Europe at War

[Todd]

In normal times, the act of a single individual burning an Orthodox Christian Bible in front of the Romanian Embassy in Canada would amount to nothing, even if it be approved by the Canadian government.

But --- if Canada were seeking to join NATO, and their joinig NATO depended on Romania's approval, and Romania told Canada they should put an end to any anti-Romanian activity, and then the Canadian government would give permit to someone to burn an Orthodox Christian Bible in front of the Romanian embassy in Canada in the full knowledge of what was going to happen --- then I say that the subsequent Romanian veto against Canada's accession to NATO would be fully justified.

Your hypotheticals are detached from reality.

The diplomatic fuss between Turkey and Sweden is not really about Koran burning.  That is a convenient public pretext.  The most substantive public issue involves Turkey's claims of Sweden harboring political enemies of Turkey (eg, Gülenists).  Another obvious motive of Erdoğan is to leverage anti-Western sentiment in his country to deflect from domestic issues, such as obscene inflation and botched economic policies across the board.  There is also a strong possibility that Erdoğan sees Sweden as a threat to the Turkish arms industry.  Sweden has one of the most advanced arms industries in Europe, and full integration into NATO would mean that Swedish arms would be more widely sold, potentially eating into Turkey's market share before it could grow its non-NATO market sufficiently.   

Canada and Romania do not have similar issues to work through.

[Florestan]

Yes, and I would go for an even more strictive definition of hate speech that requires that harm be encouraged, (more or less explicitly), against the target group.

My point exactly.

Merely insulting them or even slandering them must, in the interest of free speech, not be considered hate speech.

I do tell and do enjoy jokes about Hungarians, Roma people, Jews, Scotttish people, Romanian people, Italians and what not.

I've always taught, and I do teach, and I am teaching, ny son that we are all human beings, no matter the color of our skin, or the language we talk, or the religion we believe/not believe in.

It seems to me that burning a religious text falls outside the definition I favour.

The burning of a religious text is a clear, obvious and incontrovertible indication that one not only hates that particular religion, but that they do want to publicly show their hate. And if they burn it in front of an embassy of a nation whose vast majority profess that religion, then it is a clear, obvious and incontrovertible indication that one hates that nation, too.

That any nation calling themselves civilized should allow such hateful behavior to go unchecked in the name of free speech leaves me truly speechless.

[Florestan]

it's a matter of expediency:

Politics in a nutshell.

[Karl Henning]

Exactly! What other reason could there be?

Again, if the organs of government sanction the provocative act, they invite a response themselves. Cannot make Sweden out to be the "victim" here.

[Florestan]

Specifically Turkey making a big fuss about a Qur'an burning is mostly Erdogan waving the flag to please his base and re-enforce his crypto-fascist political strategy.

See my reply #5243.

Firstly, please tell us what is wrong with Erdogan's trying to please his base.

Secondly, please tell us how is he any different from any Western Europe/Northern American politician.

Thirdly, please define crypto-fascist.

In Hungary, Viktor Orbán's NATO hesitancy isn't so different in that it's part of the aggrandizement of his nationalist image and championing Hungarian autonomy.

By the way...

Poland, Hungary and Romania were accepted into NATO on the condition they gave up once and for all each and every territorial claims they might have had on their neighbors. Poland and Romania officially gave up any claim on Ukrainian territory, Hungary officially gave up any claim on Romanian territory.

Yet Sweden and Finland somehow feel entitled to join NATO without making the slightest compromise/concession.

Why?

[Florestan]

The diplomatic fuss between Turkey and Sweden is not really about Koran burning.  That is a convenient public pretext.  The most substantive public issue involves Turkey's claims of Sweden harboring political enemies of Turkey (eg, Gülenists).  Another obvious motive of Erdoğan is to leverage anti-Western sentiment in his country to deflect from domestic issues, such as obscene inflation and botched economic policies across the board.  There is also a strong possibility that Erdoğan sees Sweden as a threat to the Turkish arms industry.  Sweden has one of the most advanced arms industries in Europe, and full integration into NATO would mean that Swedish arms would be more widely sold, potentially eating into Turkey's market share before it could grow its non-NATO market sufficiently. 

I'm not disagreeing with any of the above.

All I'm saying is that all of the above were already on the table of a difficult Swedish-Turkish negotiation, which might have still yielded a compromise --- but lo and behold!, out of a sudden comes Rasmus Paludan and the Swedish government, committed to a foolish and misguided nbotion of free speech, makes an enormous blunder and offers Erdogan a good, unassailable pretext for stalling NATO's expansion. I put myself in Erdogan's shoes and say: whichever government allows, in full knowledge of what would go on, the burning of the Quran in front of the Turkish Embassy, is not a would-be trustful ally of Turkey within NATO.

Heck, he didn't ask for all Kurds to be expelled from Sweden/Finland. He only asked for Kurds with documented membership/link to PKK to be not even expelled, but be prohibited from publicly activity on Swedish and Finnish territory. How is that demand unreasonable, given that EU has put PKK on the list of terrorist organizations?

Canada and Romania do not have similar issues to work through.

They don't and I do wonder why. Do you have any explanation?

[Todd]

All I'm saying is that

No, what you were saying was something about Canada and Romania that has no relationship to reality, and you did so in a terribly misguided defense of speech suppression.

They don't and I do wonder why. Do you have any explanation?

Yes, Romania is weak to the point of irrelevance and Canada is a majority owned subsidiary of the US.

[Florestan]

No, what you were saying was something about Canada and Romania that has no relationship to reality, and you did so in a terribly misguided defense of speech suppression.

Time and again, my honest and sincere opening towards you is met with disdain. But then again, it's my own fault, i should really have known better by now.

Yes, Romania is weak to the point of irrelevance and Canada is a majority owned subsidiary of the US.

Talk about self-unawareness and cultural chauvinism.

[Todd]

Time and again, my honest and sincere opening towards you is met with disdain. But then again, it's my own fault, i should really have known better by now.

Better hypotheticals would help.

Talk about self-unawareness and cultural chauvinism.

Since the West, broadly speaking, is (supposedly) one happy family, pointing out the relative power of its members is less cultural chauvinism than basic observation.

Perhaps you can offer a detailed, academic quality explanation of the relations between Canada and Romania, and why they are so excellent.  While you are at it, perhaps you can explain how the current post-war order could exist without US power. 

[Florestan]

Perhaps you can offer a detailed, academic quality explanation of

Perhaps you can offer a detailed, academic quality explanation of why you are such an obnoxiuous person.

[Florestan]

obnoxiuous

Yes, I know -- incorrect.

[Todd]

Perhaps you can offer a detailed, academic quality explanation of why you are such an obnoxiuous person.

[Florestan]

Ladies and gentlemen,

I just made Todd reply anything other than "Incorrect."

Let's party!

[Florestan]

So long as my disagreement and hatred are constrained within the limits of civil discourse: live with it.

What if, as is often the case, the limits of civil discourse are trespassed? What then, pray tell? Who is entitled, if anybody, to keep one's discourse within the limits oi civility?

[Madiel]

Are you saying I am not allowed to destroy my STAR WARS blu-rays, because Disney owns the copyrights? 

I'm saying that you don't own Star Wars. Which would be equivalent to what you said about owning holy scriptures.

[Madiel]

I agree that's hypocritical -- someone ought to go and burn a Tanakh in from of the Israeli embassy just to put the matter to the test in the courts.

Well OK, I'm mostly kidding.  However in principle I defend to right of anyone to criticize their own or anyone else's religion:  it might be hate speech in a specific context but it isn't inherently so.  What are we to make of the laws of a country like Pakistan were it is a capital offence to "offend" the Prophet or sully the Qur'an?

Burning a book is not "criticism".

Edit: nor is it "speech", despite the attempts of American courts to extend this concept to the point where interpretative dance probably counts.

[Madiel]

Flag burning is legal in the US. No one is required to recite the pledge of allegiance. No one is required to worship veterans. I can burn a stack of bibles without repercussions.  In fact, a local thrift store gives bibles away for free and I use those thin crispy pages as kindling in my wood stove. Have you seen the hilarious new trend of satanists delivering opening prayers at school board meetings?

Perhaps every culture has its superstitions. It's the ones willing to kill over them that concern me.

I wasn't talking about whether it was legal. There are plenty of things that are legal that can get you into a lot of trouble with people, rather than the law.

[BasilValentine]

The limits of civil discourse are that one should not feel imminently threatened, or actually be threatened.
That you are offended or your feelings are hurt: tough luck.
Should your speech involve incitement to violence, or threaten violence, or be part of an acutally violent act, then you suffer the legal consequences. Short of that, you are good to go, no matter how much my feelings may be hurt.

I don't know that it is "often the case" that the limits of civil discourse are often trespassed. I've frequently had 'eff off fag' shouted at me, but I've not often felt that this would translate into actually getting out of their car and pummelling me to the ground. I think it quite rare that even virulent speech trangresses those particular boundaries.

I agree in principle with this and your other recent posts. My one hesitation is in knowing how to address stochastic terrorism as practiced by prominent political figures, if indeed there is  anything that can or should be done about it.

[Madiel]

USA politics is a toxic cesspool. The USA allows all sorts of speech that is completely unacceptable in other countries. The two things are not unrelated.

[Todd]

stochastic terrorism

Very buzzy.