EU Considers ban on Nazi Symbols

[miss.myra]

Soo because I feel like opening a can of worms here, what are your thoughts?

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/eu....ap/index.html


EU considers Nazi symbols ban
Monday, January 17, 2005 Posted: 1406 GMT (2206 HKT)





BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) -- The European Union's top justice official was considering Monday whether the 25-nation bloc should ban the use of Nazi symbols after Britain's Prince Harry wore a swastika armband to a costume party.

Franco Frattini, the EU's justice and home affairs commissioner, said he was open to discussing the issue at a Jan. 27 meeting of EU justice ministers.

"It may be worth looking into the possibility of a total ban, a Europe-wide ban," his spokesman Friso Roscam Abbing told reporters. "Commissioner Frattini shares the general feeling of opprobrium on the use of the swastika and other Nazi symbols."

The call came after several German conservatives, socialists and liberal democrats in the European Parliament urged a European ban following a scandal last week over photos of Harry, third in line to the British throne, wearing a Nazi outfit at a costume party.

German Socialist Helmut Kuhne called Harry a "royal idiot" for not knowing the consequences and World War II history linked to the Nazi swastika.

Germany already bans such symbols.

Roscam Abbing said Frattini would urge EU ministers to use the swastika incident to push for agreement on EU-wide rules to combat racism, fascism and anti-Semitism.

A proposal was introduced two years ago but discussions have failed to make headway.

Roscam Abbing said officials would take care not to violate freedom of expression in devising such a ban.

Frattini's decision to look into an EU-wide ban could further embarrass Queen Elizabeth II, who is to lead British commemorations of the Holocaust in London later this month.

[dabbler]

Ban!!

[automatic]

germany, italy and france already ban nazi symbols and memorabilia...

personally, i'm more offended by the fact that harry is apparently that dumb than by what he wore.....it's all about context, this was after all, a costume party. while it was incredibly STUPID of him, i don't really find it that offensive, or at least, the way i look at it, a nazi outfit IS automatically offensive, it's just that at a costume party one is given a certain license to be offensive....how may bin ladens were running around on halloween? one of the best halloween cotumes i saw last year was a guy in a beige raincoat with awearing nothing but boxers underneath with a massive huge foam cock and balls ssticking out of them. offensive? yes. funny? hell yeah!

now if harry had worn that ourfit to give a speech to parliament on the other hand.....

[miss.myra]

Yes. But Harry is the member of a not so ordinary family. Everything he says and does is closely watched and criticized by the public, he should know full well he, as a potential heir to the throne IS UNDER THE MICROSCOPE.

all those little bin ladens running around on hallowe'en don't have the queen as their grandmum. That was a silly mistake.

[automatic]

my point exactly, i'm more offended by the fact that he's apparently that stupid.

[dabbler]

offended yes, surprised? not me

[miss.myra]

I hope Willy gets the throne anyways, he's less of a f up, and he's cuter.

[automatic]

Willy's got it on lock yo! charlie-boy doesn't want it, and what with him being a divorced adulterer who wants to be a tampon, so as long as will doesn't fuck up between now and then it's his. unfortunately the queen isn't going to die for a long time, just look at the queen mom, she almost made it to 103, and she still drank gin and tonics every day, and she looked like emperor palaptine towards the end

[decypher]

103! They probably shrinked wrapped her every night before bed

[wum]

There's also a ban on "hate speech" which includes any criticism of mass third world immigration (multi-culturalism), Islam, and other Orwellian gems.

[automatic]

Originally Posted by wum

There's also a ban on "hate speech" which includes any criticism of mass third world immigration (multi-culturalism), Islam, and other Orwellian gems.

no, it doesn't, it bans any speech that incites "hatred" of any of the groups immigrating.

so in other words while you're more than allowed to say "third world immigration is detrimental to the fabric of european society and serves to erode our long-held cultures and beliefs, and we should cap the number of immigrants allowed to the E.U. or simply end immigration period." you are not allowed to say "let's go out and lynch some of those ragheaded bastards to solve the problem." there's a distinction there and i hope youare to see over your persecution complex to make it.

i wonder what africans and arabs thought about european immigration and the damage it did to their society during the slave trade or the crusades...

[miss.myra]

Originally Posted by wum

There's also a ban on "hate speech" which includes any criticism of mass third world immigration (multi-culturalism), Islam, and other Orwellian gems.

But what do you THINK about all of this?

[Gusto]

i don't agree with banning anything. freedom of speech and expression and all that. if someone is a nazi and wants to show it, fine, that's their call. regardless, i agree he's stupid for doing it. he's way too high profile and should have known better.

[Ragga_Wh0re]

wasnt the swaztika a native american or chinese symbol of peace or prosperity or something??? If they are to ban the swztika its like banning a part of the native maerican culture or chinese culture which ever one it was...i cant remember.

[dabbler]

it's slightly different, the original symbol is straight, not turned on an angle

[miss.myra]

It's a hindu symbol..

[Gusto]

Originally Posted by ~*goddessa*~

wasnt the swaztika a native american or chinese symbol of peace or prosperity or something???

yeah, you're right. it's a part of many cultures.

more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika

[djmarkpaul]

Originally Posted by automatic

no, it doesn't, it bans any speech that incites "hatred" of any of the groups immigrating.

so in other words while you're more than allowed to say "third world immigration is detrimental to the fabric of european society and serves to erode our long-held cultures and beliefs, and we should cap the number of immigrants allowed to the E.U. or simply end immigration period." you are not allowed to say "let's go out and lynch some of those ragheaded bastards to solve the problem."

Yes this should be the case. However in my experience as soon as immigration becomes a standard to the point where national languages need to be revised (look at richmond folks), people in the once to be said minority feel a new found validation should be claimed as far as I have seen. Many immigrants aren't willing to learn the national language and as stated it tends to erode the authenticity of long held cultures and beliefs. In short, it's only a matter of time until the former quote is treated as though it were a racial slur itself.

Originally Posted by automatic

i wonder what africans and arabs thought about european immigration and the damage it did to their society during the slave trade or the crusades...

Great point.

***

I find it rather comical to see what Prince Harry did. Maybe he is a anthropological scholar into the Phoenicians and thought he was wearing the Skywalker rather than the Swastika, though the arms of the cross were going clockwise, but the symbol wasn't turned the usual 45 degree angle so who knows. It's too bad because the roots of the Swastika are really an ancient symbol with alot more history than WW2, banning it would just be a hasty cutting of the Gordian knot. Besides, you can't ban ignorance.

[djmarkpaul]

Originally Posted by miss.myra

It's a hindu symbol..

Yes the Aryans of ancient India did use this symbol, but it goes back...waaaay back, to ban it is to ban history.

[wum]

Originally Posted by miss.myra

But what do you THINK about all of this?

it's totally ghey

[miss.myra]

insightful!

[Ragga_Wh0re]

Originally Posted by djmarkpaul

Yes the Aryans of ancient India did use this symbol, but it goes back...waaaay back, to ban it is to ban history.

my point exactly.

[automatic]

Originally Posted by djmarkpaul

Yes this should be the case. However in my experience as soon as immigration becomes a standard to the point where national languages need to be revised (look at richmond folks), people in the once to be said minority feel a new found validation should be claimed as far as I have seen. Many immigrants aren't willing to learn the national language and as stated it tends to erode the authenticity of long held cultures and beliefs. In short, it's only a matter of time until the former quote is treated as though it were a racial slur itself.

richmond now is just what chinatown was 80 years ago. back then they had riots where whites would go in and bash heads because there were "too many lazy chinese coming here and working too hard and stealing jobs, and they were corrupting our womenfolk, and they spread disease". now chinatown is just a quaint little tourist district. the same thing happened to little italy on commercial, little india on fraser near 49th, little poland on fraser near 25th, japantown on powell street, steveston, etc.... i'm willing to bet that 20 years form now richmond will just be another quaint ethnic district. so what? BC has never been a homogenous culture, and it was never exclusively anglo-saxon, even if you discount the native peoples (which i am not by any stretch of the imagination suggesting you do), the INITIAL early settlers of BC we're a mix of english, irish, scots, other europeans, chinese. japanese, hawaiian, freed african slaves, indians and others, right from the very beginnings of this province.

[wum]

Originally Posted by automatic

no, it doesn't, it bans any speech that incites "hatred" of any of the groups immigrating.

so in other words while you're more than allowed to say "third world immigration is detrimental to the fabric of european society and serves to erode our long-held cultures and beliefs, and we should cap the number of immigrants allowed to the E.U. or simply end immigration period." you are not allowed to say "let's go out and lynch some of those ragheaded bastards to solve the problem." there's a distinction there and i hope youare to see over your persecution complex to make it.

You know as well as I do that a word like "hatred" is all the leverage that the lawyers at the ADL need. I don't think any anti-immigration party is stupid enough to ask its followers to go out and lynch people. In fact, they speak a lot of sense but invariably get banned by the superior courts for being "racist." Just look at how Steven Streach of Nova Scotia said that the region was not open to multi-cult and the guy was promptly asked to resign.

Originally Posted by automatic

i wonder what africans and arabs thought about european immigration and the damage it did to their society during the slave trade or the crusades...

It was probably disasterous and is of historical interest. But what bearing should this have on modern immigration policies? Karma?

[automatic]

Originally Posted by wum

You know as well as I do that a word like "hatred" is all the leverage that the lawyers at the ADL need. I don't think any anti-immigration party is stupid enough to ask its followers to go out and lynch people. In fact, they speak a lot of sense but invariably get banned by the superior courts for being "racist." Just look at how Steven Streach of Nova Scotia said that the region was not open to multi-cult and the guy was promptly asked to resign.It was probably disasterous and is of historical interest. But what bearing should this have on modern immigration policies? Karma?

i couldn't find anything about steven streach on the web, and i never heard of this story. if you could provide a link that'd be nice. regardless, elected individuals have always had stricter requirements on what they can and cannot say, because they are not just speaking for themselves, they are also speaking for their constituents, and when you get into passing off your opinion as the voice of your constituents then you get into sticky waters. steven streach is supposed to speak for ALL of his constituents, so a statement like this is inappropriate.