Integration problems

Originally Posted by Thoompie

Well, she recently had the "great" idea of making a law that on the streets no other language than Dutch is allowed to be spoken. That's the biggest political bullshit i have ever heard. 2 million of the 16 million people in The Netherlands are foreigners and have a different mother language than Dutch.
What do you think of this law?

That's going to make being a tourist in "Dutchland" so much fun! Glad to see such "enlightened" policy in European countries.

How ya doing, buddy?

I hope they start stamping a disclaimer on people's passports when entering their country. If you speak anything other then Dutch YOU ARE BREAKING THE LAW!!!! Or better yet, they'll just discriminate against the Arabs by making it illegal to speak Arabic.

Originally Posted by Hachifusa

Wow, it seems that Europe can no longer take the high ground when they laugh at Americans for our sudden lack of civil liberties.

I know. That's what make's this all the more hilarious. They never had the high ground in the first place.

Originally Posted by Hachifusa

In other words, it's not just a ridiculous law, it's an unethical one.

Oh it might very well be quite ethnical from their (the Dutch government's) standpoint. Just not from yours.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Hachifusa

The only ethical idea that a government can uphold is protection of its citizens, so from the Dutch's government's standpoint, it's unethical, too.

Don't pull the "everyone's ethics are different!!" card, because then we might as well forget about making judgments at all.

But the Dutch Government is protecting it's citizens by forcing integration and outlawing anything ethnically diverse.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Kolba

Just wondering, guys, how are you going to bring this subject up (as one would load ammunition into a gun of some sort) when in a debate with a European over American policies that are actually law?

Glad somebody decided to ask. My answer; a concept originating in British Common Law. To be more particular, the legality of seditious libel. Basically what seditious libel is about is that the government is not trying to prevent a utterance, therby not infringing on freedom of speech. Freedom of speech only means you're free to say what you please. Not that there cannot be any legal recourse for what (or how) you say. Say for example you threaten the life of a world leader. You're free to do so, but there is legal recourse.

Now, for a European example. In Spain, under Franco you were free to be a communist. You could even start your own communist club decrying government practices. But in downtown Madrid there was a prison where screams of agony erupted from. Which was where the communists were sent for rehabilitation.

Oh, and isn't some Austrian being imprisoned over some pro-nazi things he said in a book a decade or two ago? Seditious Libel at work again.

Originally Posted by Kolba

"Yeah but remember that one woman from the Netherlands - widely recognised for being a harebrained hardliner even in her own country - who once proposed an idea to limit public speech to Dutch only? A-ha! See, I've got you!"

I'm sure plenty of Americans think some of our policies are extreme as well. So your point is moot. And as I've already said, this "idea" is of European origin, which is still in wide use. Get my point about some Europeans being hypocrites now?

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Kolba

Amercian policies that are in effect? You know this isn't law in the Netherlands?

Seditious libel is just as much apart of our laws as they are yours. Hence the examples I provided. In this case there's no freedom of speech conflict. Just some intolerance which is really nothing new in your country or mine.

Originally Posted by Kolba

Those posts I quoted, they look like two people entering into this thread and announcing "ha you're no better than us!", just because of some mad woman. Now it's fine if you want to score points against the Europeans, it just would be a little less confounding to onlookers to do it some thread thats not about what isn't really happening. Is that alright?

Maybe so. It could be I was baiting somebody for a response for a reason. Since I cannot change what you think about freedom of speech or it's limits. But I surely can change your perception on what limits do apply. (and have been applied in the not so recent past)

Oh and don't feel too bad. That's not the first time I've pulled that on somebody.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Kolba

It's a shame the journals aren't up, you could put that stuff in an entry with, like, a link in a signature somewhere saying something like "an education on seditious libel" so people can read it voluntarily. Nice gig though, you got me good.

I think I'm too lazy for a journal, so it's just easier to bait people and then make them look silly after relating numerous examples. Plus, I'm no lawyer... or historian for that matter.

I didn't really expect anyone who hasn't had a good "history of Western Civilization" and/or a couple college level classes on law to really understand it anyway. Most people have misconceptions about freedom of speech.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

This is kinda off topic but here goes.

Originally Posted by Kolba

Ok, a little advice I may impart. For a really big payoff, I would wait until someone who is actually trying to counter your point bites.

I think the journal idea would probably be better. Something I'll consider. But I digress, since pretty much everyone who read the first post of this thread agreed that this was small-minded bigotry, if anyone; namely me were to come out and say "I don't think there's anything legally wrong with this..." I'd be denounced as a bigot or maybe even anti-arab nazi. Which clearly I am not. The point is, nobody would take the time to get to my true legal standpoint. Where as here at least one person got it. Probably more. And hey a little humility never hurt anybody with all these European-American rivalries/tensions going on right?

Originally Posted by Kolba

Also, that way anyone who's just attempting to point out some logical shortfallings doesn't have to waste their time on someone feigning ignorance and playing games for whatever reason.

Then do accept my apologies for that. But regardless I would've dealt with your outrage, and your indinity either way. Instead of dealing with it all at once and from everybody (with the "I don't think there's anything legally wrong with this" comment) I chose to single somebody out, and hope everyone got my point without all the outrage.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Stop acting like a goddamn queen. This is Political Palace, not some dance floor at the student center.

Great diplomacy skills Brady! Used less words then I did. But I bet mine went over better.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Kolba

Why didn't you make the point straight away? Why did you feel somebody had to lead you there?

It's more of a 'journey of self-discovery' that way. I don't like preaching. Plus it was kinda fun; "You Europeans started it the moment you acted all superior to Americans!" and likewise.

Originally Posted by Kolba

You know this thread has been sullied slightly because of your inablity to air your view point in the normal course of debate?

Mmm okay. It could've also been sullied by the general ignorance about common law regarding freedom of speech that's older then 100 years? But I guess I'll take the blame for sullying the thread.

Originally Posted by Kolba

But if Bradylama tells me trawling is commonplace over a straight laying down of opinions, then I've got it all wrong, for which you should excuse me.

I'll leave it to Brady to explain himself, but I think he was just saying you were overreacting over nothing. If a moderator had a problem with what I did, they'd inform me.

Regardless I've made my point. So I'm done with this thread.

Jam it back in, in the dark.