Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The European Union continues to inch closer to the dystopia foreseen by George Orwell in his novel ''1984.'' In Orwell's novel the main character is a party member in a socialist, totalitarian government that perpetuates its power through omnipresent surveillance and perpetually seeking out ''thoughtcrime,'' such as holding views that were contrary to what the party wishes individuals to think. In the main character's diary, he explains it thusly: ''Thoughtcrime does not entail death: thoughtcrime is death,'' and ''Thoughtcrime is the only crime that matters.''
After six years of work, the European Union announced in Luxembourg last week that they had come to an agreement on new legislation that is intended to combat hate crimes, xenophobia racism. The document is titled ''Council Framework Decision on combating racism and xenophobia.''
The document defines racism and xenophobia as ''publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivialising ... and directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin when the conduct is carried out in a manner likely to incite to violence or hatred against such a group or a member of such a group.''
The penalties for possessing such irrational fears of foreigners include one to three years in prison as well as exclusion from entitlement to public benefits or aid, temporary or permanent disqualification from the practice of commercial activities, or being placed under judicial supervision.
Excerpt
Story Continues,
http://www.da.wvu.edu/new/show_article.php?&story_id=27780&archive_date=04-26-2007 (broken link)
Do you think this is where America is headed?....I do.
Yes good thread. I've read 1984 several times and did a thesis on his book in college. It's a depressing book on the future, one of the reasons being the author's own experience - he was dying a painful death from cancer at the time. The torture in "room 101" was supposedly a renaction of the painful cancer treatement he was undergoing (without the rats).
Funny thing both political extremes use the phrase "1984" as a rallying cry to there cause. I'm am sure we will get our fair share of posts saying "Bush is Big Brother". Actually, Orwell's target was communism and socialism, he was a product of WW2 and the cold war. His target was the lack of individualism, lack of freedom of thought. A future where the ability to even think freely and completely was being phased out, not only due to survelience and enforcement, but constant propoganda and an actual redefinition of vocabulary so that certain words no longer existed. He based this on Stalin's many 5 year plans where the goals were never accomplished, yet Stalin simply stated enough times that they were and people believed it.
Yes I beleive we Europe is heading to an Orwellian future with it's trend toward "social democracy" - the concentration on the needs of the many at the expense of a personal identity and personal freedoms, and the growth of a larger central government ("Big Brother"). Lets hope it does not progress here in the U.S.
The US is already headed in this direction. Rather than being driven by socialism, it's driven by corporations in the name of capitalism.
Socialism and capitalism, those are irrelevent with this issue. The issue is totalitarianism vs libertarianism.
You have a point. Orwell hated capitalism as well and I think identified himself with socialism, to a certain degree.
The book 1984 was directed at the Stalinst regime.
Just an FYI – this is not the first time such a law was passed over there. Using similar speech that denies the Holocaust in many European countries can also result in criminal and punitive punishments in much the same way.
My initial response was to bristle at these kinds of laws too. However, when I thought longer about the issue, it occurred to me that such laws are simply expanding pre-existing slander/libel laws (that only protect individuals) to give groups the same kind of protection individuals already enjoy.
Existing slander/libel protections have nothing to do with curtailing free-press, free-speech, or, as the OP implies, enforcing thought-control. They merely hold people responsible for producing evidence when they present things as fact in public. Anyone can certainly think whatever they want. Nothing has ever infringed upon thinking. Furthermore, anyone can still say whatever they want about whoever they want, as long as the qualify such statements as their own personal opinion when speaking in a public forum – like magazines or at rallies. For example, I can freely type “I believe <insert any nasty, libelous idea you can think of here>” any time, anywhere without any fear of being prosecuted as committing libel, because I began with “I believe....”. Furthermore, things said in a private forum, such as between friends and acquaintences sitting in their favorite coffee shop shooting the breeze, is never construed (legally) as libel/slander because it is an informal and private setting not intended to inform the public. Libel/slander only applies to those addressing a public-forum, and, secondly, only deal with statements that attempt to inform. In short, libel/slander protects individuals from others simply making crap up to ruin someone's public reputation. That's it's only purpose and its only ability.
Now, that said, why should we not expand these individual protections to protect people identified by groups as well – especially in cases where there is clearly a lot of slander/libel going on in regards to these groups?
The more emphasis is put on everyone's trivial differences (i.e. skin color) the more likely this will happen. Sometimes the color of your skin has nothing to do with the issue at hand, but some people tend to think it's always about the skin color or ethnicity or religion or whatever when it is completely irrevelant. And it only leads to followers thinking the same thing and has a snowball effect dumbifying the population.
Hate crimes are bad, but I would hate for something innocent to be miscontrued a "hate crime" or better yet "hate speech" b/c of some misunderstanding due to ultrasensitivity to one's own background. Though this has probably already happened.
This is what I see happening:
At Company A:
Boss: Sir you're fired. You've failed to show up at work for the 3rd time.
Employee: It's cause I'm purple isn't it?
Boss: NO, you've failed to show up at work THREE times
Employee: I'm going to sue your company for firing me b/c of my skin color.
Purple Group Activist Leader to media: We want an apology from Company A...this is unacceptable.
I bet Christians would be exempt from "thoughtcrimes". Crimes against them is accepted in the socialist and liberal view.
Oh, you're soooo oppressed.
Any issue where Christians disagree, they view it as oppression. Quit playing the victim. You're not a victim. You never were a victim. And you never will be a victim. You're a part of the biggest religion on the planet, by far.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
