Europe - The Official Thread
- Thread starter Touring Mars
- 2,064 comments
- 99,929 views
- 28,471
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
- 16,483
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
Not that that's stopped people from attempting to get the police and courts to enforce it much more recently.
http://www.thejournal.ie/stephen-fry-blasphemy-2-3680301-Nov2017/
https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/cl...site-of-blasphemous-libel-prosecution-1.50768
Last edited:
- 28,471
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
- 16,483
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
That doesn't make it a dead issue if people are still bringing prosecutions.
- 5,051
- Netherlands
Exactly I hardly think the writer of the article read the bill. The article only quotes some statements from somebody, instead of directly quoting from the bill. If the Bill litterally states that you can be jailed for having pro russia views, then the article is accurate and unbiased.
No it isnt. This article is biased. Nowhere does it state in that bill that you can be jailed for having pro russian views.
Good thing that there is a court of law that interpet the law, with these things and not you and I. And I personally think it is a good thing that certain hatespeech and racism is outlawed. It is the same openness to interpertation with US defamation laws. And by the way even Canada has laws against hatespeech.
I asked you this before, but never received an answer. Are you canadian or not?
- 28,471
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
Not everything that is illegal is literally stated in a bill. I don't think you'll find it written anywhere that I'm not allowed to shove a hot poker up your arse but I'm pretty sure it's illegal. Where is racism outlawed? What is hatespeech?
I have a profile, it's not hard to look up where I'm from. My avatar should give it away I would think.
- 5,051
- Netherlands
In the text you posted hatespeech and racism in a public setting is punishable. that what I was referring.
I ask, because Canada is has similarities to a social democratic country. It also has a multi party system. However you seem to be a supporter of conservative ideas. Dont you think healthcare similair to Canada, although far from perfect, is much better then what is available in the Usa? How do you compare canada with the USA?
- 28,471
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
Which post are you referring to?
I'm pro-choice, pro-gay marriage and LGBT rights, pro-legal immigration, pro-drug legalization, married an immigrant of a different colour and have a mixed race child and have personally sponsored two immigrants to come Canada. That doesn't mean I simply accept every position put forward on those issues, and many others. I'm also for smaller government, pro-free markets, pro-capitalism, believe generally that religion has no place in government or publicly funded schools etc. If that makes me a conservative I guess I'm a conservative. It would certainly make me a Conservative in Canada, but in the U.S. it would make me an independent I suppose but Republican/conservatives would never accept me into their clan and neither would the Democrat/liberals. I'd be the anti-christ to both sides.
I can only compare them anecdotally or statistically. I know several nurses who work at Detroit area hospitals but I've never been treated in an American hospital. I know my own experiences with my own family, mainly over the last 18 or so years in Canada. I don't like anecdotal evidence because it's easy to counter with some other anecdote and as I believe I said earlier, I don't think you would believe anything I had to say anyway.
- 5,051
- Netherlands
This one.
In the USA you would actually be labeled more a liberal/ democrat then a conservative/republican. Thats interesting, because in most instances you actively defend Trump and other conservatives. Even though he is pro-life, anti-drug, anti immigrantion, religious (so he claims) etc. How come?
Are you satisfied with the healthcare system in Canada? Do you believe healthcare should be a right?
Last edited:
- 28,471
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me the way that legislation is written gives a wide latitude for interpretation and leaves anyone open to being prosecuted at the whim of the government. In other words I think it's terribly written and easy to manipulate.
There is no such a thing in the U.S. as a pro-free market, pro-capitalist, small government liberal Democrat. I don't fit into either side. When it comes to Trump I defend those positions which are similar to mine. That doesn't mean I like him personally or that I agree with everything he does.
No and no.
- 5,051
- Netherlands
So you agree that the US constitution has the same issues.
- 28,471
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
You have to be more specific, I don't have the whole thing memorized. Keep in mind the U.S. also has 240 years of legislation and Supreme Court cases to flesh out the meaning of the Constitution. Unfortunately you can't just move the goalposts. Do you agree or disagree the legislation gives a wide latitude for interpretation and leaves anyone open to being prosecuted at the whim of the government?
- 5,051
- Netherlands
1st amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
There is a lot of interpertation needed here
2nd amendment:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
This already has been interpeted in a lot of ways.
- 28,471
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
It's been interpreted for 240 years. What does this have to do with Europe and the article in question?
- 5,051
- Netherlands
So why do you question these laws that are actually written more clearly then these 2 amendments? They haven appendices that probably go into more detail, which I sadly can not translate.
- 28,471
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
I asked you several hypothetical questions on situations that do occur in real life and what your take would be in reference to the way the law I quoted is written.
- 5,051
- Netherlands
Seeing I am not a danish lawyer or judge I can not explain it to you. And you are saying these hypotheticals without doing research in the history of Danish law and its implementation of the freedom of speech.
I could ask the same hypotheticals about these 2 amendments, just based on reading the text. Why cant an american own a nuclear bomb? Isnt it an american right to bear arms? Its a weapon so hypothetically an american has the right to carry any weapon he wants.
- 28,410
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
This little number is possibly one of the most important numbers in Europe at the moment...
https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/GBTPGR10:IND
This is the yield on Italian government 10-year bonds, and is a key number that (among other things) reflects investor's attitudes towards the sustainability of Italian debt - the higher the number, the more expensive it is for Italy to service its massive debt mountain.
Another key number is the difference between Italian bonds and their German equivalents - this difference is called 'the spread' and it has become something of a dirty word in Italy. At the moment, the spread is at its widest point since 2013 and has risen sharply since the Italian government were elected. According to this article on Reuters, alarm bells are starting to ring as the spread reaches 350-400 basis points (3.5-4%) - it's currently at just over 300, and is getting into dangerous territory.
The main reason why the spread is going up is the Italian budget - instead of committing to a lower deficit in line with EU rules, the Italian government have submitted a blow-out budget that the EU are very likely to reject. However, the Italian government have pledged to 'ignore' the spread and are already threatening to sue the EU for comments that drive the spread upward; they are also taking aim at credit ratings agencies who publish their outlook on sovereign debt - a downgrade of any sort is likely to also drive the spread upward. There is fast approaching a point where the Italian government (and Salvini in particular) will find out that 'ignoring' the debt markets is not really possible, given that Italy gets a lot of its money from selling government bonds.
The question is who will blink first - will the EU back down and run the risk of encouraging other member states to submit blow-out budgets? I seriously doubt it. But will the Italian government back down as bond yields (and the dreaded 'spread') continue to rise and send the Italian economy into a 'doom spiral'? We could find out in a matter of weeks.
https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/GBTPGR10:IND
This is the yield on Italian government 10-year bonds, and is a key number that (among other things) reflects investor's attitudes towards the sustainability of Italian debt - the higher the number, the more expensive it is for Italy to service its massive debt mountain.
Another key number is the difference between Italian bonds and their German equivalents - this difference is called 'the spread' and it has become something of a dirty word in Italy. At the moment, the spread is at its widest point since 2013 and has risen sharply since the Italian government were elected. According to this article on Reuters, alarm bells are starting to ring as the spread reaches 350-400 basis points (3.5-4%) - it's currently at just over 300, and is getting into dangerous territory.
The main reason why the spread is going up is the Italian budget - instead of committing to a lower deficit in line with EU rules, the Italian government have submitted a blow-out budget that the EU are very likely to reject. However, the Italian government have pledged to 'ignore' the spread and are already threatening to sue the EU for comments that drive the spread upward; they are also taking aim at credit ratings agencies who publish their outlook on sovereign debt - a downgrade of any sort is likely to also drive the spread upward. There is fast approaching a point where the Italian government (and Salvini in particular) will find out that 'ignoring' the debt markets is not really possible, given that Italy gets a lot of its money from selling government bonds.
The question is who will blink first - will the EU back down and run the risk of encouraging other member states to submit blow-out budgets? I seriously doubt it. But will the Italian government back down as bond yields (and the dreaded 'spread') continue to rise and send the Italian economy into a 'doom spiral'? We could find out in a matter of weeks.
- 28,471
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
- 5,051
- Netherlands
- 2,424
- Paris
- Milouse
- Milouse
This excellent channel I'm subscribed to has nothing to do with opinions, but with facts, and more importantly, logic and fallacies.
That been said, this unacceptable decision from the court is not the norm, and I would be curious to see it again today (it's a 2011 case, so not "recent").
- 5,051
- Netherlands
- 16,483
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
If I'm watching the video correctly the Rationality Rules guy says we should fight to preserve Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff's and the Freedom Party's right to say that the Qu'ran instructs all Muslims to emulate a paedophile. He argues that European free speech isn't protected unless the ECHR allows her to publicise this view. It's a fair point and he takes the time to stress that you don't have to support or agree with her opinion to support his position.
Personally I was more interested in the videos he made debunking Jordan Peterson's religious views.
Last edited:
Danoff
Premium
- 32,991
- Mile High City
That's what I took from it as well, and I find the case appalling, as should everyone under the EU. You can find cases in the US censoring certain kinds of pornography (at least for sale) under obscenity laws, so it's not like we don't have some missteps against free speech ourselves. But to censor her because she's saying something that might offend religious people... and fairly factual I might add, not as bad as the "God Hates Fags" stuff we get... it comes across as quite scary from my perspective. How can you even know what is a crime and what isn't?
