Apparently, the bottom of dishonesty lies even deeper. 

I just repeated (for the umpteenth time) that I would respect the freedom of speech of EVERYBODY, including Schaveiger. And, after that I get to be labeled as being "part of the Herrenvolk". 

To that I can only respond that the actual historical "Herrenvolk" did NOT respect the freedom of political speech of those it labeled as its 'opponents'. 

 By contrast, Schaveiger has clearly indicated his support for laws that criminalise labels, that hang labels on political opponents, and then prosecute political opponents.  

So, who resembles the actual historical "Herrenvolk"?   In order to answer that question truthfully one has, indeed, have to know the English language, be of sound mind, and be of an honest disposition.   

<cite>Let's distill this back to its essence, for those who are not very smart or who are dishonest.

Yes let's do it for those who think they are very smart and honest. Let's ask ourselves why  freedom of political speech is so much claimed by the extreme right. Reading their propaganda, one can't hardly say that they're using an academic language but merely personal attacks and cattle drivers expressions. This is the biggest part of their populist behaviour they need so badly to stay in the game.

The real raison why unlimited political speech has to be restricted is because it's the only way to avoid emergence of primary feelings. This is the favourite playground of all extremists and they know very well  the huge response from the ordinary people. So long for the smart and honest side.

;Hint: in order to answer this question one must (a) have a minimal understanding of the English language, (b) be of sound mind, (c) be of an honest disposition, and (d) be able to identify the person who appears willing to RESTRICT the free speech of others.

This observation reflects very well how the writer is considering the others. Probably he finds himself part of the "Herrenvolk" in which case all the rest is illiterate and has no reason to exist.

The Left sees fit to silence opposition by labelling said opposition's speech as criminal. However, the Right permits the speech of all, even to its own detriment.

Again such a contradictory observation; The extreme left is as rogue as their opposite. Pretending that you permit speech to your own detriment is having a very short memory.

Let's distill this back to its essence, for those who are not very smart or who are dishonest. 

Throughout this long 'discussion', marcfrans has clearly stated that he supports freedom of political speech FOR EVERYONE, including for Schaveiger. This means that marcfrans would NEVER support ANY legislation on the basis of which anybody could be prosecuted for MERE SPEECH (as opposed to action).   

In contrast, Schaveiger has clearly indicated that he supports laws under which political authorities arbitrarily can decide that certain speech is "subversive" (or whatever label like "discriminatory, hateful, racist, anti-whatever..." they want to attach to it) and which allows these authorities to prosecute political opponents.  Just like they do in Teheran, Arab capitals, Beijing, etc...  The real reason why Schaveiger supports this type of legislation is because his 'friends' are currently in power in his country, and can apply this to their opponents who are obviously not friends of Schaveiger.         

So, if there is anyone here (in this discussion) who cannot "stand the positions others are taking on the free speech issue"(dixit Sch...)....it must be......???? (all smart people in unison say Sch....!!). 

Hint: in order to answer this question one must (a) have a minimal understanding of the English language, (b) be of sound mind, (c) be of an honest disposition, and (d) be able to identify the person who appears willing to RESTRICT the free speech of others.

Some here don't stand the positions others are taking on the free speech issue. As it is custom to their political narrow-mindness, only what's good in their eyes must be good for everybody. If not, opponents are credited by phoney qualifications who means nothing but showing the arsenal of  their subversive tools.

To make it clear, I've never wrote that I'm against free speech. All what I pointed out was that there are limits one should not trespass, in particular by political party line. Unlimited freedom in anything has always lead to problems everywhere and whenever it happens, the popes of free anything are fled.

@ Atheling

"A republic, if you can keep it".

Ah well, Ben Franklin was a witty man.  And that is one of his most famous statements.  As you know, he was also ambassador to France for quite a while, so he knew what to expect about the difficulties ahead.....

@ Atheling

As you can observe, the discussion between the 'monarchist' and the 'enabler' is quite a depressing spectacle to watch.  One thing is for sure, neither understands the essence of democracy.  I will stick to my original judgment:  the first represents truly a marginal phenomenon (we must hope) outside the European cultural mainstream, and the second is an 'apologist' for the arbitrary/selective suppression of freedom of political speech (which, I fear, is very much mainstream today, and can only lead to more explosive conditions in the long term).

@ Atheling

You raise an interesting question.

I doubt very much that Rzec...is an exponent of "an emerging phenomenon of current European conservatism". We can only speculate of course, but it seems very unlikely to me. No, I think that he represents truly a 'marginal' phenomenon, but one that I think is "more prevalent in Poland" than elsewhere in Europe. Also. Note that he does not read well (common among ideologues who abhor anglo-saxon empiricism), and that - in his response - he 'turned' my "more prevalent in Poland" into "Polish mainstream"! I never said that he was mainstream in Poland. I said that his type was more prevalent in Poland than elsewhere. And I also said that Poland was somewhat outside the "cultural mainstream" in Europe. Anyway, it seems all too much nuanced for Rzecz...

Yes, I am sure that many will agree with your prediction that Muslim immigration in Europe will eventually lead Europeans to turn to a "strongman" or strongmen (again) in order "to remedy the situation". I think that this is more likely to happen the more the current ruling naive-left elite tramples on freedom of political speech. The less freedom there is for 'speech' the less likely political systems can adjust themselves in time to make necessary 'corrections' and the more explosive the situation becomes, thus opening the doors for strongmen. You would think that the elites would have learned that lesson from the past, but they clearly have forgotten it (in their zest to maintain power).

No, I do not think that Rzecz..and Schaveiger are in any sense "forerunners". The first represents truly a marginal phenomenon that is totally outside the European cultural mainstream. And the latter is just an exponent of the current disastrous obstructionism of the ruling naive-left orthodoxy. He is more an 'enabler' of attitudes that are creating conditions for a future 'explosion', but he is not really a forerunner. Perhaps, this blog could be seen as a possible forerunner.

@ Atheling

 It would seem rather futile to continue this discussion.  Both persons, Rzeczpospolita and Schaveiger, clearly illustrate what is (again) deeply wrong with European culture today.  The first one is an 'extremist' (on the right) in the sense that he himself admits openly that he is not a 'democrat' and that he harks back to some kind of 'guided' system of monarchy.  He lives on another planet (partly because Poland is still a bit special and outside the European cultural mainstream) so his kind may be somewhat more prevalent there.  It is virtually nonexistant elsewhere in Europe (although we have seen traces of it in 'Conservative Swede' as well).

By contrast, Schaveiger is clearly very much in the current naive-left European mainstream of thinking.  We can now say without any doubt that he does not believe in freedom of political speech, and will defend the arbitrary and selective prosecution of  political opponents, in order to defend his 'orthodoxy' with unconstitutional means.   That has always been the road to 'serfdom' in Europe in the past.  Label your opponents, criminalise the labels, and 'voila' your lot stays in power a bit longer.  The real 'price' tends to be paid by the next generation.  He is of course, no more a 'democrat' than Rzecspozpolita, but the Schaveiger types are not aware of that (whereas Rzecz.. is aware of it, or at least more honest about it)).

As George Washington already knew over 2 centuries ago, these 'Europeans' do not believe that it is the people that are supposed to be 'sovereign'.  No, they believe that they (the elitists) have some (God-given?, certainly in Rzecz...'s case) right to 'guide' the people, and tell them what they are allowed to hear and think.

Wait a minute, we started with the free POLITICAL speech claimed so hardly by marcfrans. My position in respect to this is that EVERYTHING can't be said or written at ANY time by POLITICAL parties. My opinion is that they have an exemplary part to play in front of the citizens after they sweared to OBEY the constitution and the laws. My opinion is that free speech, in the way it's understood and applied by extremists, is the highway to anarchism and conflicts.

Denying the link between speech and action is pure demagogy. There are plenty examples in front of us every day, especially in the Islamic world.

Before advocating that kind of free speech, tell me where it is (or has been) successfully applied and let's then talk again.

Below a sample of free speech which is tolerable because given by an individual:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/staticarticles/article58970.html

....

 3) Indeed, your point 3 was "woordkramerij".  How could I respond with "argumentation" if I have no idea what you were trying to say there?
 
 

4) No, "free speech" does NOT exist "here" (in Belgium).  Every newspaper editor, journalist, etc...knows that he can be hauled in court for violating certain anti-free-speech laws (they have fancier names!).  You have "controlled speech" there.  And you ONLY get to hear what people like Ahmadinejad say as long as it suits the current authorities in Belgium.  For they have proven to be willing to prosecute people for expressing certain opionions or for allowing others to express certain opinions in their media vehicles. 

Indeed, those who "cannot live with that" (i.e. genuine free political speech) have a "hidden agenda".  That agenda is very simple: i.e. to preserve their current political power.  And, as one of their parroters, you are one of their willing instruments. There is a long history in the West of willing 'useful idiots' helping to undermine western democracy.  The really scary thing today (as opposed to say during the interwar period, or to the Cold War period) is that today many of these 'idiots' are actually in governement(s) and in power.

@ Schaveiger

1) You obviously do not understand that the maintenance of democracy as a political system over time requires the maintenance of a democratic culture.  Once the culture becomes intolerant of unorthodox ideas, then it is just a matter of time for the democratic political system to go.  Indeed, you say yourself that the FIRST THING that people like Hitler, Mao, Franco etc...(let's not forget today: Khomeini, Castro, Chavez, etc....) is to deny free speech rights to those who critisize them.  

So, when Belgian parliamentarians pass laws that allow for the SELECTIVE criminilisation of certain OPINIONS, and when (politically appointed) judges in courts do NOT uphold the constitution (by not declaring manifestly unconstitutional laws as such), then we can clearly say that the culture is losing its democratic character or nature.  The rest will follow....given enough time.  As a simple illustration, even you should be able to recognise that the current 'race riots' and islamic terrorism in Europe are a DIRECT CONSEQUENCE of the lack of free speech over the past quarter century in Europe concerning immigration issues.  It is beacuse early warning voices were suppressed, first by 'cultural pressure', later increasingly by explicit laws, that we are in the pickle that we are in now.  More consequences of this treason to the European Enlightenment are sure to follow.  

2) You sinply lack a sense of fairness.  Or, if you will, you (and Belgian politicians) have 'forgotten' the biblical story about the splinter and the 'balk' in one's eyes.  As if we didn't know yet!  You declare that your political opponents are "populist", and apply to them subjective terms like "insult, discrimination, stigmatisation, etc...".  All these things could be applied to ANY and EVERY political party in Belgium.  It all depends on WHO is doing the 'applying' and HOW.  You simply want to exempt yourself from the democratic 'duty' of tolerating REAL political opposition, and you want to have the 'freedom' to shut up political opponents, so they ccould not 'infect' the voters.  Which means that you treat the voters like children that have to be told how to think and judge.  That shows that you lack a sense of fairness, and that you are not a genuine 'democrat'.  And since your attitude has now been advocated for nearly a generation of naive-leftist educators (just read any Belgian newspaper or watch Belgian TV) and you can see why democracy will not survive in Belgium (and perhaps in the rest of Western Europe either).  

You continue to be dishonest.  I did not "disregard free action".  On the contrary. I say that criminal law should be concerned with concrete action or deeds. And I do not deny that speech can have consequences. That is indeed the whole purpose of free speech in the maintenance of democracy.  Free speech is needed so that the polity can react IN TIME to changing circumstances and problems.  But the polity ALWAYS has to react in constitutional ways, i.e. through voting and convincing enough people, not through impermissibale or 'criminal' deeds like violence.  That is what democracy is all about.  You should outlaw all violence against persons (including violence from tradeunionists - now in power - for instance).  You should never outlaw opinions and the ability of voters to inform themselves about these opinions. 

......

1. Glad to read that you agree that  free speech exists and is allowed. Everybody is self-censuring but this is not only due to laws and regulations but also to education and culture.
As to the convicting of what you call certain SELECTED people, as said before this was done after lodging complaint and on basis of existing laws the judges had to apply. I've no straight answer on your query of why they and no others but guess this is similar as to drugs- users and dealers.

2. On insults, the qualification of "cheap" was not a good choice in this case. I think that insults done by an individual has less impact than when a political party uses it as a political weapon. Populists parties of this kind have always used such methods because they poke-up the latent vices deeply present in each of us since we exists. Insults, discriminations and stigmatisations in political programs have to be banned.  If you call this a lack of fairness (French: équité, NL: rechtvaardigheid) on my part; be my guest.

Unorthodox ideas are said and written  daily everywhere and you admitted it. The point is who express them and for what purpose.

You can't claim free speech and then disregard free action. The action is mostly the direct consequence of the speech. If you pretend the contrary then you can be compared with a parrot.

3. That sort of "woordkramerij" on which you have no valuable argumentation.

4. Totalitarians use free speech  because of the Western tolerance. So you admit once again that free speech exists here. And what will be the case when authoritarians/totalitarians are ruling here ? Haven't we experienced this already before ? How did guys like Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Franco and so many others cope with free speech once they were ruling ?

My guess is that democracy includes not "everything" at "any time". Those who can't live with this have an hidden agenda which will surely not be in favour of any democratic behaviour.

On this issue we know both our respective opinions. All the rest is repeated tittle-tattle which we better stop here.

@ Armor, Atheling

There is no more worthy political fight than the fight for the 'survival' of freedom of political speech in western civilisation.  Especially in Europe today, but to a lesser extent in the USA as well (because there are quite a number of surreptitious attempts by mainly cultural-leftists to undermine it there too).  It is an uphill battle, as you can see from the false 'denials' and obfuscations of (otherwise probably quite reasonable) people like Schaveiger. 

It is the fight for the survival of 'democratic culture', because in the end that is what the survival of genuine democracy as a political system will depend upon.  Everything worhwhile depends on the maintenance of free political speech.  If you do not believe me, go and actually live for an extended period in 'nondemocratic' cultures, like China and the Arab world for instance, where there is no tolerance for free political speech, and perhaps you will begin to understand... Now, I assume you do understand, but Schaveiger clearly does not.

@Marcfrans:
At what number will you stop ?

@ Schaveiger

1) Yes, I know what "free speech" is all about. It means that you are allowed to say (in a proper setting) whatever it is that you want to say or write. Yes, as far as I know we are using free speech on this blog. And yes, to the extent that Belien was 'allowed' to publish a book, he was allowed to exercise his free speech. I do not know what particular restrictions he was laboring under. And I do not know to what extent particular individuals have been self-censuring themselves (on this blog and Belien in his book) because certain SELECTED people have been convicted in Belgian courts for expressing certain opinions. The purpose of these convictions is to INTIMIDATE SELECTED others. So there is lots of uncertainty about the answers to your questions.

2) If "cheap insults" have to be forbidden, can you explain to me why most cheap insults are not being punished? (Believe me I do NOT expect an answer, since you have never answered direct questions before.) For instance, we can all observe that the Belgian media are full of all sorts of "cheap insults", sometimes addressed at Americans, the pope, Bush, particular Flemish or francophone individuals, etc... How come these insults go unpunished? But the moment one insults a 'dogma', like muslim immigration or the holocaust, you can be dragged before a court. And wether you will be dragged there will entirely depend on who you are. The point is that you should never criminalise something as SUBJECTIVE as "cheap insult". Because it inevitably leads to arbitrary in-'justice' and to political abuse. Is that really so hard to understand for a post-Enlightenment European like yourself? Basically, you lack a sense of 'fairness'. And yes there is no real good Dutch nor French direct word for the concept of 'fairness'. Which may well be why democracy does not sit well with some continental Europeans, as history has clearly shown.

An "unorthodox" idea of mine? Well, the idea that in a free and democratic country people should be free to express ANY idea on any subject without harassment or persecution by governmental authorities, that idea certainly is "unorthodox" in your Brussels environment. It is generally not unorthodox where I currently reside.

To answer your other question: NO IDEA should be subject to criminal law, i.e. people should be allowed to express ALL ideas. Restrictions should be aimed at DEEDS or ACTIONS. I have given you ample examples of that. But you simply pretend not to understand, because you do not want to concede that there is no longer genuine free speech in Belgium. And that is why you are manifestly dishonest.

3) Your 3rd paragraph does not make any sense. It is 'woordkramerij'. Please, rephrase in a logical way, or perhaps better stay quiet so as not to embarass yourself any further.

4) Authoritarians/totalitarians like Chavez, Ahmadinejad, and Bin Laden certainly take advantage of the RELATIVE tolerance of western societies for "free speech". In other words, people in western countries generally are allowed to hear what these totalitarians are saying in public fora. At the same time these totalitarians will do whatever it takes to DENY free speech to their own people and others whenever they can. What you have in common with these totalitarians is that you too are willing to SELECTIVELY deny free speech to some people in your own polity of Belgium. I recognise that you are not as 'bad' as them, that your degree of tolerance of free speech is undoubtedly higher, but you do resemble them in your acceptance of ARBITRARY restrictions on free speech.

Nonsense theories and 'lies', like 9/11 'forgeries', should be responded to with MORE FREE SPEECH, i.e. they should be exposed, but not banned. The moment you allow banning of opinions, you open the door to loss of democracy, i.e. your political opponents (when in power) will then be able to declare your opinions as "lies" or "cheap insults" or whatever and ban it. Instead, the proper (democratic) course would be for everybody to respect the constitutional free speech rights of everyone else.

@ marcfrans

1. Really I'm stuck with you. Do you really know what free speech is all about ?

- On this blog, do you/we use free speech ?

- Belien's book "A Throne in Brussels": is this free speech or not ?

2. I don't take racist and xenophobic talk as free "political" opinion but as cheap insults and yes this has to be forbidden. If in your eyes this is dishonest on my part, thank you very much.

The way you treat me as dishonest and a traitor is already an indication what your standards are in regards to free speech.
Instead of twisting and twirling, why don't you just reply the questions and give a sample of:

- an  unorthodox idea of yours

- what is included in ALL IDEAS which may be convicted (since you tempt to exclude personal attacks and what's said in 2. above, I'm curious what else it could be).

3. It's not what goes in but what comes out your mouth that arms. This saying is as old as the Bible which means that humans are still humans.
You enumerate exactly the "labels" you want to use and I guess that they are included in your ALL IDEAS. You should first think by yourself what kind of advantage this will bring to your world and  what kind of reaction you will get.

4. Think about this:

- the "Réseau Voltaire", do they use free speech ?

- Thierry Meyssan's book on the 9/11 forgery, is this free speech ?

- LGF, do they use free speech ?

- Venezuelan's Chavez, does he uses free speech ?

- Iran's prime minister, does he uses free speech ?

- Bin Laden, does he uses free speech ?

…/…..

If you say yes, do you still stick to it that there is no free speech ?

If you say no, then give me a clear sample of YOUR free speech.

I think that you're a don Quichotte and you'll feel happy alone on a deserted island only.

@ Schaveiger

1) Do you agree that people should have freedom of political speech (as it says in the current Belgian constitution)?  Yes or no?  It is a very simple question.

2) If you say "yes", then it cannot be that anyone gets convicted for expressing an OPINION.  Yet, you know that certain individuals do get convicted for expressing certain opinions, and you say that you are OK with that.  Therefore, you are dishonest, for you say that you are for freedom of political speech, but you are not in practice, since you condone that it does not apply to some people.   

2) How dishonest can you be?.  You say that I "fail to name 1 place where there should be freedom of speech".  What nonsense!  I have clearly written several times that there should be freedom of speech in "appropriate" places, like newspapers, party programs, meetings, private settings, etc... There should be freedom of speech EVERYWHERE, except in cases were common sense would tell a NORMAL HONEST person (which you obviously are not) that the speech is a direct ACTION of harassment.  And I have given clear examples of the latter (crowded cinema, calling you names every morning in front of your door, direct incitement to violence in front of a crowd, etc...) . The simple point is that one should be able to dicuss freely ALL IDEAS.  And you know it, hence you are simply pretending not to understand the obvious.

3) Indeed, you "cannot manage a community without regulations".  But regulations SHOULD concern ACTIONS or DEEDS, not opinions or words.   Because government has a monopoly on police and judicial power, a free people should never tolerate that its government can dictate what opinions are allowed to be expressed or not.   

Indeed, "greed and domination are key words to all excess".  And the surest way to be able to determine who is afflicted with "greed and domination" is to see who is willing to tolerate free speech and who is not.  It is those powerful who pass laws that criminalise LABELS (like "racism, hate, xenophobia, hypocrisy, imperialists, running dogs, enemies of the people, anti-semites, etc....", who effectively outlaw political opposition, and therefore who are PROVING that they are afflicted with "greed and domination".  These labels can mean anything and therefore can be arbitrarily and SELECTIVELY applied to some (opponents) and not to others ('friends').

4) We agree that separation of church and state is a good thing.  But that has nothing to do with the issue of freedom of speech. 

There is NO DIFFERENCE between a cleric (if he had political power) and a secular politician (with political power) if they both deny freedom of speech to political opponents.  Historically, the European Enlightenment had a lot to do with fighting for freedom of speech at a time when clerics still had political power and were suppressing free speech.  This fight was NOT fought to replace intolerant clerics by intolerant secular politicians. 

It does not matter who is in power, whether they are clerics or secular people, whether they call themselves socialists, liberals ,conservatives, christian democrats, republicans, etc... What matters is whether they do respect democratic rules, and the very first rule should be freedom of political speech.  Without freedom of political speech there cannot be a fair and honest competition for the people's votes.  What we have today in Brussels is a milder version of what we have today in Putin's Moskou, i.e. we have controlled-speech, and the whole purpose of controlling speech is to control the thoughts and votes of the people.  This is the OPPOSITE of democracy.  Democracy means that the people should control government, and not vice versa.

4) You wrote yourself: "opposite deeds, words.....create(d)... illusions".   Indeed, that is exactly what you do.  You SAY that you are for free speech, but you DO the opposite, for you tolerate the SELECTIVE suppression of the free speech rights of some people.

Fundamentally, you are blind and dishonest.  But, believe me, those in the Belgian 'elite' who have passed these unconstitutional laws that violate free speech, they are not blind (for they know very well why they are doing this, i.e. to maintain power) but they are certainly dishonest, and they are definitely not 'democrats'.   

1. I don't know which of the two of us is naïve. You write that the freedom of speech has not to be according your standards and the next line you disagree to the freedom of speech following the common "naïve-left" standards.
What importance has free speech if you don't link it to free action ? Who you try to frame with this ?

Do you really think that with free speech there would be more democracy ? You are going to reply the affirmative but then tell also which part of the society will "feel" more democrat.
What are exactly "unorthodox ideas" for you ?

I simply want to emphasize that democratic elected people, who are swearing in public to obey the laws are some weeks later violating the same laws in public. How trustworthy are these people in the eyes of the ordinary citizen who have no "parliamentary immunity" ?

2. Great, but you still fail to name one (1 = ONE) place where your free political speech is allowed. Opposite to deeds, words have never created anything but illusions.

3. This is a lengthy explanation for a simple question i.e. how you manage a community without regulations. I  think that you underestimate the vices which are inherent to people who have the ambition to be in power. Greed and domination are keywords to all excess.

Freedom of political speech is in your eyes an enlightment. Europe started his enlightment the day they separated the church from the politics. Although some clerics are trying to undo this, I think that the West knows well what it means after all.

You want to enlighten with more free speech, whatever that may be. But if you take the speech without the deed, then you better play it elsewhere. Cultural decline because of the lack of freedom of speech is a nonsense.

@ Schaveiger

......

3) You are NOT a traitor because you stand "against extremism...injustice, hypocrisy, far-left and far-right dogmas".  That is again a misrepresentation and a blatant lie.  I am against all these things even more than you.  For instance, there is no one on this blog who has more ardently criticised the manifest racism of some extreme-rightists. The difference between us is that you refuse to recognise that terms like "extremism, nationalism, injustice, hypocrisy, extreme dogmas etc..." are all very SUBJECTIVE terms which will mean very different things to different people. That is precisely why they do not belong in criminal law, which in a genuine democracy must concern itself with OBJECTIVE DEEDS or actions, lest the law becomes a tool in the hands of political partisans to shut out debate and criticism of their actions. Basically you do not recognize that it is the people that are 'sovereign' and that it is they who should make up their own mind as to who is "extreme, hypocitical, injust etc...". You want the government to make their minds up for them, by limiting what they are allowed to 'hear'.  That is of course because your 'kind of guys and galls' are now in power.  The difference between you and me is that I will defend freedom of political speech regardless of who is in power.  I will defend it for your friends too if they were ever out of power.  Of course, their efforts to restrict free speech are attempts to maintain power indefinitely, which is precisely why you are no longer living in a genuine democracy.  They have ignored the very constitution which they had sworn to uphold. 

 Yes, you are a traitor to the European Enlightenment value of freedom of political speech, simply because you do no longer believe in it, i.e. you believe only in freedom of speech for those with whom you agree. That is not freedom of speech, that is ideological sectarianism, a 'relative' of racism, hypocrisy, extremism, and xenophobia. Part of the problem is of course, that the culture has broadly descended into moral relativism, i.e. people don't believe anymore in the moral values of honesty, courage, compassion etc...as they do not practice it.  People simply do what they want or what suits them, and can no longer apply principles indiscriminately or objectively. Hence, they will for instance allow freedom of speech selectively, they will allow it for their friends and alike-thinkers, but will try to shut their opponents up. It is a confirmation that history moves in waves of rise and decline (decadence), and the arbitrary restriction of freedom of speech in Europe (and broader in western civilisation) today is the surest sign of cultural decline.

@ Schaveiger

1) If it makes you feel better to keep on misrepresenting what I write, then you go ahead.  Because your lies are on your conscience, not mine, and yes lying is morally reprehensible. 

No, I do NOT say that there should be freedom of political speech "according to my standards".  That is what you say.  You say that there should be freedom of speech according to your standards (or in this case, according to the arbitrary 'standards' of the current ruling Belgian naive-left elite).  What I DO say is simply that there should be freedom of political speech for EVERYBODY.  And that nobody's 'standards' should be arbitrarily used to shut up political opposition.   There should simply be freedom of political speech (not action).   It is your friends who are taking us back to pre-democratic times when there could be no genuine 'loyal oposition' (so essential for democracy to function) within the polity, because whoever was in power would always abuse that power to shut up the real political opposition. This is still the situation in much of the Arab world today and explains why there cannot be genuine free elections in an environment where there does not exist genuine freedom of political speech.  In a cultural sense, the best indicator that 'Eurabia' already exists is the fact that over the past 2 decades several European countries have started to restrict freedom of political SPEECH (and thus driving unorthodox IDEAS or opinions out of the public arena).

I have no idea what you are talking about with your "YahYah era in Antwerp", and suggest that you focus on the essentials instead of details.  A discussion of considerations that should properly govern government's regulation of public demonstrations is a very different subject from the freedom-of-speech issue.  In my opionion, public street 'demonstrations' have very little to do with political free speech, and I certainly believe in the necessity of regulating public street demonstrations.  At the same time, you should make an effort to make honest empirical observations.  The overwhelming majority of violent public demonstrations these days come from leftists (trade-unionists and so-called anti-globalists) and from what's euphemistically called "youth".   But this has nothing to do with the fact that in Belgium today courts can (and DO) arbitrarily convict people for expressing certain OPINIONS.  Everybody should be convicted for ACTS of violence, regardless of their political affiliation or views.   

2) What is your second point?  Just a little bit of meaningless irrelevant chatter.  Yes I have spent my life in the middle of very different cultures, and that it is precisely why I can better make distinctions among cultural behavior patterns than you, and can also see trends in Belgium that you are not even aware of.  There is no "ideal place" in the whole wide world. There are only many different degrees of intolerance.  And, historically, the signal advance of the European Enlightenment was precisely that one no longer could persecute people for their OPINIONS.  It was the fundamental idea of making a distinction between DEEDS and WORDS.  And the moment political systems start restricting freedom of opinion they start rapidly going downhill in terms of 'progress' and individual freedoms.

......

@ marcfrans 

1. The proof is in the pudding, exactly.
There should be freedom of "political" speech following your standards only. Lastly you where in favour of your ex-buddies of the VB when they got shaken-up by the police during their forbidden demo against Islamism in Brussels. In their and your eyes this was against your holy freedom. They pushed it so far to sue the local authorities because they had forbidden the demo. Trespassing laws is your freedom ?
I recall the glorious YahYah era in Antwerp demonstrating while forbidden. Who was screaming like hell that the authorities and the police did do nothing ?  Who's freedom was this ?

2. As always you're just trying to drawn the fish. This is the usual trick once reasonable arguments are exhausted.
Glad to read that you saw the way other people lives abroad. I suppose that you must have find the ideal place to be for you. If not, I'm concerned about your future health.

3. How many others than the VB are claiming the lack of freedom here ?. I think you just try to make me believe that you're not an extremist  but all you do is fooling yourself.

If I'm a traitor because I don't stand extremism, nationalism, injustice, hypocrisy and the far-right or -left dogmas, so be it and I'll be proud of it. My ascendants, including myself, paid already the price (also for you) and that's more than enough.

@ Schaveiger

1) Of course, you do not write that you are against free speech.  Who would write that?  Have you ever heard Putin or Ahmadinejad say that they are against "democracy"?  Everybody is for mother's milk and apple pie, and thus also CLAIMS to be for free speech and democracy.  The proof is in the pudding, so goes the expression.  What you say does not matter much, it is what you do that matters, and you clearly demonstrate that you do NOT respect the freedom of political speech of others if they touch on your dogmas.  And that is also the reason why you don't even attempt to answer my specific questions (How is it that 'racism and xenophobia' can be outlawed in a country that has freedom of speech in its constitution? And what is 'racism and xenophobia' exactly?).

2) Not only are you very dishonest, but you cannot read.  Where did I call on "Americans" for anything?  Go back and read again. I wrote "...If there is anyone IN THE WORLD who still etc...".  And yes "Turks ,Moroccans, Africans, Asians, Walloons are just as valid" to me.  I lived (for extended periods of years) during my life time on 3 different continents and in 5 different countries, and of course visited many others for professional reasons.  As a European I am married to somebody from another race, and you silly watercarrier for the Belgian ruling elite (that is trampling on its own constitution) want to call me names like "fascist, nazi, racist and other flowery names".  You are pathetic in your arrogant blindness!!. 

3) It is not because I am verbally defending the freedom of speech of everybody in Belgium, including the Vlaams Belang party, that you can call me "their buddies".  You are such a narrow partisan-minded person that you cannot distinguish between a principle and individual people.  I have never even met a VBelang person (as such) in my life, because that party did not even exist when I last was in Belgium.  You are like the real historical nazis, who used to call some individual Germans (speaking up for persecuted jews) "jew-lovers" or "jews". 

You are pathetic, and a veritable traitor to the European Enlightenment value of freedom of speech, for which so many of our common ancestors have died (in order to achieve it, very temporarily as it turns out to be).  And your descendants will pay a heavy price for your (and many others') treachery.

@ marcfrans

It seems I've hit your weakest point :).

I never wrote that I don't believe in free speech but that this doesn't mean that everything is permitted.
It's amazing to read your attitude towards others while your buddies from the VB can't even stand the slightest critics. Why are you riding high horses when you're called fascist, Nazis, racists and other flower names by what you call the "elite" ?  You guys are the first to demonstrate that free speech is wrong when it harms you, so stop being hypocrites.

Why you call on Americans to illustrate xenophobia ? Are Turks, Moroccans, Africans, Asians (and why not Walloons) no more valid for you ?

You claim that in Europe there is no more democracy. Can you tell us where there is one which suits you ? I'll bet 100 to 1 that you can't name one.

If the Enlightment has to be one of your kind, then all the gods beware us from going back to early last century.

@ Schaveiger

Thank you for illustrating my point so clearly, for demonstrating to everyone who can read, that you simply do not believe in free speech, or freedom of opinion.  You only believe in that if that speech is in accordance with your (political) values.  If it is not, then you will conveniently declare it "disinformation", or "not neutrally-scientific" (sic!!), or illegal, or whatever.... If there is anyone out there in the world who stil believes that Western Europe is genuinely 'democratic' today, all they have to do it is to read Schaveiger, because he represents what current ruling elites in Europe think about "freedom of speech".  One could as well be in Beijing or Moscou, if not in Yangong (Rangoon).  

In short, how is it that "racism and xenophobia" can be outlawed in a country that claims to have freedom of speech in its constitution?  What are "'racism" and "xenophobia"?   Are we talking about the 'Armor' view of racism, or the 'marcfrans' view of racism. Can Schaveiger tell the difference between these two views ?(doubtful). Also, when for instance Gerhard Schroeder shouts in front of a German crowd (at election time) that his party does not stand for "American cowboy values", would that be "xenophobia" (in the form of anti-Americanism)?  Could he be convicted for that in a Belgian court?  When Louis Michel goes to visit his friend Fidel in Havanna and makes an anti-American speech, could he be convicted for that in a Belgian (frenchspeaking ) court?  You must be joking!

The sad fact is that most Europeans today do no longer believe in the values of the European Enlightenment.  And that is why they foolishly think that criminal law should concern itself with 'speech' (or opinions) rather than with deeds or actions. It is as if we are going back to the days of the Inquisition, when there was only one 'truth', and don't you dare to say otherwise..... European 'democracy' is moving towards government for the kindergarten.  Schaveiger actually wrote that people have "abused" their freedom (of speech).  Hence, we the rulers must teach them what to think and say!  Mon Dieu! It is 2007.   

@ marcfrans 

The VB has been condemned for racism and xenophobia by a court. A judge can't condemn without clear and precise laws and laws are the same for everybody. It is therefore dishonest to put the blame on a so-called elite.

Freedom of "political" speech now. Do you mean that on the political side one could say or write anything ? We are already suffering of a huge disinformation in regards to the so-called transfers north-south. It's about time that the people is informed about the reality by neutral Scientifics on this issue. The media, supposed to inform their readers in an objective way, has dramatically failed herein because of their political commitments and tabloïd attitude.
Real democracy does not include lies, permissiveness nor anarchism.

I don't recall that before, during and after the cold war free "political" speech, at least like you see it, was permitted. And IF it was, the laws prohibiting this are a direct consequence of the abuse of this freedom.

@ Schaveiger

There is no need to explain to me the "cordon sanitaire".  Frankly, I am astounded at the level of your dishonesty.  You know very well that the Vlaams Blok party was banned a few years ago, and that they had to go through this whole charade of renaming themselves Vlaams Belang party in order to survive a little bit longer as a political 'association' (the current constitution actually is supposed to guarantee that).  And you SHOULD know: (a) that this banning was entirely based on their public criticism of dogmas held by the current ruling 'elite' in Brussels, and (b) that similarly other political parties have been SELECTIVELY banned in other European countries (Germany for instance) in recent times for similar reasons.  But, if you want to keep your head in the sand regarding the reality around you, that is first and foremost your problem.  

No, I do not think that "everything can be said to everybody at any time".   It is again very dishonest on your part to pretend that I could even think such a thing.  You know otherwise.  And I often make a point about "freedom of POLITICAL speech", to make the proper distinction.  No, you can not shout "fire" in a crowded cinema when there is no fire.  That is an action, not an opinion.  And I cannot stand in front of your house and call you names every morning at breakfast time. That would be an action (of harrassing you) and would not be political speech. And you cannot stand in front of a 'hot' crowd and incite them to commit violence and they proceed to do so.  Believe me, many lefty radicals and trade union leaders do this all the time, and yet...they do NOT get prosecuted!!    Do I have to give you more examples to explain what any honest teenager would understand?   But freedom of political speech means that ALL subjects should be open for discussion in the political arena, be it in newspapers, party programs, gatherings etc...and be it about abortion, integration issues, social security, foreign policy, or whatever.  Above all, it should be the dogmas of the ruling elites that should be subject to FREE discussion, precisely because it is government that has a monopoly on police and judicial power. And there is no need to protect sympathetic or uncontroversial speech. No, it is unorthodox speech that needs protection, and only that separates the real democracies from the pretend-ones, or the liberal ones from the illiberal ones.

You like to think that you still live in a democracy, but you really do not.  Belgium was a democracy in my youth, and everything could then be SAID (not DONE), whether you were an anarchist, a communist, or whatever.  Yes, even at the heigth of the cold war, with Stalin's armies at the gate, and Americans having to protect us, you could be a 'communist' in Belgium.   Today, you can get jailtime and fines, if you dare to 'offend' with words the ruling elite or the 'wrong' people, i.e. by simply questioning some of their very destructive (in the long term) dogmas.  

@ Schaveiger

I'm not quite sure what else you want me to tell you.I've already explained to you my chosen modus operandi.Perhaps I should now be asking you the question,can you live with that?

No,clearly,you have NOT "got it".

Sadly,you appear to have taken offence when in fact no personal criticism was either implied or intended.

@ marcfrans

I think we discussed this "Freedom of speech" matter before. I also emphasized at the time that the so-called "cordon sanitaire" was the biggest mistake they ever made but that the VB was solely responsible for this.

To my knowledge there are no articles in the constitution about banning political parties. In fact the VB is not banned but isolated by other parties. This behaviour can be seen as democratic between parties but not for electors.

And again about your holy freedom of speech, do you think that everything can be said to everyone at any  time ?

I don't worry at all because I know that all clashes are originated by political and religious populism and misbehaviour and this stands since the origin of mankind.

Armor wrote:

You (Atlanticist) are like the Sphinx

He spoke only in riddles

You speak only in links.

Armor also wrote (about himself):

"Stop paying attention to every piece of rubbish I write".

Actually, I believe there is much wisdom to be found in Armor's words,and for this reason I have chosen the persona I wish to present to the world,which is my choice and mine alone.My primary objective is to receive reader criticism (or plaudits) for the message/message writer  NOT the messenger.My secondary objective is to enjoy some harmless fun and communicate with thinking people everywhere.Is there anything wrong with that?

@ Schaveiger

I suspect that the number of American citizens that are "concerned" about the EU constitution can be assembled in one big room, i.e. perhaps 0,00001 percent out of 300 million people.

Presumably, the reason why some people here on this blog are concerned is because this is a 'European' blog under the banner "Defending freedom of speech in Europe".   Now, given that the Belgian constitution supposedly guarantees freedom of (political) speech, but in practice does NOT (as you should know), and given that French constitutions historically have come and gone with alarming frequency, perhaps you have a point.    Perhaps concerns about the actual content of the proposed European constitution is overblown, because European constitutions do not seem to conform much with actual practice in Europe ANYMORE. 

When do you think 'they' (i.e. the powerful), are finally going to succeed in banning the 'Vlaams Belang' party?  And what do the current Belgian and proposed European constitutions say about banning political parties or about freedom of political 'association'?   

But, don't you worry....others will do it for you.

Correct. Why? Because your use and grasp of the English language would put many native English speakers to shame,and we both know it.Work it out for yourself.

Yes,I could,but I have no intention of doing so.

Sorry, you misunderstood me,I wasn't implying that you were Eurosceptic.I posted a Eurosceptic article (which I agree with) and asked you for your opinion, precisely because we disagree on the subject of the European Union.I hope that clarifies things for you.Your point about referenda still makes no sense to me.

Well,of course the article in question is Eurosceptic.If we were both Europhiles we wouldn't be having this debate,would we?

If that last comment is meant as a criticism of the Americans for NOT conducting a referendum prior to the adoption of their constitution then presumably you wouldn't be so hypocritical as to deny your fellow Europeans the opportunity denied by others, to others,would you?

btw

Expect a significant number of posts from American readers who will explain to you why your analogy is a false one. 

I anticipated such a response,which is why I posted the "Humpty Dumpty" article.Any thoughts on that one?

@ Zen Master

Not exactly.  If the dollar weakness persists for some considerable time, then Airbus might sell fewer planes in the future (relative to what it would have sold if the dollar were stronger).  But, at the moment, it is not selling "fewer planes" because of exchange rate movements. 

Airbus is currently "losing billions of euros", NOT because it is selling fewer planes, but rather because most of its current costs are denominated and temporarily 'fixed' in (harder) euros, whereas most of its current receipts are denominated and temporarily 'fixed' in (softer) dollars.  That is a temporary problem. 

Whether airbus will be able to sell more planes in the future will depend on many factors, including whether it can remain financially viable.  In the absence of additional 'government' support, that will largely depend on whether the company's costs can be kept from rising faster than its receipts (both expressed either in dollar terms or in euro terms, to make them comparable).   

Today the BBC had an article about how badly Airbus is suffering from the weak dollar. They said Airbus was losing billions of Euros and was in terrible financial condition. This is because a weak dollar means that Boeing sells a plane comparable to Airbus for perhaps - 15%. Boeing sells more planes and Airbus sells fewer planes now.

BBC forgot to mention that the EU, with its many new anti- business regulations, makes Airbus less of a competitor to Boeing. EU products cost more to make than products not made in the EU.

Here's another article some readers might find interesting.The title of the piece is "The European Union as Humpty Dumpty" by Terry Easton:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23544

Posted by one of the 56%

http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/thornton112007.html

@ Armor

I think that you have an implicit point that geography matters.  But you will recognise that the United States has been numerous times at war, all over the world.  Even in its own hemisphere, there have been several wars with the British ('Canada' wars) , with Spain (involving Cuba, Philippines etc...), with Mexico, etc... And I would hope that you could recognise that even 'EXTERNAL' (colonial) wars in French history have led to INTERNAL "regime change" in France and a breakdown of the Consttitution in place. (The Vietnam war, for instance, did not 'break' the American constitution like the Algerian war did to the French).  

P.S. I am not a Jefferson "groupie", and am probably much too 'conservative' for me (hypothetically) to have liked him in his time period.  But Atheling seems to be a genuine expert in the man. Perhaps even you, can recognise that his 'declaration of independence' was a masterpiece in the history of 'political tract' writing.   At least, fifty years ago Belgian history professors were then still able to recognise that.  I am not so sure that today they still can (or are allowed to by the prevailing 'culture')... 

@ Schaveiger

My judgment about your lack of judgment was based on the following empirical observation: 

- you appear to attach great value to the size of the EU "internal market", to its share of exports in GDP, to the relative number among "biggest" multinational corporations, and to current (very temporary) exchange rate movements.  

Without getting into a lengthy discussion about each of these economic variables, let me remind you that what really matters over time is the trend value in 'real' PER CAPITA INCOME over time.  Additionally, I think that the participation rate of the overall population in labor markets is also very important (mainly for 'cultural'  and/or social reasons).  Beyond that, of course, one should remember that politics always trumps economics.  But that is another long story.