Should democracy get tough on communist party's in the west?

[Mike the Progressive]

Oh boy, and how many countries do not? Does France? Does England? Germany? Italy?

By that standard (and way of thinking), when taking into other rights, no country is a free society.

Mhmm.

If by "free society" you mean "absolutely free society", you'll never find such a society anywhere on Earth, yesterday, today, and forever.

Speaking in realistic terms, the US, Canada, and Western Europe are all pretty much the freest real societies the Earth has seen for a loooong time.

Exactly my point. The notion that the US is not free is absurd. Of course, it's not absolute, nor should it be. But in comparison to most of the world, both present and in the past, it's pretty good.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Oh boy, and how many countries do not? Does France? Does England? Germany? Italy?

By that standard (and way of thinking), when taking into other rights, no country is a free society.

Mhmm.

If by "free society" you mean "absolutely free society", you'll never find such a society anywhere on Earth, yesterday, today, and forever.

Speaking in realistic terms, the US, Canada, and Western Europe are all pretty much the freest real societies the Earth has seen for a loooong time.

Could they stand to be more free? Mhmm, especially the US (although I'm not too fond of the lefty "hate speech" shit either).

But billions of people throughout history - and even today - would die to be that "free".

Exactly, sans the anti-hate speech thing.

[Mkuki]

Should democracy get tough on communist party's in the west is the question, and if so how tough?
I am interested to find out what the members of nation states feel about this. As if the communists ever took power i doubt we could use this site as we do presently. The outlawing of other political party's would i believe occur, swiftly followed by the repression of free speech and expression. Given that the attitude of the communists is my way or the highway( Road of bones- for those who don't understand my pun) should we tolerate them or should we crack down on them as Germany does for example on Nazi ideology.

I am torn between Keeping the status quo or outlawing the party.


EDIT: I went for the quo because i decided that thankfully communism is irrelevant in the modern world.

Does communism outlaw ideals and beliefs? It never struck me as such an ideology.

[Kvatchdom]

Several civil rights infringements, constant violent action by police, cameras everywhere, etc.

None of which make the country unfree, I'm unaware of any major infringements on civil liberties recently, the police are prosecuted as they break laws though some reform is needed and when you're in public people can see you.

Or are police helicopters a new invention now?

Yes, they do. USA is a plutocratic mess of authoritarian policies thrown around. Reform is needed but not done, and I agree on the cameras, though on that point I sacrifice privacy for security.

[Phocidaea]

Mhmm.

If by "free society" you mean "absolutely free society", you'll never find such a society anywhere on Earth, yesterday, today, and forever.

Speaking in realistic terms, the US, Canada, and Western Europe are all pretty much the freest real societies the Earth has seen for a loooong time.

Could they stand to be more free? Mhmm, especially the US (although I'm not too fond of the lefty "hate speech" shit either).

But billions of people throughout history - and even today - would die to be that "free".

Exactly, sans the anti-hate speech thing.

See, I don't mean to threadjack, but how can someone advocate greater freedoms but simultaneously believe in prosecuting people for what they say?

[Luveria]

Several civil rights infringements, constant violent action by police, cameras everywhere, etc.

If CCTV cameras are an infringement of privacy then why go into stores like walmart? Cameras are in stores to prevent theft just as public surveillance cameras are there to prevent crime. Governments have a responsibility to keep citizens safe.

[Mike the Progressive]

Oh boy, and how many countries do not? Does France? Does England? Germany? Italy?

By that standard (and way of thinking), when taking into other rights, no country is a free society.

France is actually all but a done deal. England is similar as the charge is being led by the Conservatives. Plus Scandinavia allows it, so does Canada. So there are some free societies at least.

What I'm really hearing is a gay couple can no more get married in France or England than they can in Texas or Oklahoma. Good to know.

Though again, the logic being used to claim the US is not free is sort of stupid. No sorry, it's just stupid.

[Luveria]

The war on drugs isn't part of an unfree society?

No, because it's one aspect of a very large nation. An unfortunate and discriminatory aspect, and one with only a little positive benefit, but that doesn't make it unfree.

You're labeling problems that exist in any country.

Hell. Name a free country, right now.

None and I wouldn't want there to be any entirely free countries because it would be a libertarian's dream land in which people are free to do anything to each other.

[Shofercia]

Several civil rights infringements, constant violent action by police, cameras everywhere, etc.

None of which make the country unfree, I'm unaware of any major infringements on civil liberties recently, the police are prosecuted as they break laws though some reform is needed and when you're in public people can see you.

Or are police helicopters a new invention now?

He said violent actions by the police, and if it's done on a massive level, that does make a country unfree. I'm not sure if the US qualifies, but considering how LAPD treated Occupy LA after they were arrested, that treatment wasn't something that should occur in a free society: http://exiledonline.com/yasha-levine-re ... rotesters/

* I heard from two different sources that at least one busload of protesters (around 40 people) was forced to spend seven excruciating hours locked in tiny cages on a Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Dept. prison bus, denied food, water and access to bathroom facilities. Both men and women were forced to urinate in their seats. Meanwhile, the cops in charge of the bus took an extended Starbucks coffee break.

* The bus that I was shoved into didn’t move for at least an hour. The whole time we listened to the screams and crying from a young woman whom the cops locked into a tiny cage at the front of the bus. She was in agony, begging and pleading for one of the policemen to loosen her plastic handcuffs. A police officer sat a couple of feet away the entire time that she screamed–but wouldn’t lift a finger.

* Everyone on my bus felt her pain–literally felt it. That’s because the zip-tie handcuffs they use—like the ones you see on Iraq prisoners in Abu Ghraib—cut off your circulation and wedge deep through your skin, where they can do some serious nerve damage, if that’s the point. And it did seem to be the point. A couple of guys around me were writhing in agony in their hard plastic seats, hands handcuffed behind their back.

* The 100 protesters in my detainee group were kept handcuffed with their hands behind their backs for 7 hours, denied food and water and forced to sit/sleep on a concrete floor. Some were so tired they passed out face down on the cold and dirty concrete, hands tied behind their back. As a result of the tight cuffs, I wound up losing sensation in my left palm/thumb and still haven’t recovered it now, a day and a half after they finally took them off.

* One seriously injured protester, who had been shot with a shotgun beanbag round and had an oozing bloody welt the size of a grapefruit just above his elbow, was denied medical attention for five hours. Another young guy, who complained that he thought his arm had been broken, was not given medical attention for at least as long. Instead, he spent the entire pre-booking procedure handcuffed to a wall, completely spaced out and staring blankly into space like he was in shock.

* An Occupy LA demonstrator in his 50s who was in my cell block in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Detention Center told us all about when a police officer forced him to take a shit with his hands handcuffed behind his back, which made pulling down his pants and sitting down on the toilet extremely difficult and awkward. And he had to do this in sight of female police officers, all of which made him feel extremely ashamed, to say the least.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Exactly, sans the anti-hate speech thing.

See, I don't mean to threadjack, but how can someone advocate greater freedoms but simultaneously believe in prosecuting people for what they say?

I don't believe freedom is absolute. I'm a moderate and a realist more than anything else, and I support hate crime legislation similar to that found in Canada.

Which means you're only going to be hit if you're seriously infringing someone's s.2 rights.

[West Sylvania]

The constitution and democratic process combine to do a good job (though clearly not perfect) of weeding out any truly "wrong" political parties.

If you're simply trying to use the law to squash any political parties/opinions you don't like, then you don't deserve that sort of power in the first place. Maybe you're better suited to being president of a fan club than a member of senate.

[The Steel Magnolia]

No, because it's one aspect of a very large nation. An unfortunate and discriminatory aspect, and one with only a little positive benefit, but that doesn't make it unfree.

You're labeling problems that exist in any country.

Hell. Name a free country, right now.

None and I wouldn't want there to be any entirely free countries because it would be a libertarian's dream land in which people are free to do anything to each other.

Then I'm really not sure what you're arguing?

[The Steel Magnolia]

Yes, they do. USA is a plutocratic mess of authoritarian policies thrown around. Reform is needed but not done, and I agree on the cameras, though on that point I sacrifice privacy for security.

Your definition of authoritarian is a bit too broadly defined.

[Phocidaea]

See, I don't mean to threadjack, but how can someone advocate greater freedoms but simultaneously believe in prosecuting people for what they say?

I don't believe freedom is absolute. I'm a moderate and a realist more than anything else, and I support hate crime legislation similar to that found in Canada.

Which means you're only going to be hit if you're seriously infringing someone's s.2 rights.

Hate crime is bad. Beating, raping, killing, robbing people for being gay, asexual, black, white, an immigrant, atheist, Muslim, Christian, or whatever is bad.

Hate speech is free speech, and while anyone who speaks it is a jerk, anyone who is offended enough that they desire to legislate against it needs to grow a fucking thicker skin.

[The Steel Magnolia]

None of which make the country unfree, I'm unaware of any major infringements on civil liberties recently, the police are prosecuted as they break laws though some reform is needed and when you're in public people can see you.

Or are police helicopters a new invention now?

He said violent actions by the police, and if it's done on a massive level, that does make a country unfree. I'm not sure if the US qualifies, but considering how LAPD treated Occupy LA after they were arrested, that treatment wasn't something that should occur in a free society: http://exiledonline.com/yasha-levine-re ... rotesters/

* I heard from two different sources that at least one busload of protesters (around 40 people) was forced to spend seven excruciating hours locked in tiny cages on a Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Dept. prison bus, denied food, water and access to bathroom facilities. Both men and women were forced to urinate in their seats. Meanwhile, the cops in charge of the bus took an extended Starbucks coffee break.

* The bus that I was shoved into didn’t move for at least an hour. The whole time we listened to the screams and crying from a young woman whom the cops locked into a tiny cage at the front of the bus. She was in agony, begging and pleading for one of the policemen to loosen her plastic handcuffs. A police officer sat a couple of feet away the entire time that she screamed–but wouldn’t lift a finger.

* Everyone on my bus felt her pain–literally felt it. That’s because the zip-tie handcuffs they use—like the ones you see on Iraq prisoners in Abu Ghraib—cut off your circulation and wedge deep through your skin, where they can do some serious nerve damage, if that’s the point. And it did seem to be the point. A couple of guys around me were writhing in agony in their hard plastic seats, hands handcuffed behind their back.

* The 100 protesters in my detainee group were kept handcuffed with their hands behind their backs for 7 hours, denied food and water and forced to sit/sleep on a concrete floor. Some were so tired they passed out face down on the cold and dirty concrete, hands tied behind their back. As a result of the tight cuffs, I wound up losing sensation in my left palm/thumb and still haven’t recovered it now, a day and a half after they finally took them off.

* One seriously injured protester, who had been shot with a shotgun beanbag round and had an oozing bloody welt the size of a grapefruit just above his elbow, was denied medical attention for five hours. Another young guy, who complained that he thought his arm had been broken, was not given medical attention for at least as long. Instead, he spent the entire pre-booking procedure handcuffed to a wall, completely spaced out and staring blankly into space like he was in shock.

* An Occupy LA demonstrator in his 50s who was in my cell block in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Detention Center told us all about when a police officer forced him to take a shit with his hands handcuffed behind his back, which made pulling down his pants and sitting down on the toilet extremely difficult and awkward. And he had to do this in sight of female police officers, all of which made him feel extremely ashamed, to say the least.

Oh I'm absolutely inclined to agree - the police forces in many areas are criminally (pun intended) undertrained and underequipped, and that often results in significant abuses perpetuated by the police.

Again though, I really wouldn't call it something making America "unfree", merely a negative aspect that (badly) needs reform.

[The Steel Magnolia]

I don't believe freedom is absolute. I'm a moderate and a realist more than anything else, and I support hate crime legislation similar to that found in Canada.

Which means you're only going to be hit if you're seriously infringing someone's s.2 rights.

Hate crime is bad. Beating, raping, killing, robbing people for being gay, asexual, black, white, an immigrant, atheist, Muslim, Christian, or whatever is bad.

Hate speech is free speech, and while anyone who speaks it is a jerk, anyone who is offended enough that they desire to legislate against it needs to grow a fucking thicker skin.

It only applies if you're breaching someone's s.2 charter rights.

Or a later american equivalent. Being a bigot is fine, expressing those beliefs is fine.

Doing it on national television while calling for the extermination or condemnation is not.

[West Sylvania]

Hate crime is bad. Beating, raping, killing, robbing people for being gay, asexual, black, white, an immigrant, atheist, Muslim, Christian, or whatever is bad.

Hate speech is free speech, and while anyone who speaks it is a jerk, anyone who is offended enough that they desire to legislate against it needs to grow a fucking thicker skin.

It only applies if you're breaching someone's s.2 charter rights.

Or a later american equivalent. Being a bigot is fine, expressing those beliefs is fine.

Doing it on national television while calling for the extermination or condemnation is not.

What you describe is incitement, which is not protected in America either.

You can say anything nasty you want about anyone (excluding libel/slander, but those are civil cases), but you are not free to incite violence against them.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I don't believe freedom is absolute. I'm a moderate and a realist more than anything else, and I support hate crime legislation similar to that found in Canada.

Which means you're only going to be hit if you're seriously infringing someone's s.2 rights.

You're right, up to a point.

The PATRIOT Act under Bush definitely defined how much liberty and privacy are we willing to give up to be safe, and I am not too happy with people violating my own privacy, especially the government. Freedom isn't absolute, but at the same time if you are going to suppress people for a little bit more of security that can turn into a mess. The Military Juntas in Central America did an excellent job at keeping crime at an all time low, it doesn't mean it was a free government.

Like Benjamin Franklin said "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety".

[The Steel Magnolia]

It only applies if you're breaching someone's s.2 charter rights.

Or a later american equivalent. Being a bigot is fine, expressing those beliefs is fine.

Doing it on national television while calling for the extermination or condemnation is not.

What you describe is incitement, which is not protected in America either.

You can say anything nasty you want about anyone (excluding libel/slander, but those are civil cases), but you are not free to incite violence against them.

Again. It would have to infringe upon their charter rights.

[The Steel Magnolia]

I don't believe freedom is absolute. I'm a moderate and a realist more than anything else, and I support hate crime legislation similar to that found in Canada.

Which means you're only going to be hit if you're seriously infringing someone's s.2 rights.

You're right, up to a point.

The PATRIOT Act under Bush definitely defined how much liberty and privacy are we willing to give up to be safe, and I am not too happy with people violating my own privacy, especially the government. Freedom isn't absolute, but at the same time if you are going to suppress people for a little bit more of security that can turn into a mess. The Military Juntas in Central America did an excellent job at keeping crime at an all time low, it doesn't mean it was a free government.

Like Benjamin Franklin said "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety".

All but three provisions of the PATRIOT have expired, and the ones that remain aren't even the controversial ones.

[West Sylvania]

What you describe is incitement, which is not protected in America either.

You can say anything nasty you want about anyone (excluding libel/slander, but those are civil cases), but you are not free to incite violence against them.

Again. It would have to infringe upon their charter rights.

Please expand upon this.

In America (generally) any speech that isn't directly inciting panic or violence is protected.

Now, as stated, that doesn't always protect you from civil suits if someone feels their character is being unnecessarily assailed. But that is a civil matter that doesn't breach personal rights (mostly).

[Soldati Senza Confini]

All but three provisions of the PATRIOT have expired, and the ones that remain aren't even the controversial ones.

Yes, but it still doesn't change the fact that our government and many people were going along with it just because they wanted the enhanced security, never mind the fact that it was violating people's privacy and other rights, as long as our security was granted we were willing to hack away at freedoms just for our security.

I am a moderate, but even then I have to say the PATRIOT was WAY too protectionist when it was first conceived.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Please expand upon this.

In America (generally) any speech that isn't directly inciting panic or violence is protected.

Now, as stated, that doesn't always protect you from civil suits if someone feels their character is being unnecessarily assailed. But that is a civil matter that doesn't breach personal rights (mostly).

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

Most of the time the courts do a pretty good job in interpreting it.

It's late and I need to sleep, but there's a topic here viewtopic.php?f=20&t=231493 and one more that I can't find that discusses the impact of Canada's Hate Speech laws better than I can. I'll search for it tomorrow.

[The Steel Magnolia]

All but three provisions of the PATRIOT have expired, and the ones that remain aren't even the controversial ones.

Yes, but it still doesn't change the fact that our government and many people were going along with it just because they wanted the enhanced security, never mind the fact that it was violating people's privacy and other rights, as long as our security was granted we were willing to hack away at freedoms just for our security.

I am a moderate, but even then I have to say the PATRIOT was WAY too protectionist when it was first conceived.

Most people would probably agree with that.

Furthermore, we trade freedom for security all the time. It's actually kind of critical for safety and security.

[Phocidaea]

What you describe is incitement, which is not protected in America either.

You can say anything nasty you want about anyone (excluding libel/slander, but those are civil cases), but you are not free to incite violence against them.

Again. It would have to infringe upon their charter rights.

What the hell are these "charter rights"?