Paris ban on Muslim street prayers comes into effect - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Lankist;32346445]Which is in and of itself a fascist principle. We don't arrest people for being nazis here because that is a nazi tactic. We sure as hell don't [I]like[/I] them, but we don't imitate them.[/QUOTE] It's only Fascism when it's not justified. I think arresting someone for repetitively pushing people to kill other people is perfectly justified. Also, it's fascist to push by speech people to kill other ethnicities or members of various religions. That's how Mussolini and Hitler got to power.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;32346469]It's only Fascism when it's not justified. I think arresting someone for repetitively pushing people to kill other people is perfectly justified. Also, it's fascist to push by speech people to kill other ethnicities or members of various religions. That's how Mussolini and Hitler got to power.[/QUOTE] No, fascism is the suppression of dissidents. It doesn't matter whether it is effective at maintaining stability or not, fascism is fascism. What you're referring to is race-driven populism.

[QUOTE=Lankist;32346462]His culture is repressive, he's already admitted that. Now Conspiracy's argument is A. There's no way to change it (anytime soon) and B. It's progressive considering its neighbors. Let the dude speak for himself. He doesn't need a champion.[/QUOTE] And I pretty much agree with his argument. No country has changed in a few years and the fact they stopped lashing people in a matter of two decades is already quite impressive. [editline]18th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Lankist;32346480]No, fascism is the suppression of dissidents. It doesn't matter whether it is effective at maintaining stability or not, fascism is fascism. What you're referring to is race-driven populism.[/QUOTE] Hence wikipedia : [quote]Fascism (play /ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a radical, authoritarian nationalist political ideology.[1][2] It advocates the creation of a totalitarian single-party state that seeks the mass mobilization of a nation through indoctrination, physical education, and family policy (such as eugenics).[3][/quote] As far as I know democracy isn't fascism. People can still run for president and use "kick out of country all jews, muslims, gypsies, gingers and black people" as their main direction and no one will have their word to say against it.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;32346483]And I pretty much agree with his argument. No country has changed in a few years and the fact they stopped lashing people in a matter of two decades is already quite impressive.[/QUOTE] I'd cite Egypt but they didn't really change all that much after the revolution. Women were at the forefront during the protests, but once the new government was installed they were returned to second-class citizen status. The point is that complacency ensures change never happens. A progressive era is a ripe time for changing unjust laws, and it is an opportunity that doesn't come around very often. If that opportunity is not seized, then the moment the nation goes through a religious revival or a period of decreased tolerance, that unjust law will be enforced again and there will be no chance of getting rid of it short of an actual revolution. If you disagree with that law, a time in which organization is allowed is the greatest, and shortest, time to effect change.

So far Qatar has been going the right way, I see no reason for that to happen especially since they got out of extremists' grasp a very little time ago.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;32346546]So far Qatar has been going the right way, I see no reason for that to happen especially since they got out of extremists' grasp a very little time ago.[/QUOTE] Progress will stop if the status quo is accepted. Following apathy and complacency is stagnation, and an eventual return to old ways. You're viewing the country as static. You need to consider where it will be in ten years and why.

Hey are you guys still talking about the Parisian ban on Muslim street prayers?

There is a difference between accepting and tolerating. The absence of homosexual marriage in a lot of places is tolerated, yet not accepted. If it was accepted, no formed group would ask for it. I'm pretty sure there's still a lot of people in Qatar asking for more changes. [editline]18th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=fenwick;32346574]Hey are you guys still talking about the Parisian ban on Muslim street prayers?[/QUOTE] Everything has been pretty much said about it.

[QUOTE=fenwick;32346574]Hey are you guys still talking about the Parisian ban on Muslim street prayers?[/QUOTE] we're talking about FREEDOM [img]http://www.earlyamerica.com/image/earlyamerica/freedom/spirit.jpg[/img] LIBERTYYYYYYYYY

Still think freedom has to have its limits. Pure, limitless freedom = anarchy.

[QUOTE=Lankist;32346603]we're talking about FREEDOM [img]http://www.earlyamerica.com/image/earlyamerica/freedom/spirit.jpg[/img] LIBERTYYYYYYYYY[/QUOTE] FRENCH FREEDOM [img]http://worldhistoryatyhs.wikispaces.com/file/view/Pillar10-History-French-Revolution-Delacroix.jpg/50833721/Pillar10-History-French-Revolution-Delacroix.jpg[/img] MORAL INDECENCY [editline]17th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Ganerumo;32346625]Still think freedom has to have its limits. Pure, limitless freedom = anarchy.[/QUOTE] Yes, because freedom of speech that does not harm others = Anarchy.

Speech that is prohibited is the one that has harmed others before and will harm again if let unpunished. This is pretty much why we don't let people say jews should die and nazi germany should rise again. [editline]18th September 2011[/editline] Once gain it's a matter of Cultural difference. After Columbine I don't recall the US tightening up laws concerning firearms, if that shit happened in France firearms would get like a ten times stronger control (they're already really controlled btw)

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;32346669]Speech that is prohibited is the one that has harmed others before and will harm again if let unpunished. This is pretty much why we don't let people say jews should die and nazi germany should rise again.[/QUOTE] As much as I disagree with that rhetoric and that message, I do not believe in restriction of speech on that level. The idea that someone making speeches about the Fascists rising again should be restricted is just as preposterous as the idea of restricting all people wishing for government change. Why just Fascists, because you disagree with them?

Because fascists actually want to kill people and a lot of groups who went on the street claiming jews should die ended up throwing molotov cocktails at Synagogues and effectively killed jews.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;32346625]Still think freedom has to have its limits. Pure, limitless freedom = anarchy.[/QUOTE] Nobody's arguing for absolute freedom, but the only rational line that can be drawn between protected and restricted speech is direct victimization

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;32346738]Because fascists actually want to kill people and a lot of groups who went on the street claiming jews should die ended up throwing molotov cocktails at Synagogues and effectively killed jews.[/QUOTE] If you catch them in that act, then you entirely in your right to arrest them and punish them appropriately, but punishing someone merely for [I]saying that they will do something illegal[/I] is wrong. If I vow to rob a bank, should I be arrested? If I swear to set a bomb at the Empire State Building (or in France perhaps the Eiffel Tower), should I be arrested? Where do you draw the line and why?

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;32346738]Because fascists actually want to kill people and a lot of groups who went on the street claiming jews should die ended up throwing molotov cocktails at Synagogues and effectively killed jews.[/QUOTE] Fascism =/= killing. Fascism is suppression of dissidents. Much in the same way that the UN definition of Genocide does not necessarily mean anyone is killed. [editline]17th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Megafanx13;32346798]If you catch them in that act, then you entirely in your right to arrest them and punish them appropriately, but punishing someone merely for [I]saying that they will do something illegal[/I] is wrong. If I vow to rob a bank, should I be arrested? If I swear to set a bomb at the Empire State Building (or in France perhaps the Eiffel Tower), should I be arrested? Where do you draw the line and why?[/QUOTE] Well, yes. That's called conspiracy. Saying those things is illegal because they are definite. It's when ambiguity enters the picture is a problem. If you threaten to damage a specific building, there is nothing ambiguous about that threat. You can and will be arrested for threatening to bomb a specific place.

[QUOTE=Lankist;32346807]Well, yes. That's called conspiracy. Saying those things is illegal because they are definite. It's when ambiguity enters the picture is a problem. If you threaten to damage a specific building, there is nothing ambiguous about that threat. You can and will be arrested for threatening to bomb a specific place.[/QUOTE] So what if I were to say "I'll bomb a building"?

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32346856]So what if I were to say "I'll bomb a building"?[/QUOTE] Then it will be presumed that you have a specific building in mind and, should investigation turn up evidence of plans to bomb a building, you will be convicted of a conspiracy. Evidence could be either proof of intent or process of assembling a bomb, or evidence that you have chosen a specific building. Direct threats are not protected speech. Remember, making bombs is illegal whether you want to use them or not. The law will assume you plan to use them, regardless of whether or not the prosecution can provide solid evidence of a specific target you had in mind.

If you say that in public and someone hears you and call the cops/a cop sees you, you will probably be taken over to a police station to be asked some questions. If you just said that for no reason you will be out of there within a hour and no charges will be kept against you. Everyone can say Jews should die in the street, the only thing they're risking is tasting the knuckles of someone who didn't like it, but if they're pushing it too far and actually turn it into a speech (aka gather people and make an illegal manifestation to claim jews should die in the middle of the street), they can be arrested because it's actually organized and thus can be dangerous. It doesn't mean they will necessarily have to serve some jail, pay a fine or even have it written on their justice case, but they will probably be taken to a police station for a day (called "garde à vue", dunno if it exists in the US but the Police has the right to keep someone in the police station for 24 hours if they suspect him of something, with proofs of course)

[QUOTE=Lankist;32346865]Then it will be presumed that you have a specific building in mind and, should investigation turn up evidence of plans to bomb a building, you will be convicted of a conspiracy. Evidence could be either proof of intent or process of assembling a bomb, or evidence that you have chosen a specific building. Direct threats are not protected speech. Remember, making bombs is illegal whether you want to use them or not. The law will assume you plan to use them, regardless of whether or not the prosecution can provide solid evidence of a specific target you had in mind.[/QUOTE] But if they do not find either one, then I am free, is that correct?

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32346908]But if they do not find either one, then I am free, is that correct?[/QUOTE] Not necessarily. The threat itself is illegal, but carries a lighter sentence than the crimes involved in acting upon the threat (building bombs, making a plan, possessing contraband, etc.) If there is no proof that the threat was genuine, and you have no criminal record, you will likely get a slap on the wrist. But that threat will follow you for the rest of your life.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;32346906]If you say that in public and someone hears you and call the cops/a cop sees you, you will probably be taken over to a police station to be asked some questions. If you just said that for no reason you will be out of there within a hour and no charges will be kept against you.[/QUOTE] Alright, then let me provide a better example to compare to your "fascists will kill all jews" example. Say the leader of a popular Leftist party gives a speech along the lines of "We shall rout the Capitalists out of their powerful positions, and take from them what they have taken from the people!", in a purely ideological manner. Do you believe he should be arrested? [editline]17th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Lankist;32346929]Not necessarily. The threat itself is illegal, but carries a lighter sentence than the crimes involved in acting upon the threat (building bombs, making a plan, possessing contraband, etc.) If there is no proof that the threat was genuine, and you have no criminal record, you will likely get a slap on the wrist. But that threat will follow you for the rest of your life.[/QUOTE] Fair enough. I've provided a different, more coherent example.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32346943]Alright, then let me provide a better example to compare to your "fascists will kill all jews" example. Say the leader of a popular Leftist party gives a speech along the lines of "We shall rout the Capitalists out of their powerful positions, and take from them what they have taken from the people!", in a purely ideological manner. Do you believe he should be arrested?[/QUOTE] That is far too vague to pursue a reasonable conviction unless you actually have the means and intent of undertaking that task violently or illegally. "Rooting out" is a metaphorical word, and metaphorical threats, especially in political rhetoric, are not typically considered to be genuine, direct threats upon specific individuals. Furthermore, to pursue such a case would be very difficult because the supposed target is far too numerous (in the case of capitalists, every single person in a suit is the target) to be properly represented without some other manner of crime attached to the threat. You may get some attention from the law, however. Any indication that the threat is genuine will pique interest.

[QUOTE=Lankist;32346997]That is far too vague to pursue a reasonable conviction unless you actually have the means and intent of undertaking that task violently or illegally. "Rooting out" is a metaphorical word, and metaphorical threats, especially in political rhetoric, are not typically considered to be genuine, direct threats upon specific individuals. Furthermore, to pursue such a case would be very difficult because the supposed target is far too numerous (in the case of capitalists, every single person in a suit is the target) to be properly represented without some other manner of crime attached to the threat. You may get some attention from the law, however.[/QUOTE] Right, that I understand. I'd like to hear Ganerumo's opinion on it, still.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32346943]Say the leader of a popular Leftist party gives a speech along the lines of "We shall rout the Capitalists out of their powerful positions, and take from them what they have taken from the people!", in a purely ideological manner. Do you believe he should be arrested.[/QUOTE] No, that's a perfectly legit political issue. Manifestations have to be organized with the consent of the local municipality administration though (which doesn't mean the administration has ANY SORT of political discrimination though, it just means you can't start savage manifestations in the street without expecting cops to come and stop it, or ask for a neo nazi manifestation). There's a rather extreme communist party in France (called the NPR, for "nouveau parti révolutionnaire", you can get what it means) that regularly organizes speeches and manifestations where they basically say the line you quoted.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;32347016]No, that's a perfectly legit political issue. Manifestations have to be organized with the consent of the local municipality administration though (which doesn't mean the administration has ANY SORT of political discrimination though, it just means you can't start savage manifestations in the street without expecting cops to come and stop it, or ask for a neo nazi manifestation).[/QUOTE] But surely following your previous logic of "if they are allowed to say it, they will do it", this political group will eventually do as they imply, no?

Sure, but once again, if they're a party, they're expected to do it through proper elections. We can't decide to stop them because they want to change the state's Government, but we can decide to stop them if they are clearly plotting to take over the Government by force.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;32347064]Sure, but once again, if they're a party, they're expected to do it through proper elections. We can't decide to stop them because they want to change the state's Government, but we can decide to stop them if they are clearly plotting to take over the Government by force.[/QUOTE] So who gets to determine what is a genuine threat and what is rhetoric?

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;32347064]Sure, but once again, if they're a party, they're expected to do it through proper elections. We can't decide to stop them because they want to change the state's Government, but we can decide to stop them if they are clearly plotting to take over the Government by force.[/QUOTE] But surely they must, again following your logic of "if they are allowed to say it, they will do it" and your previous example of "the nazis were allowed to say what they wanted and eventually they did do what they said". If you need a parallel example, you could look at the Russian Revolution where they killed the Tsar and his family.