with facts. The US has more freedoms than China or the Middle East, but to call it "The most free country in the world" is little bit naieve (sorry, nothing personal).
Do you know of a country that is more free??? I've traveled all over this planet and haven't found one. True the U.S. has been overridden by a too large and intrusive government sector, but we are still the most free.
Check your northern neighbor Canada, or maybe you want to think about some Scandinavian countries including Denmark the subject of our discussion. Traveling to a country is different from living in a country or even learning the culture of a country. Many American tourists travel to Mexico, but most of them have no clue about life in Mexico.
Canada is much better than many countries, but they are still much further down the path of socialism than the U.S. As are most of the European countries.
And I agree with you that just traveling does not give you a real sense of a place, however I've lived most of the past 12 years outside the U.S.
I missed your point. Are you saying that the US is higher on the path of socialism, meaning the US is more social?
I mean that capitalist countries are more free and socialist countries are less free and Canada is more toward the socialist side of the political spectrum.
I always have been amazed how the main stream American culture defines things in such simplicity always in Black and White. Like us is white, different then Black.
In the US you use certain worlds as an insult, like Liberal, Left, and Socialist. The funny think that around the world the US is considered the biggest defender of Liberalism. As to Socialist, the word simply means caring about the society, e.g. Women get 1 year of maternity leave to care about their baby (not 6 weeks), or if a person is sick he gets treated (not stabilized) regardless of his/ her income, or his /her parents income and social status. I do not see problem in that. As to extreme forms (ideologically motivated) forms of socialism or capitalism, they are all evil as they are trying to impose someone’s values over all the society, and are willing to do so using force.
The US is not fully governed by market policies as you have certain regulations which have socialist character (Medicare, Medicaid, Anti Monopoly Laws, FDA, Customs ...).
So if people in other countries have bigger dose of social values that the US and as a result have better life, this does not mean that they are less democratic that the US or that they can not be more advanced.
When we are talking about politics Socialism just means the gov't takes the money of its citizens and redistributes it where it see fit. This is VERY bad and always leads to bad results. It has nothing at all to do with caring for society. If a government truly wishes to ensure the possibility of helath, prosperity and equality for its people then Capitalism is the only moral system. Capitalism means trading fairly, working for what you want and being rewarded in profits for the efforts you put out.
If socialism truly worked to care for its citizens the Soviet empire would never have collapsed in economic ruin. The least socialist country in the world is the U.S. and that is why we happen to be the wealthiest. It is not purely capitalist, but the non-capitalist policies we have only slow our economy and violates the rights of our citizens.
The programs you mentioned like Medicaid, etc. have done nothing but harm to the U.S. and its citizens.
To understand this fully I reccommend you read "The Nature of Government" and "Man's Rights" by Ayn Rand.
Both are available at the Ayn Rand Institute website www.ari.org.
JK
Absolute capitalism never worked any where. It usually leads to revolutions and blood shed. Same applied to absolute socialism (communism).
As to the Medicare harming the US, maybe you need to ask your parents about that (if they are seniors) or any seniors you know. It is easy to have your opinion when you are young and strong, but I do not think that many seniors will agree with you.
Medicare & privte insurance companies are the same, with only two differences:
1- In Medicare everybody is accepted regardless of previous medical conditions, while private insurance systematically rejects sick people.
2- There are no stakeholders asking to profit from selling health policies.
I really wounder what you do not like about Medicare, which you think that private health companies can do better.
Absolute capitalism has never been tried... the closest approximation would be the U.S. in the 19th Century where you saw unprecedented growth in the living standards of millions of people and made the U.S. the "land of opportunity" in the eyes of the world.
We virtually wiped out disease and poverty and increased the human lifespan average from 35-40 years old to 75.
Any government welfare program, including MEDICARE is an abomination by its nature. Money must be taken from the citizens and redistributed by the gov't. The failure of the wefare medicine in every country that has it is evidence enough but not neccesary. Any program that forces me to pay for what I don't want is a violation of my rights.
Absolute Capitalism was tried in many european countries in the 16,17 and 18 centries. An age where people had to work 16 hours a day, child labour was wide spread. And we all know what political unrest this led to, including the birth of Communism.
For the US in the 19 century, an empty vast land with few people living in it (after pushing the natives into reserves), any thing would've worked at that time.
As to the Medicare, it is actually working in many countries around the world, so I am not sure where your comments come from.
The main role of a government elected by people (society) is to do what is better for the people (society), not what is good for few people. Now if the government is elected by few (the current US politics heavy dependence on money), then it will start shifting to support the interests of those few. A reall democracy naturally leads to some form of socialism, that's why you find stronger social forms in the Scandinavian countries, as democracy is way more developed in those countries.
Sorry Sam but your claims about capitalism are not true. Even if they were it would not change the fact that capitalism is the only sytem where men deal with men by trade rather than force. Every socialist/collectivist system requires that the government seize the wealth that some men have EARNED and redistribute it to whomever they think deserves it. This is a direct violation of an individual's rights and is therefore immoral.
Medicare for the same reason falls into the same category. And no Sam, it does not work. Talk to any Canadian or Brit who has had to wait years to get medical treatment... we have them coming into the U.S. at larger and larger rates just to get the medicine and treatments they need.
You are right that democracy will lead to some form of socialism... that is why the U.S., which is not a democracy but a constitutional republic, has so far been able to fight off the parasites and looters of the socialist mindset. Unfortunately too much ground has been lost in the last 100 years.
The purpose of government is not to "do what is better for the people" as you say. The purpose of government is to protect the rights of it's citizens. Subsequently, if it does its job right it actually is doing what is best for the people.
You should read the Constitution of the United States. It specifically limits what government can do for this very reason.
"capitalism is the only sytem where men deal with men by trade rather than force."
Joe, all the European Empires in the 18, 19, and early 20 Century were built to support the emerging capitalism. If you do not call that force, I am not sure what else it could be called. We know that the occupation of Africa, Asia, Australia, and America was not done to spread democracy. It all was for the raw materials and the markets.
As for the health systems, you are saying to check the Canadian system; where people have to wait for years for some surgeries and they choose to come to the US (the same is not true for the UK system). I am aware of this situation, and I am aware that many Canadians choose to come to the US and pay for the service. I belive that this could be corrected, but the Canadian government does not have the will to do so. A simple fix will be is to deal with the extreme shortage of doctors, by licensing the foreign graduate doctors who are forced to drive caps in most Canadian cities and not being given fair chance to get certified in Canada. I am aware as well of the thousand US seniors, who cross the border every day to buy cheaper medications from Canada, or use the mail order pharmacies, just because they can not afford to buy the same drugs in the US. I am aware as well of the 40 million uninsured American citizens, and many millions more who are under insured with Medicaid or HMO coverage. Those millions are systematically being denied essential services and in many cases they have to wait for access as long as their Canadian neighbors.
The US has the best health care facilities in the world, but last year it was calcified after some South American country (forgot which one) in accessibility.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home