Free Speech and "Descrimination" in Europe
It's potentially everywhere and it's up to each of us to decide whether to stomp it* or practice it.
It's a such a tricky commodity, speech. Everyone has it, but while some don't know what it is or don't care what might be done with it, others don't want anyone but themselves to have it lest it change who they themselves are.
Again with the inability of this particular religion's adherents to understand the difference between Responsibility to Health, and Responsibility to Religion. Governments outside of Islamic countries, are imbued and trusted (for all the good some of 'em are with it... ) with the former. They are generally quite verboten to either limit or promote, much less enforce, the latter.
Compromise is a multiparty endeavour. The linked story speaks to the growth of the Far Right in Europe as a cause of the current riotous and incendiary activities surrounding freedom of speech in a public forum. I think it makes some sense, but it comes close to equating speech with physical violence. Policies and racial indices have potential for violence results, it's true, and there does seem to be some of that going on in Europe, though to a lesser extent than was ever the case in the USA under Segregation or even South Africa under apartheid.
But serving pork when the Schools know muslims "can't" eat it is in No Way, Shape or Form the same as serving Peanut Butter when you know that a certain group's member are all allergic to the stuff! THAT is the argument for descrimination which is being made and spurious and incredibly intolerant and abusive of those who think their religion is their biology.
A father verbally abusing his child; denigrating all and any of what the kid loves, is violently abusive. Even then such irresponsible parental behavior isn't necessarily going to become mortally dangerous to the kid or someone around them. The odds are stronger than they would be, but the Operative Principle is the responsibility of the father for the upbringing and training and teaching that child. Intentional or incidental, demostrating how to live is a parent's primary responsibility. Neither the Press nor anyone else has that responsibility to a society. Societies learn about themselves by the abundance and pervasiveness of the speech of their individuals. They must be allowed to speak freely and, in most secular societies, that right is constitutionally guaranteed.
Regardless of anyone's religious laws.
May haps, one day God (or a boatload of 'em!) will be evidenced satisfactorily via some critical mass of scientific discoveries. But it also may be that that won' happen. Ever.
Until such a day as that evidence mounts beyond coincidental proportions, there is absolutely no equivalence of religion and politics. Religion is the Private law of an individual. Political governance is the Public Law which allows the multitude of individuals to coexist in religious and areligious diversity of biocultural evolution. Nature doesn't always give us any choice but to endure her violence. Society exists on top of Nature and it is up to its membership to refuse and obviate violence against each other.
* 'tip to Agitprop.
It's a such a tricky commodity, speech. Everyone has it, but while some don't know what it is or don't care what might be done with it, others don't want anyone but themselves to have it lest it change who they themselves are.
[Link] The feeling that the large and established parties were not doing enough to deal with the problem also contributed to the strengthening of the far right (in Belgium.) In the name of multiculturalism and tolerance, the Flemish establishment - the media, courts and parliament - avoided dealing with the increasing public feeling that the land of the Flemish no longer belonged to them. The Muslims demanded that boys and girls study separately in schools. The Muslims also demanded that no pig products be eaten in government schools.(emphasis mine)
The helplessness of the establishment led many people to feel that "only Dewinter can" and that "only Dewinter can bring order." But the solutions Dewinter proposes are extreme, and sometimes even elicit horror. Last summer he suggested establishing a quota system to limit the entry of young Muslims to public swimming pools. He had previously suggested attaching electronic handcuffs to refugees arriving in Belgium, so that the police could track them everywhere. Dewinter also proposed that women caught on the road wearing veils be put on planes and returned to their country of origin.
The clear lesson is that ignoring the problem - the rising feeling of discomfort among many Europeans over the amount of Muslims on the continent - is liable to lead to the growth of weeds whose strengthening is dangerous to the Europeans themselves, to European democracy and to Muslim citizens. After all, what does the average European think when he sees the pictures of the Danish and Norwegian embassies being set on fire in Beirut and Damascus? Reading the Internet forums that the larger European newspapers started up is enough to make one see the repugnance and shock.
Again with the inability of this particular religion's adherents to understand the difference between Responsibility to Health, and Responsibility to Religion. Governments outside of Islamic countries, are imbued and trusted (for all the good some of 'em are with it... ) with the former. They are generally quite verboten to either limit or promote, much less enforce, the latter.
Compromise is a multiparty endeavour. The linked story speaks to the growth of the Far Right in Europe as a cause of the current riotous and incendiary activities surrounding freedom of speech in a public forum. I think it makes some sense, but it comes close to equating speech with physical violence. Policies and racial indices have potential for violence results, it's true, and there does seem to be some of that going on in Europe, though to a lesser extent than was ever the case in the USA under Segregation or even South Africa under apartheid.
But serving pork when the Schools know muslims "can't" eat it is in No Way, Shape or Form the same as serving Peanut Butter when you know that a certain group's member are all allergic to the stuff! THAT is the argument for descrimination which is being made and spurious and incredibly intolerant and abusive of those who think their religion is their biology.
A father verbally abusing his child; denigrating all and any of what the kid loves, is violently abusive. Even then such irresponsible parental behavior isn't necessarily going to become mortally dangerous to the kid or someone around them. The odds are stronger than they would be, but the Operative Principle is the responsibility of the father for the upbringing and training and teaching that child. Intentional or incidental, demostrating how to live is a parent's primary responsibility. Neither the Press nor anyone else has that responsibility to a society. Societies learn about themselves by the abundance and pervasiveness of the speech of their individuals. They must be allowed to speak freely and, in most secular societies, that right is constitutionally guaranteed.
Regardless of anyone's religious laws.
May haps, one day God (or a boatload of 'em!) will be evidenced satisfactorily via some critical mass of scientific discoveries. But it also may be that that won' happen. Ever.
Until such a day as that evidence mounts beyond coincidental proportions, there is absolutely no equivalence of religion and politics. Religion is the Private law of an individual. Political governance is the Public Law which allows the multitude of individuals to coexist in religious and areligious diversity of biocultural evolution. Nature doesn't always give us any choice but to endure her violence. Society exists on top of Nature and it is up to its membership to refuse and obviate violence against each other.
* 'tip to Agitprop.
Comments
Post a Comment