EU outlaws freedom of speech?
Theta One
Can any of our British friends confirm is this is true or not?
ISSUE 2112 Wednesday 7 March 2001
Euro-court outlaws criticism of EU
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in Brussels
THE European Court of Justice ruled yesterday that the European Union
can lawfully suppress political criticism of its institutions and of
leading figures, sweeping aside English Common Law and 50 years of
European precedents on civil liberties. The EU's top court found that
the European Commission was entitled to sack Bernard Connolly, a British
economist dismissed in 1995 for writing a critique of European monetary
integration entitled The Rotten Heart of Europe.
The ruling stated that the commission could restrict dissent in order to
"protect the rights of others" and punish individuals who "damaged the
institution's image and reputation". The case has wider implications for
free speech that could extend to EU citizens who do not work for the
Brussels bureaucracy.
The court called the Connolly book "aggressive, derogatory and
insulting", taking particular umbrage at the author's suggestion that
Economic and Monetary Union was a threat to democracy, freedom and
"ultimately peace".
However, it dropped an argument put forward three months ago by the
advocate-general, Damaso Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, which implied that Mr
Connolly's criticism of the EU was akin to extreme blasphemy, and
therefore not protected speech.
Mr Connolly, who has been told to pay the European Commission's legal
costs, said the proceedings did not amount to a fair hearing. He said:
"We're back to the Star Chamber and Acts of Attainder: the rights of
defendants are not respected or guaranteed in any way; the offence of
seditious libel has been resurrected."
Mr Colomer wrote in his opinion last November that a landmark British
case on free speech had "no foundation or relevance" in European law,
suggesting that the European Court was unwilling to give much
consideration to British legal tradition.
Mr Connolly now intends to take his case to Europe's other court, the
non-EU European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
ptsc
>I found this on another newsgroup.
>Can any of our British friends confirm is this is true or not?
Sadly, this is entirely true. The Europeans have lost their minds. Presumably
this will be appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, as this is an
outrageous precedent. It went beyond the mere idea that one could be fired for
criticizing one's employer (which is, when the employer is the state,
outrageous enough in itself especially considering that large portions of the
population work for the government in many socialist European nations), and
went on to state that you could essentially be prosecuted for criticizing the
government.
I don't even think it breaks Godwin's law to compare this to Adolf Hitler
declaring it a crime to criticize the Chancellor.
>ISSUE 2112 Wednesday 7 March 2001
>Euro-court outlaws criticism of EU
>By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in Brussels
>THE European Court of Justice ruled yesterday that the European Union
>can lawfully suppress political criticism of its institutions and of
>leading figures, sweeping aside English Common Law and 50 years of
>European precedents on civil liberties. The EU's top court found that
>the European Commission was entitled to sack Bernard Connolly, a British
>economist dismissed in 1995 for writing a critique of European monetary
>integration entitled The Rotten Heart of Europe.
Obviously these assholes need to be fired. They are human rights criminals and
a disgrace to anyone viewing themselves as free. The UK should pull out of the
EU and tell these wankers to go fuck themselves.
>The ruling stated that the commission could restrict dissent in order to
>"protect the rights of others" and punish individuals who "damaged the
>institution's image and reputation". The case has wider implications for
>free speech that could extend to EU citizens who do not work for the
>Brussels bureaucracy.
They damaged their own reputation with this criminal action. When I see
actions like this of transnational quasi-governments, it makes me think the
"One World Conspiracy Theorists" might have a point about these power-mad
gluttons of fascism.
>The court called the Connolly book "aggressive, derogatory and
>insulting", taking particular umbrage at the author's suggestion that
>Economic and Monetary Union was a threat to democracy, freedom and
>"ultimately peace".
Well, itsn't that special. I don't even know what Connolly said, but if he was
saiyng that this fascist European kangaroo court is a menace to the world, he
is almost certainly correct, and the criminals he was accusing have proved
themselves equal to any criticism he possibly could have levelled.
>However, it dropped an argument put forward three months ago by the
>advocate-general, Damaso Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, which implied that Mr
>Connolly's criticism of the EU was akin to extreme blasphemy, and
>therefore not protected speech.
>Mr Connolly, who has been told to pay the European Commission's legal
>costs, said the proceedings did not amount to a fair hearing. He said:
>"We're back to the Star Chamber and Acts of Attainder: the rights of
>defendants are not respected or guaranteed in any way; the offence of
>seditious libel has been resurrected."
So he not only gets fired, but has to pay the costs for a huge government
conspiracy against himself.
>Mr Colomer wrote in his opinion last November that a landmark British
>case on free speech had "no foundation or relevance" in European law,
>suggesting that the European Court was unwilling to give much
>consideration to British legal tradition.
The UK should simply pull out of this fascist EU which has shown its complete
contempt for humanity and should be overthrown and dissolved, and these
"jurists" thrown in prison for crimes against humanity.
>Mr Connolly now intends to take his case to Europe's other court, the
>non-EU European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
We'll see how much luck he has there.
Those idiots should simply be removed, and if not the UK should pull out of the
EU. I don't know why they allowed themselves to get sucked into that claptrap
in the first place.
ptsc
Nelson
expressed (yes I am expressing it instead of suppressing it all the time) ,
well thats not aimed at you David so dont take it that way. And I was not
too careful in the proof read either.
The chilling part in this David is not really here but found years ago and
from LRH.
It fits if you take this ruling and add a bit of time along with the
official squirrelling going on to destroy scientology tech.
In the future, maybe not too far off, it will be a legal arrest offence to
say what is being called scientology is a fake, unworkable form of it.
From Ron's words,,,,not exact quote: ..."if we fail to get out of the trap
now......we will all have our numbers and our guilt and no workable
technology will be tolerated"
I find the grim reality of that bites me on the ass where instead of
tolerating marriage confessionals which WORK to make continuation of
marriage more possible, a minster of the church, OSA agent (so he says),
sends his own marriage for divorce and after that, my own marriage into
civil court with orders to keep scientology out of it.
And all the while I had been trying to get one of our own courts to deal
with the stops, and the crimes, including kidnapping of my children,
extortion, assault and other things wog courts don't give a fuck about if
done against a husband, never mind if done to a scientologist. That's a
bonus in wog court eyes.
I stand up for my rights against that as I am to do so per what is expected
of me as a scientologist and I do not recognise expulsion for having done
it.
I lost everything doing it but I did what I had to do under the conditions I
was subjected to.
I mean if nothing else, by theory alone it is both immoral and unlawful for
a scientologist to say there is no possibility of reconciliation where the
normal and usual remedies have not first been applied, as our technology is
uniformly workable, right? Right.
It's a false attest and an over on one's children, church, religion, society
and man's stability, then to petiton for a divorce knowing the remidies
have not been FIRST applied.
Yes I know I am cutting across the entier vested interests of the whole
divorce industry upholding this technology, but fuck them and the psychs who
profit by it and the other SP's who l would lose this solution.
Its like knowing first aid but saying nothing can be done about a bleeding
artery while the tourniquet sits there unused, even hidden and pretended to
not exist at all. "Yes I saw my wife was bleeding but nothing could be done
about it" (as he puts the tourniquet in his back pocket) Otherwise one would
be called a wilful and knowing destroyer or at least out ethics.
And justice would be on my side instead of the destructive purpose side. And
justice would not be pretending even to my own children I am anti-social for
daring to speak when all else failed to garner support of a valid, urgent
and constructive purpose.
Then to expel a man for mentioning this kind of overt dishonesty along with
a host of other crimes the church justice system should have jumped on like
gangbusters,,,well no workable technology is tolerated right now is all I
can say. Nor is ethics.
Backward court cases such as the above EU case just serve to nail the traps
shut so non dare say anything and all can be happy slaves. Enjoy.
Welcome to the world without Scientology and a planet without ethics.
If there is any fraud about Scientology it is saying it exists in actual
practice as that is NOT tolerated, and we can all be happy campers after
that.
But I am not so happy. And I wont recant my "seditious libel " as it is
sooth, just like LRH taught me to think in terms of and have the integrity
to speak.
The rest can eat my shorts. My children were very important to me and so was
being there for themas they grew up. Anyone teaching them by example overtly
or covertly that scientology does not have the answers or that the answers
"applied" do not work and "it's ok as long was we don't tell people we know
the answers but just want to be intentionaly immoral and unlawful about
divorce.",,,well fuck all that and any agreement to it.
Those insane bastards are mis-instructing children about scientology and
telling them lies which leave them worse than no answers, no technology and
in an apathy that nothing can be done about anything anyway.
I say these are spineless bastards who have no right to call themselves
scientologists or to be trusted to behave like scientologists as they are
untrustworthy and traitors to the cause.
I am thinking of alternative dispute resolution methods to deal with this
situation as two justice systems seem content to have been undemined by
false reports, but shooting people down in cold blood don't make for a world
without war, crime, insanity does it? So I shouldn't do that. It's not
optimum.
It just adds to it and makes for more oppresive laws.
In time maybe posts like this will avert disaster, we still can.
Fuck the PR guys I say. Let them be the liars and say all is well when all
is going to hell in some vital areas. That's their trade to lie. Just don't
expect me to lie for them and say "all is well in scientology come on in"
when I myself got robbed and something else of a reverse nature was given
instead of what scientology promises.
For fucks sakes they would not even permit me to practice it standardly and
then I get hit by them with ethics orders? I mean really they had no
justification for their actions so had to lie to cover up.
Scientology marriage confessionals take THREE PEOPLE. It is the third
terminal, the auditor and technology of auditing and the technology of
ethics to get auditing in, and the technology of admin to get the other two
in that is out is wack and out of synch here.
I mean why let the mob run me over about it when it is the group that wont
fucking audit this shit and stays sick from it to some sp's glee I a sure.
Now the thought of ones spouse in with you on a confessional on a metre
with an auditor who can get you to tell all, well that may horrify some
people or seem brutal, and it IS TOUGH but it is standard scientology and
that is what we do, or would do in not for sp administrators fucking it all
up cause they themselves don't have the jam to do the process. (little mayos
I called them)
It is a tricky process marriage confesionals but that is what the auditor's
code is for. To make sure he don't fuck up and start evaluating or
invalidating or go into super sympathy with one partner and end it, but get
both clean. After that it is clear sailing.
Where tech is out ethics is out.
The others in Edmonton would not tolerate it. Purhaps its simplicity is
higher than their ability to comprehend or they just are out to prevent
scientology from working in order to protect their own two bit nimby pamby
"I sucked the wrong guys cock while you were away on training" type of
transgression. I dont know which one and I dont care what their why's are
any more.
We are taking people out of an eternity of degradation and returning to
them their power and ability to be outside of a meat body to stand in the
sun and enjoy it. What a couple of Degraded Beings do with their pieces of
meat which is against their agreed upon moral codesor whatever religion or
lack of one is not the point and I could not care less. Its not important.
Missed withholds are important for they keep evil afloat in the universe and
if I cant get clears and OTs to tolerate disclosure of nimby pamby humanoid
type overts and withholds we are not going to get very far to clear and OT
are we?
I mean even exterior and without a body it is STILL a transgression against
marriage to enjoy the sex of other people as they are having it in the
"privacy" of their own homes.
One could at least ring up the wife or husband and invite him or her over to
enjoy it too. More honest would be to ring the doorbell and step in for a
foursome. Not very safe sex but more honest.
Now give me a break about all this and why clears and OTs went apposite over
my intent for a standard marriage confessionals. I mean that stuff is
dynamite as it is part of our implants and our overts. I mean it is obvious
to me why OTs cringe when they think of what honest application of this
technology can do. But fuck them if they cant take it. They are big blocks
who better move their fat theta apses so more of us can arrive.
That, or just lets let man be in chains forever then and teach them to teach
their children to do the same. ,,,,NOT
My position is the position of LRH in "Honest People Have Rights Too"
All the rest can fuck off and stay sick and trapped if they want
to....unless they are auditors. Their apses I would rather kick when they
fuck up than kiss to be audited by them while they are fucked up. Get it
Caroline? Ginnie? C-Ann and the rest, including the crew at CLO Canada two
of whom were here on mission to get RTC standards in? Here me? If you are
reflecting real RTC standards
the show is lost and you really are a bunch of cunts in the truest meat body
sense of the word cause you all so fucked on fucking you wont even lift your
stinky fingers off the clit you call your brains to get a real confessional
about the subject to be had by a couple of "lesser beings."
I am sick of being held down so get off your dildos or you high holier than
thou horse and knock off the case on post and the prevention of the
disclosure of withholds to marital partners. Some of us want that stuff kept
in and kept pure.
I mean was every one in the org banging my wife or was it just the third
party and off- policy out-tech actions done on her and my kids that no one
wanted me to find out the full extent about?
Nelson
"Theta One" <thet...@icehouse.net> wrote in message
news:3aced...@news2.lightlink.com...
Captain Nerd
Hash: SHA1
In article <pe1uctsk88lee22q8...@4ax.com>, ptsc <ptsc AT nym
So, where's Sten?
Isn't it funny how quiet he is when it isn't the "United Snakes of
America"
to blame?
Maybe we should call the EU the "United Snakes of Europe".
Like I said in another post, traditionally European nations haven't
respected the rights of their own citizens to any great degree. There's
always been someone (royalty, warlord, commisariat) who gets to decide
what rights the people under them have, and what they're allowed to say
and think.
And these are the people who claim the US is fascist!
Cap.
(Glad my ancestors left that hellhole 250+ years ago)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.2
iQA/AwUBOs9FabztfgpKlX7qEQKk9wCfREJX4z8VH+rNkoeSBsOKZ9nuCDwAn1dI
lYYegaSW3lcCjyzbzs2W2c5Q
=hpig
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Operation: Nerdwatch - http://www.nerdwatch.com
Captain Nerd can be reached at: cpt...@nerdwatch.com
"By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes."
Theta One
news:cptnerd-238C28...@news2.lightlink.com...
to
> > >"protect the rights of others" and punish individuals who "damaged the
> > >institution's image and reputation". The case has wider implications
for
> > >free speech that could extend to EU citizens who do not work for the
> > >Brussels bureaucracy.
> >
> > They damaged their own reputation with this criminal action. When I see
> > actions like this of transnational quasi-governments, it makes me think
> > the "One World Conspiracy Theorists" might have a point about these
> > power-mad gluttons of fascism.
> >
> > >The court called the Connolly book "aggressive, derogatory and
> > >insulting", taking particular umbrage at the author's suggestion that
> > >Economic and Monetary Union was a threat to democracy, freedom and
> > >"ultimately peace".
> So, where's Sten?
>
> Isn't it funny how quiet he is when it isn't the "United Snakes of
> America"
> to blame?
>
> Maybe we should call the EU the "United Snakes of Europe".
>
> Like I said in another post, traditionally European nations haven't
> respected the rights of their own citizens to any great degree.
There's
> always been someone (royalty, warlord, commisariat) who gets to decide
> what rights the people under them have, and what they're allowed to say
> and think.
>
> And these are the people who claim the US is fascist!
>
> Cap.
> (Glad my ancestors left that hellhole 250+ years ago)
Howdy Cap;
Here is a little more information on the situation:
Article 52 of the EU Charter says that a limitation of rights is admissible
"if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest
recognised by the Union".
So in other words, the EU can start eliminating human rights if it meets
their objectives or is in the interest of the Union. Big Brother is here.
You can find more at:
http://www.euobs.com/index.phtml?selected_topic=none&action=view&article_id=
1860
While I agree with your general sentiments, the problem is not so much the
European nations or people themselves, but rather, the small group that is
seeking total domination of the planet. The formation of the European Union
is only one more step in that direction. I think if you were to ask the
people of Europe in general (not Sten), they are probably not very happy
about this situation themselves.
Here in the US, the same group is planning a similar "Union" for the future.
I believe it will be the "American Union", and will consist of North and
South America. The passage of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement)
was one of the steps in that direction. I believe that their timetable for
the formation of the American Union was originally around 2005, and then the
formation of an Asian Union by 2010. Then, there would be only 3 "global
ruling bodies", and then by 2015, these would be consolidated into the "One
World" government.
Theta One
Dave Bird
<thet...@icehouse.net> writes:
>I found this on another newsgroup.
>
>Can any of our British friends confirm is this is true or not?
>
>ISSUE 2112 Wednesday 7 March 2001
>Euro-court outlaws criticism of EU
>By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in Brussels
>
>
>THE European Court of Justice ruled yesterday that the European Union
>can lawfully suppress political criticism of its institutions and of
>leading figures, sweeping aside English Common Law and 50 years of
>European precedents on civil liberties. The EU's top court found that
>the European Commission was entitled to sack Bernard Connolly, a British
>economist dismissed in 1995 for writing a critique of European monetary
>integration entitled The Rotten Heart of Europe.
This is, essentially, a complete load of crap. There is a limit to
which you can make public statements savagely rubbishing an employer
WHILE YOU STILL WORK FOR THEM; if they are that bad, you leave first
and then say your piece. This remains true if your employer is
the european commission.
|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |<a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"></a>_____________|/_______| L
www.xemu.demon.co.uk 2B0D 5195 337B A3E6 DDAC BD38 7F2F FD8E 7391 F44F
©Anti-Cult® - www.users.wineasy.se/noname/
Helicopters from the UN Black Helicopters from the UN Black Helicopters
from the UN Black Helicopters from the UN Black Helicopters from the UN
Black Helicopters from the UN Black Helicopters from the UN Black
Helicopters from the UN Black Helicopters from the UN Black Helicopters
from the UN Black Helicopters from the UN Black Helicopters from the UN
Black Helicopters from the UN Black Helicopters from the UN Black
Helicopters from the UN Black Helicopters from the UN Black Helicopters
from the UN Black Helicopters from the UN Black Helicopters from the UN
On Sat, 7 Apr 2001 19:35:19 -0600.
In Message-ID: <3acfc...@news2.lightlink.com>
From: "Nelson" <nels...@powersurfr.com>.
Organization: Lightlink Internet.
Wrote on the subject: Re: EU outlaws freedom of speech?:
>Ya and with the UN troops by 2015 to do, what?
>Let us just read 1984 again shall we?
>Nelson
>
Black Helicopters from the UN Black Helicopters from the UN Black
Helicopters from the UN Black Helicopters from the UN Black Helicopters
from the UN Black Helicopters from the UN Black Helicopters from the UN
Black Helicopters from the UN Black Helicopters from the UN Black
Helicopters from the UN Black Helicopters from the UN Black Helicopters
from the UN Black Helicopters from the UN Black Helicopters from the UN
Black Helicopters from the UN Black Helicopters from the UN Black
Helicopters from the UN Black Helicopters from the UN Black Helicopters
from the UN Black Helicopters from the UN Black Helicopters from the UN
Black Helicopters from the UN Black Helicopters from the UN Black
Helicopters from the UN Black Helicopters from the UN Black Helicopters
from the UN Black Helicopters from the UN Black Helicopters from the UN
Black Helicopters from the UN Black Helicopters from the UN Black
Helicopters from the UN Black Helicopters from the UN Black Helicopters
from the UN
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's how I think Hubbard did his "research." He downed a bottle of
gin, popped a few pills, passed out and woke up hours later, clutching
the empty bottle and screaming "The psychs are coming, the psychs are
coming, they're crawling all over me. Get 'em off, get 'em off." And,
another Scientology rundown was thus created, the False Purpose rundown.
- ind...@aol.com (Indanm)
In Message-ID: <20010310005938...@ng-fr1.aol.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
******* Body thetans? We don't need no stinking Body Thetans! *******
*********** http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/index.htm ************
IRC #Scientology JavaChat http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/irc.html
* Multimedia: http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/multimed/index.htm *
******** The.Galacti...@ThePentagon.com (Anti-Cult) ********
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Nelson
Let us just read 1984 again shall we?
Nelson
"Theta One" <thet...@icehouse.net> wrote in (snip)
Captain Nerd
Hash: SHA1
Hey, Sten, what do you say about your fellow "you're
a-peein's" stifling free speech? Don't you feel better
to be a slave to these pestilential "sophisticates?"
>ISSUE 2112 Wednesday 7 March 2001
>Euro-court outlaws criticism of EU
>By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in Brussels
>THE European Court of Justice ruled yesterday that the European Union
>can lawfully suppress political criticism of its institutions and of
>leading figures, sweeping aside English Common Law and 50 years of
>European precedents on civil liberties. The EU's top court found that
>the European Commission was entitled to sack Bernard Connolly, a British
>economist dismissed in 1995 for writing a critique of European monetary
>integration entitled The Rotten Heart of Europe.
>
>The ruling stated that the commission could restrict dissent in order to
>"protect the rights of others" and punish individuals who "damaged the
>institution's image and reputation". The case has wider implications for
>free speech that could extend to EU citizens who do not work for the
>Brussels bureaucracy.
[...]
>Mr Colomer wrote in his opinion last November that a landmark British
>case on free speech had "no foundation or relevance" in European law,
>suggesting that the European Court was unwilling to give much
>consideration to British legal tradition.
Looks like all you "You're a-peein's" are reverting to form,
since none of your "cultures" have ever really respected human
rights down through history. How many generations of serfs
were allowed to choose how to live their own lives?
Cap.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.2
iQA/AwUBOs/SZ7ztfgpKlX7qEQJQXgCg0GVpxy0n0pLnjfXIn8zHRW3wryUAoPjY
fKaWBzWcCkyJTd0ZZOoADnHb
=Pm4O
Roland
Sane British people want nothing to do with this European Union shit.
Our country has been sold down the river by scumbag politicians in this
country.
Roland
--
"I notice that we all believe that Venus has a methane atmosphere and
is unlivable. I almost got run down by a freight locomotive the other
day -- didn't look very uncivilized to me." - L. Ron Hubbard,
"Between Lives Implants" lecture, SHSBC #317. 23 July 1963.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~xemu/rams/Venusloc.ram
©Anti-Cult® - www.users.wineasy.se/noname/
In Message-ID: <cptnerd-0B1268...@news2.lightlink.com>
From: Captain Nerd <cpt...@nerdwatch.com>.
Organization: Operation: Nerdwatch.
Wrote on the subject: Re: EU outlaws freedom of speech?:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
> Hey, Sten, what do you say about your fellow "you're
> a-peein's" stifling free speech? Don't you feel better
> to be a slave to these pestilential "sophisticates?"
As long as the end result is a humiliated U.S, I can take anything.
Sten-Arne
--
Captain Nerd
Hash: SHA1
In article
<ulkvctk5lapic5g0s...@ARSCC.Sweden.Dep.OSA.Surveillance>,
?Anti-Cult? - www.users.wineasy.se/noname/
<The.Galacti...@ThePentagon.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Apr 2001 22:52:27 -0400.
> In Message-ID: <cptnerd-0B1268...@news2.lightlink.com>
> From: Captain Nerd <cpt...@nerdwatch.com>.
> Organization: Operation: Nerdwatch.
> Wrote on the subject: Re: EU outlaws freedom of speech?:
>
> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Hey, Sten, what do you say about your fellow "you're
> > a-peein's" stifling free speech? Don't you feel better
> > to be a slave to these pestilential "sophisticates?"
>
> As long as the end result is a humiliated U.S, I can take anything.
>
> Sten-Arne
And you'd like all of your fellow "You're a-peein's" to have
the same freedom you gave the Jews over there, right?
Cap.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.2
iQA/AwUBOs/VALztfgpKlX7qEQLzTQCg8zH6NNjy9B82d8k0G4S4aw2zl/kAoJXy
+ImLprNo9q1pUZIzgepO8RbY
=G6MK
©Anti-Cult® - www.users.wineasy.se/noname/
In Message-ID: <cptnerd-ADA1B8...@news2.lightlink.com>
From: Captain Nerd <cpt...@nerdwatch.com>.
Organization: Operation: Nerdwatch.
Wrote on the subject: Re: EU outlaws freedom of speech?:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>In article
><ulkvctk5lapic5g0s...@ARSCC.Sweden.Dep.OSA.Surveillance>,
>?Anti-Cult? - www.users.wineasy.se/noname/
><The.Galacti...@ThePentagon.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 07 Apr 2001 22:52:27 -0400.
>> In Message-ID: <cptnerd-0B1268...@news2.lightlink.com>
>> From: Captain Nerd <cpt...@nerdwatch.com>.
>> Organization: Operation: Nerdwatch.
>> Wrote on the subject: Re: EU outlaws freedom of speech?:
>>
>> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> >Hash: SHA1
>> >
>> > Hey, Sten, what do you say about your fellow "you're
>> > a-peein's" stifling free speech? Don't you feel better
>> > to be a slave to these pestilential "sophisticates?"
>>
>> As long as the end result is a humiliated U.S, I can take anything.
>>
>> Sten-Arne
>
> And you'd like all of your fellow "You're a-peein's" to have
> the same freedom you gave the Jews over there, right?
>
> Cap.
>
The jews...
You are like the scientologists. You believe that this is a button,
don't you?
How about you just shut the fuck up, and give back the country to the
Indians instead. Well, the few that's left after you murdered most of
them, in order to steal the whole continent...
Sten-Arne
Captain Nerd
Hash: SHA1
In article
<ablvctshjh8rm7r17...@ARSCC.Sweden.Dep.OSA.Surveillance>,
Let's see...
>
> How about you just shut the fuck up,
It sure looks like a button, to me.
Cap.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.2
iQA/AwUBOs/Xy7ztfgpKlX7qEQLwmQCeIEqA3GwPFgnQPVKsdTPsiUzqGG8AnR9Z
7qwGj13K5ox7gEdjNmzdl0DC
=L9of
©Anti-Cult® - www.users.wineasy.se/noname/
In Message-ID: <cptnerd-58D83C...@news2.lightlink.com>
And you're just too stupid to see the beam in your own eye. Millions of
Indians murdered, millions of slaved used and abused and murdered.
That's only part of the crimes against humanity your country is guilty
of.
However, the stupid and fascists will of course always blaim others, as
we see here from a fascist rightwing militia Yankee..
If Israel got back what they claimed were their country, after almost
2000 years, I'd say that you should give back the whole North American
continent to the Indians. After all it was much shorter time since they
had it as their own land.
But of course, as the U.S hypocrite you are, you wouldn't want to do
that, would you?
PS. I can keep this up for 20 years, but you will not last that long.
Not with that overweight.
Captain Nerd
Hash: SHA1
In article
<ecmvct4v871ugsr4l...@ARSCC.Sweden.Dep.OSA.Surveillance>,
Learned it from you. You killed hundreds and hundreds of millions,
and captured the natives from the African colonies you set up
so you could sell them.
> However, the stupid and fascists will of course always blaim others, as
> we see here from a fascist rightwing militia Yankee..
Yeah, like you blame the US for all crimes. You show us all how
little you care for humans that you consider "undesirable", and
you show how little you care for the people who
> If Israel got back what they claimed were their country, after almost
> 2000 years, I'd say that you should give back the whole North American
> continent to the Indians. After all it was much shorter time since they
> had it as their own land.
And while you're at it, I have some Celtic ancestors who were
kicked out of Britain by the damned Romans, I demand that land
back!
> But of course, as the U.S hypocrite you are, you wouldn't want to do
> that, would you?
At least we only go back to one continent, you "you're a-peein's"
did that to the African, Asian, and Australian continents!
Everywhere you went, you spread your rats and disease to the
whole world, you disrupted ecosystems that were in balance for
millenia, all in the name of your "empires".
> PS. I can keep this up for 20 years, but you will not last that long.
> Not with that overweight.
I can keep this up until you succumb to any of the many plagues
you surround yourself with.
Cap.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.2
iQA/AwUBOs/hWbztfgpKlX7qEQLehQCeJv7hmjl2na+aUZwmC3KNDmsqk9AAnA81
GZSgirOcPIIz/YZZhCevh/K1
=xTt+
©Anti-Cult® - www.users.wineasy.se/noname/
In Message-ID: <cptnerd-1BA66C...@news2.lightlink.com>
You're on overdrive now, aren't you? :-)
>
>
>> However, the stupid and fascists will of course always blaim others, as
>> we see here from a fascist rightwing militia Yankee..
>
> Yeah, like you blame the US for all crimes. You show us all how
> little you care for humans that you consider "undesirable", and
> you show how little you care for the people who
What, have I killed millions of Indians?
>
>
>> If Israel got back what they claimed were their country, after almost
>> 2000 years, I'd say that you should give back the whole North American
>> continent to the Indians. After all it was much shorter time since they
>> had it as their own land.
>
> And while you're at it, I have some Celtic ancestors who were
> kicked out of Britain by the damned Romans, I demand that land
> back!
You ARE on overdrive..
>
>
>> But of course, as the U.S hypocrite you are, you wouldn't want to do
>> that, would you?
>
> At least we only go back to one continent, you "you're a-peein's"
> did that to the African, Asian, and Australian continents!
> Everywhere you went, you spread your rats and disease to the
> whole world, you disrupted ecosystems that were in balance for
> millenia, all in the name of your "empires".
Well, we have left Africa. When will you leave the American continent?
>
>
>> PS. I can keep this up for 20 years, but you will not last that long.
>> Not with that overweight.
>
> I can keep this up until you succumb to any of the many plagues
> you surround yourself with.
No you can't. Have you listened to your fascist governments propaganda?
>
> Cap.
Captain Nerd
Hash: SHA1
In article
<oeovctggk2knr2tf7...@ARSCC.Sweden.Dep.OSA.Surveillance>,
And you're getting tired of defending your own fascistic,
militaristic, jingoistic, empire-building, royalty-loving,
plague-ridden hellhole.
> >> However, the stupid and fascists will of course always blaim others, as
> >> we see here from a fascist rightwing militia Yankee..
> >
> > Yeah, like you blame the US for all crimes. You show us all how
> > little you care for humans that you consider "undesirable", and
> > you show how little you care for the people who
>
> What, have I killed millions of Indians?
No, you killed millions of Jews and Gypsies and Russians and
Germans and Poles and French and British and Italians and Greeks
and Turks and Africans and ...
> >> If Israel got back what they claimed were their country, after almost
> >> 2000 years, I'd say that you should give back the whole North American
> >> continent to the Indians. After all it was much shorter time since they
> >> had it as their own land.
> >
> > And while you're at it, I have some Celtic ancestors who were
> > kicked out of Britain by the damned Romans, I demand that land
> > back!
>
> You ARE on overdrive..
And you are too stupid to know the history of your own pestilential
hell-hole.
> >> But of course, as the U.S hypocrite you are, you wouldn't want to do
> >> that, would you?
> >
> > At least we only go back to one continent, you "you're a-peein's"
> > did that to the African, Asian, and Australian continents!
> > Everywhere you went, you spread your rats and disease to the
> > whole world, you disrupted ecosystems that were in balance for
> > millenia, all in the name of your "empires".
>
> Well, we have left Africa. When will you leave the American continent?
When I get my British land back from the Italians.
> >> PS. I can keep this up for 20 years, but you will not last that long.
> >> Not with that overweight.
> >
> > I can keep this up until you succumb to any of the many plagues
> > you surround yourself with.
>
> No you can't. Have you listened to your fascist governments propaganda?
Who are the ones killing their livestock because of disease? Who
are the ones who have to be go through disinfectant sprays before
they're allowed into civilized countries?
Cap.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.2
iQA/AwUBOs/oxrztfgpKlX7qEQJfVACeNH1C5T64vEqsxlXUf2H8J7lWRLsAoIHO
ys5ZzNCtCVddbDeFM9s+68jO
=mMwY
©Anti-Cult® - www.users.wineasy.se/noname/
In Message-ID: <cptnerd-D486D6...@news2.lightlink.com>
From: Captain Nerd <cpt...@nerdwatch.com>.
Organization: Operation: Nerdwatch.
Wrote on the subject: Re: EU outlaws freedom of speech?:
Idiot! I snip the whole fucking Yankee fascism shit, because I'm tired
of not only your fucking insane bullying country, but also tired of
scrolling through your rightwing militia bullshit.
Scientology will be taken down, and the big Satan, the U.S will be taken
down too, It's not a matter of If, it's a matter of when and how only.
Captain Nerd
Hash: SHA1
In article
<hiqvctcdbja08l4u2...@ARSCC.Sweden.Dep.OSA.Surveillance>,
?Anti-Cult? - www.users.wineasy.se/noname/
<The.Galacti...@ThePentagon.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 08 Apr 2001 00:28:00 -0400.
> > In Message-ID: <cptnerd-D486D6...@news2.lightlink.com>
> > From: Captain Nerd <cpt...@nerdwatch.com>.
> > Organization: Operation: Nerdwatch.
> > Wrote on the subject: Re: EU outlaws freedom of speech?:
> >
> >
> Idiot! I snip the whole fucking Yankee fascism shit, because I'm tired
> of not only your fucking insane bullying country, but also tired of
> scrolling through your rightwing militia bullshit.
So, what happened to "I can keep this up for twenty years"?
Maybe you're getting weak from all that bile, or maybe the
plague is catching up with you.
> Scientology will be taken down, and the big Satan, the U.S will be taken
> down too, It's not a matter of If, it's a matter of when and how only.
You're right about Scientology, at least as it is now. When it
ceases to harrass and persecute critics, when it ceases to abuse
the law, when it ceases to be a threat to freedom, it will have
every right to exist, as much as the Communist Party of the USA
has to exist.
Cap.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.2
iQA/AwUBOs/vELztfgpKlX7qEQK/8gCg0t1BfoHNduMPPiz6j3DidnnU2SwAoNQB
ACMm/1qF3zwo1MKgsp78rRiu
=1VeH
©Anti-Cult® - www.users.wineasy.se/noname/
On Sun, 08 Apr 2001 00:54:44 -0400.
In Message-ID: <cptnerd-71F99E...@news2.lightlink.com>
Dream on Cap, I snip and I do whatever I like. No Yankee is going to
order me around.
>
>
>> Scientology will be taken down, and the big Satan, the U.S will be taken
>> down too, It's not a matter of If, it's a matter of when and how only.
>
> You're right about Scientology, at least as it is now. When it
> ceases to harrass and persecute critics, when it ceases to abuse
> the law, when it ceases to be a threat to freedom, it will have
> every right to exist, as much as the Communist Party of the USA
> has to exist.
That's going to be your death. We in the free part of the world will
outlaw scientology and every other damned shit religious cult. If the
U.S doesn't like that, then meet 1 billion 100 million Chinese, 1
billion Indians, 550 million Europeans, and some 300 million Russians.
We're going to humiliate you into total submission, something you have
been doing to the whole world, since the Soviet Union collapsed due to
your criminal actions.
script 236h/beg23/&end45
>
> Cap.
Sten-Arne
script 236h/beg23/&end45&autopost
Captain Nerd
Hash: SHA1
In article
<iqrvct0i79n378nud...@ARSCC.Sweden.Dep.OSA.Surveillance>,
And no pestilential "you're a-peein'" is going to dodge
responsibility for his ancestors' bloodshed, either.
> >> Scientology will be taken down, and the big Satan, the U.S will be
> >> taken down too, It's not a matter of If, it's a matter of when and how
> >> only.
> >
> > You're right about Scientology, at least as it is now. When it
> > ceases to harrass and persecute critics, when it ceases to abuse
> > the law, when it ceases to be a threat to freedom, it will have
> > every right to exist, as much as the Communist Party of the USA
> > has to exist.
>
> That's going to be your death. We in the free part of the world will
> outlaw scientology and every other damned shit religious cult.
Even the Communist cult?
> If the
> U.S doesn't like that, then meet 1 billion 100 million Chinese, 1
> billion Indians, 550 million Europeans, and some 300 million Russians.
Hiya! Wanna buy a Big Mac?
(And it seems they do, by the billions...)
> We're going to humiliate you into total submission, something you have
> been doing to the whole world, since the Soviet Union collapsed due to
> your criminal actions.
But they were New Soviet Men and Women! How could mere Capitalists
have even been able to *touch* their holy perfection?
After all, since the Communist way is so superior, they should have
been able to "bury us" like they bragged about.
> script 236h/beg23/&end45
>
> >
> > Cap.
>
> Sten-Arne
>
> script 236h/beg23/&end45&autopost
Your "script" is stuttering. Whose program are you running, Sten?
Cap.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.2
iQA/AwUBOs/0zLztfgpKlX7qEQLm7wCdEEEtKL3cduutgPhY/KUV82T8zswAniEt
NYZJzJrAmVP9DCcfZv1+QzMs
=rknu
ptsc
>In article<3aced...@news2.lightlink.com>, Theta One
><thet...@icehouse.net> writes:
>>I found this on another newsgroup.
>>Can any of our British friends confirm is this is true or not?
>>ISSUE 2112 Wednesday 7 March 2001
>>Euro-court outlaws criticism of EU
>>By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in Brussels
>>THE European Court of Justice ruled yesterday that the European Union
>>can lawfully suppress political criticism of its institutions and of
>>leading figures, sweeping aside English Common Law and 50 years of
>>European precedents on civil liberties. The EU's top court found that
>>the European Commission was entitled to sack Bernard Connolly, a British
>>economist dismissed in 1995 for writing a critique of European monetary
>>integration entitled The Rotten Heart of Europe.
> This is, essentially, a complete load of crap. There is a limit to
> which you can make public statements savagely rubbishing an employer
> WHILE YOU STILL WORK FOR THEM; if they are that bad, you leave first
> and then say your piece. This remains true if your employer is
> the european commission.
What about in a socialist state where the majority of people work either
directly or indirectly for the state? In that case, practically the majority
of people would be denied the right to criticize the state, which is simply the
most important aspect of freedom of speech.
There is no benefit to society from preventing government employees from
criticizing that very government. It not only deprives the private rights of
that individual citizen, but the rights of the public to the benefit of
informed commentary and criticism directly from those who work most closely
with the issues in question, which are undeniably of benefit to the public.
A precedent essentially gagging government employees from any criticism of the
government, no matter how true, is dangerous to all people in the world and
increases the likelihood of a totalitarian Stalinist-style government, which
controls all means of employment, gaining power while gagging all those who
have no choice but either to work for the government while ignoring its crimes
in silence, or to starve in a gulag.
ptsc
ptsc
>You can find more at:
>http://www.euobs.com/index.phtml?selected_topic=none&action=view&article_id=
>1860
>While I agree with your general sentiments, the problem is not so much the
>European nations or people themselves, but rather, the small group that is
>seeking total domination of the planet. The formation of the European Union
>is only one more step in that direction. I think if you were to ask the
>people of Europe in general (not Sten), they are probably not very happy
>about this situation themselves.
I don't think there is any "small group that is seeking total domination of the
planet." There are, rather, many different small groups which are seeking
total domination of the planet. The ones that have the most chance of
succeeding are global communications megacorporations. When they all merge
into GloboCom with a monopoly on all communications media, expect global
attempts at censorship and control. (There is a way yet to go with this
particular conspiracy, which is less a conspiracy than a set of trends and
waves ridden by opportunistic capitalists of all stripes. Luckily, they fight
amongst another enough to keep some form of competition alive, and the GloboCom
nightmare may never come to pass if these trends are fought furiously enough
today.)
In any case, I think you're incorrect about one conspiracy. There are,
instead, lots of them. The weakness of "one culprit conspiracy theories" is
that they fail to take into account that there are LOTS of nasty little groups
with dreams of wold domination.
>Here in the US, the same group is planning a similar "Union" for the future.
>I believe it will be the "American Union", and will consist of North and
>South America. The passage of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement)
>was one of the steps in that direction. I believe that their timetable for
>the formation of the American Union was originally around 2005, and then the
>formation of an Asian Union by 2010. Then, there would be only 3 "global
>ruling bodies", and then by 2015, these would be consolidated into the "One
>World" government.
I don't like these trends in general. I think the EU should be split up and so
should the US and China and all empire-style states. The trend of
globalization leads to the trend of global market management (by global idiots)
and increases the threats of having a global "single point of failure" for the
entire world economy.
I don't like centralization, central control, or central governments, but
instead, prefer a multiplicity of nations linked by ad hoc agreement and the
most minimal sort of loose confederation.
(I had thought, prior to its latest bizarre actions, that the EU looked like it
might have some of the aspects of this sort of "loose federation," but unifying
currencies and weakening the protection of rights to the lowest common
denominator seems to be the exact opposite. Having a unified currency means
all the money collapses simultaneously, with no pockets of strong currency to
impede the cascading failure of economies. But then what do I know? Anyway
it's very unlikely to happen. I'd settle for a significant weakening of the
federal government on libertarian principles.)
In any case, bizarre behavior like this from the EU kangaroo courts probably
does a lot to confirm the misgivings of Germany and the UK prior to joining. I
also think that Germany and the UK by themselves could virtually wipe the whole
thing out just by telling them to fuck off.
>Theta One
ptsc
ptsc
wrote:
>Sane British people want nothing to do with this European Union shit.
>Our country has been sold down the river by scumbag politicians in this
>country.
The UK should pull out of that EU crap. Obviously they spit on the whole idea
of freedom. If the UK and Germany would both pull out, there would be nothing
in the EU but a bunch of frogs and Swedes and it would therefore collapse ;-)
ptsc
Dave Bird
>On Sun, 8 Apr 2001 01:17:23 +0100, Dave Bird <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>In article<3aced...@news2.lightlink.com>, Theta One writes:
>>>I found this on another newsgroup.
>
>>>Can any of our British friends confirm is this is true or not?
>
>>>ISSUE 2112 Wednesday 7 March 2001
>>>Euro-court outlaws criticism of EU
>>>By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in Brussels
>
>>>THE European Court of Justice ruled yesterday that the European Union
>>>can lawfully suppress political criticism of its institutions and of
>>>leading figures, sweeping aside English Common Law and 50 years of
>>>European precedents on civil liberties. The EU's top court found that
>>>the European Commission was entitled to sack Bernard Connolly, a British
>>>economist dismissed in 1995 for writing a critique of European monetary
>>>integration entitled The Rotten Heart of Europe.
>
>> This is, essentially, a complete load of crap. There is a limit to
>> which you can make public statements savagely rubbishing an employer
>> WHILE YOU STILL WORK FOR THEM; if they are that bad, you leave first
>> and then say your piece. This remains true if your employer is
>> the european commission.
>
>What about in a socialist state where the majority of people work either
>directly or indirectly for the state?
I'm not sure what you mean by a "socialist" state: do you mean one
where some things are done on a socialised basis (e.g. they provide
proper healthcare foe all citizens), or do you mean state communism
as in the former Soviet Union? We don't have any of the latter type
in the E.U. The European Commission employees are a VERY small
proportion of the E.U. population. In any case, I meant simply
"your direct employer"; you can't be a civil servant and go to
the papers saying what a shit your minister is, and expect to
stay there. Likewise if you work for a hospital there is a limit
to which they would tolerate public rubbishing by an employee.
Oakley
I don't know if you guys have noticed but both of you are just
throwing ad hominems around and not really making any sane arguments.
OK, sure, Capt. Nerd does seem more than a tad ethnocentric, but
Sten-Arne isn't completely innocent either. The thing a lot of people
need to face is that no country/union/empire/facist dictatorship etc is
perfect. I met several very intelligent Americans during the time I
lived there and on my vacations who were willing to look at things
objectively instead of going on a froth-mouthed rant about the EU (or
any other country, for that matter) being a "fascistic, militaristic,
jingoistic, empire-building, royalty-loving, plague-ridden hellhole."
I'm sorry to say this Capt. Nerd, but you do not seem to be a person
capable of this kind of objective reasoning. I mean, hell, what does the
BCJD or the foot&mouth disease have to do with anything? Are they both
"our fault"? I bet that many American farmers have also used ground up
moo-moos as feed. The mutated prion just happened to surface here.
How many times have you been outside your country, may I ask?
A lot of these apply to Sten-Arne as well, don't get me wrong.
So, let's all just calm down and try to act like the reasonable adults
which most of us are and not just blurt meaningless insults?
Varför kan vi alla inte vara vänner? ;)
And yes, I'm a lurker.
--T. Oakley
Cheradenine Zakalwe
Much as I hate to get in the way of a good round of
foreigner-bashing, some of this has gone a bit far...
"ptsc" <ptsc AT nym DOT alias DOT net> wrote in message news:pe1uctsk88lee22q8...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 7 Apr 2001 02:21:19 -0700, "Theta One" <thet...@icehouse.net> wrote:
>
> >I found this on another newsgroup.
>
> >Can any of our British friends confirm is this is true or not?
>
> Sadly, this is entirely true. The Europeans have lost their minds. Presumably
> this will be appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, as this is an
> outrageous precedent. It went beyond the mere idea that one could be fired for
> criticizing one's employer (which is, when the employer is the state,
> outrageous enough in itself especially considering that large portions of the
> population work for the government in many socialist European nations), and
> went on to state that you could essentially be prosecuted for criticizing the
> government.
How is this different from the "Pentagon Papers" case in the US,
back in the 1970's? Didn't we have a government employee
(Daniel Ellsberg, was it?) who disagreed with government policy
and wrote a book or series of articles which drew on the
confidential/secret information at his disposal, and wasn't he
sacked and prosecuted?
> I don't even think it breaks Godwin's law to compare this to Adolf Hitler
> declaring it a crime to criticize the Chancellor.
In France, it's illegal to publicly advocate the legalization of marijuana.
Then again, in the US, it's illegal in some places to burn flags, illegal
in airports to make jokes about bombs, and illegal nationwide to threaten
the life of the President, is it not? Every society puts limits on individual
freedoms. That doesn't make everyone Hitler.
> >ISSUE 2112 Wednesday 7 March 2001
> >Euro-court outlaws criticism of EU
> >By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in Brussels
What publication is this from? There are some really vicious
anti-European propaganda rags out there, particularly in Britain,
whose standards of journalistic integrity are right up there with
"Freedom" magazine.
> >THE European Court of Justice ruled yesterday that the European Union
> >can lawfully suppress political criticism of its institutions and of
> >leading figures, sweeping aside English Common Law and 50 years of
> >European precedents on civil liberties. The EU's top court found that
> >the European Commission was entitled to sack Bernard Connolly, a British
> >economist dismissed in 1995 for writing a critique of European monetary
> >integration entitled The Rotten Heart of Europe.
>
> Obviously these assholes need to be fired. They are human rights criminals and
> a disgrace to anyone viewing themselves as free. The UK should pull out of the
> EU and tell these wankers to go fuck themselves.
Writing a book that slams your employers is a good way to get
fired just about anywhere in the world. Conolly could not have
been surprised - and I rather doubt that he really gave a shit.
He's got a good job elswhere (in the US, it appears).
> >The ruling stated that the commission could restrict dissent in order to
> >"protect the rights of others" and punish individuals who "damaged the
> >institution's image and reputation". The case has wider implications for
> >free speech that could extend to EU citizens who do not work for the
> >Brussels bureaucracy.
>
> They damaged their own reputation with this criminal action. When I see
> actions like this of transnational quasi-governments, it makes me think the
> "One World Conspiracy Theorists" might have a point about these power-mad
> gluttons of fascism.
Uh, PTSC, just *what* criminal action? *Which* "actions like these"?
I see a guy being sacked for breach of confidentiality. The article
here doesn't even make clear who was charging whom with what
in the court case, i.e. whether it was Connolly losing a suit or appeal
that he brought against the EC. From other web sites, it looks as if
the suit that he lost was over whether a gag order could be applied
to him, but it still wasn't clear as to whether he was the plaintiff or the
defendant. Don't get me wrong - I don't think he should be gagged
and I sure as hell don't think he should be held up for legal costs
*unless* it was he who brought the suit in the first place - but your
xenophobic rhetoric is way out of proportion to the situation.
> >The court called the Connolly book "aggressive, derogatory and
> >insulting", taking particular umbrage at the author's suggestion that
> >Economic and Monetary Union was a threat to democracy, freedom and
> >"ultimately peace".
>
> Well, itsn't that special. I don't even know what Connolly said, but if he was
> saiyng that this fascist European kangaroo court is a menace to the world, he
> is almost certainly correct, and the criminals he was accusing have proved
> themselves equal to any criticism he possibly could have levelled.
Dude, it's in the paragraph. He said that EMU was a threat to democracy,
freedom, and ultimately peace, which the court found to be agressive,
derogatory, and insulting. Hell, it sounds agressive, derogatory, and
insulting to me, too, but he still may have had a point, and shouldn't
be gagged. That having been said...
> >However, it dropped an argument put forward three months ago by the
> >advocate-general, Damaso Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, which implied that Mr
> >Connolly's criticism of the EU was akin to extreme blasphemy, and
> >therefore not protected speech.
This is where I smell a right-wing UK anti-EU writer at work. An argument
was put forward which "implied" that his criticsism was akin to extreme
blasphemy. That could be anything from Colomer screeching that
Connolly must be burned at the stake to a snide comment that anyone
pissing in a church can expect to be shown the door. I want to see the
real quote before I give this any more credibility than Bob Minton's
alleged Nigerian crimes.
When Scientology organs mount a smear campaign against
Bob Minton, you're the first to notice the distortions, deceptions,
and hidden agenda. Why is it that you can't do the same when
someone mounts a smear campaign against a European
Union that, among other things, has shown itself far more
resistant to Scientology corruption than the US?
/Z
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBOtAWGXpshlrYVcixAQGQ2wf+NmsJ5+5gFDr2B1k3TzBBvTXTnmNvdK49
GZWo4B14JM1nJq3DeekzXXKO8s1jexhoTNbI9Zm/8KjMLVux5bm7gsW5eYxTQbc0
NPO/y8HySvFGMmVJyRnAQAxK0+Qjm0FiByqv7rqNKBpGHhISkoqqyBYXTDre46Tb
p/dd1ammdVI0damQD2wP+p5fT0olY2eXYpX+k/HgxKpVg+TJYwJ8r5dhrjdXcvWB
mMF1me6pajpBuCOOwITRoohncwD1GabMOr7QPQXoRHg8rN1gQl4MSaZSuw45L+l7
F2BVDliZmlQMAZG+O0Wvm95uZwNc7TRDmmaY/VJEoYGehni2njmOpw==
=1/qI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Say what?!
Say what?!
ptsc
wrote:
>Much as I hate to get in the way of a good round of
>foreigner-bashing, some of this has gone a bit far...
>"ptsc" <ptsc AT nym DOT alias DOT net> wrote in message news:pe1uctsk88lee22q8...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 7 Apr 2001 02:21:19 -0700, "Theta One" <thet...@icehouse.net> wrote:
>> >I found this on another newsgroup.
>> >Can any of our British friends confirm is this is true or not?
>> Sadly, this is entirely true. The Europeans have lost their minds. Presumably
>> this will be appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, as this is an
>> outrageous precedent. It went beyond the mere idea that one could be fired for
>> criticizing one's employer (which is, when the employer is the state,
>> outrageous enough in itself especially considering that large portions of the
>> population work for the government in many socialist European nations), and
>> went on to state that you could essentially be prosecuted for criticizing the
>> government.
>How is this different from the "Pentagon Papers" case in the US,
>back in the 1970's? Didn't we have a government employee
>(Daniel Ellsberg, was it?) who disagreed with government policy
>and wrote a book or series of articles which drew on the
>confidential/secret information at his disposal, and wasn't he
>sacked and prosecuted?
Yes. However, he won, and the resulting case is binding case law, which is
further strengthened by statutory defenses specifically protecting
whistleblowers, to a greater or lesser extent. This is not really a similar
case, unless alleged "state secrets" or "national security interests" are at
stake. It is a case of being sacked for expressing an opinion.
>> I don't even think it breaks Godwin's law to compare this to Adolf Hitler
>> declaring it a crime to criticize the Chancellor.
>In France, it's illegal to publicly advocate the legalization of marijuana.
How many people go to jail for it?
>Then again, in the US, it's illegal in some places to burn flags, illegal
No, every flag-burning statute has been found unconstitutional when it has been
tried in court. Some people have been convicted for burning a flag, but often
under fire codes or disturbing the peace statutes based on the manner of doing
so. However, no statute specifically outlawing burning the flag as an act of
speech has ever been found to pass Constitutional muster, which is why there is
an occasional attempt by jingoistic fascists to amend the Constitution
specifically to do away with the First Amendment rights of free speech.
>in airports to make jokes about bombs, and illegal nationwide to threaten
In airports there is good cause for forbidding anything remotely smacking of a
terrorist threat. This is a "reasonable time, place and manner restriction" on
free speech. A joke that might be merely offensive outside an airport can
create an immediate panic in an airport, and an immediate police response.
>the life of the President, is it not? Every society puts limits on individual
In no nation is it legal to threaten the life of the nation's chief executive.
>freedoms. That doesn't make everyone Hitler.
No, but illegalizing criticism of the state, which this decision does, going
further than merely illegalizing it by state employees, is precisely the sort
of creeping totalitarianism that can not be tolerated in any free society.
>> >ISSUE 2112 Wednesday 7 March 2001
>> >Euro-court outlaws criticism of EU
>> >By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in Brussels
>What publication is this from? There are some really vicious
>anti-European propaganda rags out there, particularly in Britain,
>whose standards of journalistic integrity are right up there with
>"Freedom" magazine.
The title is an exaggeration, but only a slight one. In this case, an employee
was not merely sacked but forced to pay the legal costs of the European Union
in addition to being sacked. Essentially criticize the state and you too can
be bankrupt, should the court so decide.
>> >THE European Court of Justice ruled yesterday that the European Union
>> >can lawfully suppress political criticism of its institutions and of
>> >leading figures, sweeping aside English Common Law and 50 years of
>> >European precedents on civil liberties. The EU's top court found that
>> >the European Commission was entitled to sack Bernard Connolly, a British
>> >economist dismissed in 1995 for writing a critique of European monetary
>> >integration entitled The Rotten Heart of Europe.
>> Obviously these assholes need to be fired. They are human rights criminals and
>> a disgrace to anyone viewing themselves as free. The UK should pull out of the
>> EU and tell these wankers to go fuck themselves.
>Writing a book that slams your employers is a good way to get
>fired just about anywhere in the world. Conolly could not have
>been surprised - and I rather doubt that he really gave a shit.
>He's got a good job elswhere (in the US, it appears).
In the EU, where many member nations are socialist states, it should be obvious
why removing the rights of what may, in some cases, be a majority of the
citizens, is a bad idea.
>> >The ruling stated that the commission could restrict dissent in order to
>> >"protect the rights of others" and punish individuals who "damaged the
>> >institution's image and reputation". The case has wider implications for
>> >free speech that could extend to EU citizens who do not work for the
>> >Brussels bureaucracy.
>> They damaged their own reputation with this criminal action. When I see
>> actions like this of transnational quasi-governments, it makes me think the
>> "One World Conspiracy Theorists" might have a point about these power-mad
>> gluttons of fascism.
>Uh, PTSC, just *what* criminal action? *Which* "actions like these"?
>I see a guy being sacked for breach of confidentiality. The article
Where was the breach of confidentiality? I did not see a single allegation of
breach of confidentiality in any report of this case. Specifically, the case
explicitly stated that mere criticism of the state could be punished. In other
words, not merely ruling on the specific case of one state employee, this is a
sweeping ruling in which the Court arrogates to itself the "right" to restrict
the rights of those who "damage the institution's image and reputation."
Not by the use of confidential information, but merely by any dissenting
statement that the EU finds threatening to its reputation.
>here doesn't even make clear who was charging whom with what
>in the court case, i.e. whether it was Connolly losing a suit or appeal
>that he brought against the EC. From other web sites, it looks as if
>the suit that he lost was over whether a gag order could be applied
>to him, but it still wasn't clear as to whether he was the plaintiff or the
>defendant. Don't get me wrong - I don't think he should be gagged
>and I sure as hell don't think he should be held up for legal costs
>*unless* it was he who brought the suit in the first place - but your
>xenophobic rhetoric is way out of proportion to the situation.
I don't think he should be slapped with legal costs because I don't think he
should have lost the suit in the first place. (I do agree, in general
principle, with the fairly common practice in European courts of "loser pays,"
which rightly discourages frivolous litigation.)
>> >The court called the Connolly book "aggressive, derogatory and
>> >insulting", taking particular umbrage at the author's suggestion that
>> >Economic and Monetary Union was a threat to democracy, freedom and
>> >"ultimately peace".
>> Well, itsn't that special. I don't even know what Connolly said, but if he was
>> saiyng that this fascist European kangaroo court is a menace to the world, he
>> is almost certainly correct, and the criminals he was accusing have proved
>> themselves equal to any criticism he possibly could have levelled.
>Dude, it's in the paragraph. He said that EMU was a threat to democracy,
>freedom, and ultimately peace, which the court found to be agressive,
>derogatory, and insulting. Hell, it sounds agressive, derogatory, and
>insulting to me, too, but he still may have had a point, and shouldn't
>be gagged. That having been said...
IMO, the Court did indeed display that the EU is a threat to democracy and
freedom. It may, indeed, not be a threat to "peace," so long as that peace is
the peace of the graveyard.
>> >However, it dropped an argument put forward three months ago by the
>> >advocate-general, Damaso Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, which implied that Mr
>> >Connolly's criticism of the EU was akin to extreme blasphemy, and
>> >therefore not protected speech.
>This is where I smell a right-wing UK anti-EU writer at work. An argument
>was put forward which "implied" that his criticsism was akin to extreme
>blasphemy. That could be anything from Colomer screeching that
>Connolly must be burned at the stake to a snide comment that anyone
>pissing in a church can expect to be shown the door. I want to see the
>real quote before I give this any more credibility than Bob Minton's
>alleged Nigerian crimes.
The case number is C-274/99. Specifically, the court cited a blasphemy case,
Wingrove v. United Kingdom, concerning a man who made a pornographic video
depicting St. Teresa of Avila performing various obscene acts. The case in
question, which I haven't seen, allegedly also specifically restricted its
ruling (upholding the banning of the video because of extreme offence to
Christians), by stating explicitly that it could not be used to restrict
political speech.
>When Scientology organs mount a smear campaign against
>Bob Minton, you're the first to notice the distortions, deceptions,
>and hidden agenda. Why is it that you can't do the same when
>someone mounts a smear campaign against a European
>Union that, among other things, has shown itself far more
>resistant to Scientology corruption than the US?
Because I don't see a smear campaign, but that the article, whatever its tone,
accurately represents the facts as I know them and knew them prior to this
article. This applies whether or not the original punished piece of political
speech was, itself, an inaccurate or biased hatchet job.
The EU Court not only used a blasphemy case as a cited precedent for its
restriction, when blasphemy laws themselves are an unwarranted intrusion into
freedom of speech, but in even using this unwarranted and dangerous blasphemy
precedent, it specifically misrepresented the previous ruling.
>/Z
ptsc
ptsc
>The case in
>question, which I haven't seen, allegedly also specifically restricted its
>ruling (upholding the banning of the video because of extreme offence to
>Christians), by stating explicitly that it could not be used to restrict
>political speech.
Minor correction here--could not be used to restrict political speech EXCEPT in
cases of extreme blasphemy.
ptsc
Say what?!
Say what?!
Chris Owen
<da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> writes
>>I found this on another newsgroup.
>>
>>Can any of our British friends confirm is this is true or not?
>>
>>Euro-court outlaws criticism of EU
>>By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in Brussels
>>
>>
>>can lawfully suppress political criticism of its institutions and of
>>leading figures, sweeping aside English Common Law and 50 years of
>>European precedents on civil liberties. The EU's top court found that
>>the European Commission was entitled to sack Bernard Connolly, a British
>>economist dismissed in 1995 for writing a critique of European monetary
>>integration entitled The Rotten Heart of Europe.
>
> which you can make public statements savagely rubbishing an employer
> WHILE YOU STILL WORK FOR THEM; if they are that bad, you leave first
> and then say your piece. This remains true if your employer is
> the european commission.
And it's worth pointing out that Ambrose Evans-Pritchard is a complete
loon in the first place; fanatically anti-European. He's about as
credible on the subject of the EU as Lyndon LaRouche is on the UN.
--
| Chris Owen - chr...@OISPAMNOlutefisk.demon.co.uk |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|
| THE TRUTH ABOUT L. RON HUBBARD AND THE UNITED STATES NAVY |
| http://www.ronthewarhero.org |
Cheradenine Zakalwe
[Reposted due to apparent remailer/news gateway failure]
"ptsc" <ptsc AT nym DOT alias DOT net> wrote in message news:k9d3dtg0poh6h9gs4...@4ax.com...
> On 9 Apr 2001 05:52:55 -0000, Cheradenine Zakalwe <zak...@nym.alias.net>
> wrote:
> >"ptsc" <ptsc AT nym DOT alias DOT net> wrote in message news:pe1uctsk88lee22q8...@4ax.com...
> >> I don't even think it breaks Godwin's law to compare this to Adolf Hitler
> >> declaring it a crime to criticize the Chancellor.
It may or may not break Godwin's law, but it's pretty damned silly.
[snip]
> ...llegalizing criticism of the state, which this decision does, going
> further than merely illegalizing it by state employees, is precisely the sort
> of creeping totalitarianism that can not be tolerated in any free society.
What does "illegalizing" mean? I don't think that's an English word.
If you mean "criminalizing", you are attacking a straw man. Unless,
of course, you can name acountry of the European Union where
criticism of the government is a criminal offense. It certainly isn't
in any of the ones which with I am intimately familiar (UK, Germany,
France).
> >> >ISSUE 2112 Wednesday 7 March 2001
> >> >Euro-court outlaws criticism of EU
> >> >By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in Brussels
>
> >What publication is this from? There are some really vicious
> >anti-European propaganda rags out there, particularly in Britain,
> >whose standards of journalistic integrity are right up there with
> >"Freedom" magazine.
>
> The title is an exaggeration, but only a slight one.
I wasn't questioning the title. I was asking for the source of the
article, pointing out that there are some publications that I would
find deeply suspect. Should I take it from your non-response
that you don't know and/or don't care?
> In this case, an employee was not merely sacked but forced to pay the
> legal costs of the European Union in addition to being sacked. Essentially
> criticize the state and you too can be bankrupt, should the court so decide.
Straw man #2: Where was anyone bankrupted in any of this? And in
any case, if it was *Connolly* who brought a suit against the EC and
lost, it is perfectly normal that he should be stuck with the costs.
Or are you arguing that any country that does not cover the costs
of citizen lawsuits against the government, win or lose, is a fascist
slave state?
[snip]
> >Writing a book that slams your employers is a good way to get
> >fired just about anywhere in the world. Conolly could not have
> >been surprised - and I rather doubt that he really gave a shit.
> >He's got a good job elswhere (in the US, it appears).
>
> In the EU, where many member nations are socialist states, it should be obvious
> why removing the rights of what may, in some cases, be a majority of the
> citizens, is a bad idea.
Straw man #3. In which EU countries is the government the majority
employer? It certainly isn't in any of the ones I've visited.
[snip]
> >> >The court called the Connolly book "aggressive, derogatory and
> >> >insulting", taking particular umbrage at the author's suggestion that
> >> >Economic and Monetary Union was a threat to democracy, freedom and
> >> >"ultimately peace".
>
> >> Well, itsn't that special. I don't even know what Connolly said, but if he was
> >> saiyng that this fascist European kangaroo court is a menace to the world, he
> >> is almost certainly correct, and the criminals he was accusing have proved
> >> themselves equal to any criticism he possibly could have levelled.
>
> >Dude, it's in the paragraph. He said that EMU was a threat to democracy,
> >freedom, and ultimately peace, which the court found to be agressive,
> >derogatory, and insulting. Hell, it sounds agressive, derogatory, and
> >insulting to me, too, but he still may have had a point, and shouldn't
> >be gagged. That having been said...
>
> IMO, the Court did indeed display that the EU is a threat to democracy and
> freedom. It may, indeed, not be a threat to "peace," so long as that peace is
> the peace of the graveyard.
Straw man #4. Unlike the US, there is no death penalty in the EU.
Political dissidents aren't arrested (unless they start planting
bombs and stuff), much less exectuted.
> >> >However, it dropped an argument put forward three months ago by the
> >> >advocate-general, Damaso Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, which implied that Mr
> >> >Connolly's criticism of the EU was akin to extreme blasphemy, and
> >> >therefore not protected speech.
>
> >This is where I smell a right-wing UK anti-EU writer at work. An argument
> >was put forward which "implied" that his criticsism was akin to extreme
> >blasphemy. That could be anything from Colomer screeching that
> >Connolly must be burned at the stake to a snide comment that anyone
> >pissing in a church can expect to be shown the door. I want to see the
> >real quote before I give this any more credibility than Bob Minton's
> >alleged Nigerian crimes.
>
> The case number is C-274/99. Specifically, the court cited a blasphemy case,
> Wingrove v. United Kingdom, concerning a man who made a pornographic video
> depicting St. Teresa of Avila performing various obscene acts. The case in
> question, which I haven't seen, allegedly also specifically restricted its
> ruling (upholding the banning of the video because of extreme offence to
> Christians), by stating explicitly that it could be used to restrict political speech.
[I've applied your subsequent rectification to the above.]
I think that the citiation of the "blasphemy" case - which sounds to
me more like a "community standards" issue than one of blasphemy -
was a pretty bogus one on the part of the EC's lawyers, but doesn't
it seem just the least bit intellectually dishonest to you to convert the
citation of such a case into the allegation made by the writer of
the original article that the prosecutors claimed that Connolly's
criticism *itself* was "akin to extreme blasphemy"??
> >When Scientology organs mount a smear campaign against
> >Bob Minton, you're the first to notice the distortions, deceptions,
> >and hidden agenda. Why is it that you can't do the same when
> >someone mounts a smear campaign against a European
> >Union that, among other things, has shown itself far more
> >resistant to Scientology corruption than the US?
>
> Because I don't see a smear campaign,
"You're soaking in it".
> but that the article, whatever its tone,
> accurately represents the facts as I know them and knew them prior to this
> article.
So, since you knew about all this beforehand, please, tell us: Who brought the
court case (the EC or Connolly), and what was the complaint (treason, bad
manners, or wrongful termination of employment)?
Then again, did the "facts as you know them" come from the same sources
as your information about European employment and civil rights?
There *is* a problem at the top of the European Union, and that is
that the executive body, the European Commission, is not directly
accountable to the voters of Europe. Very much like the US Senate
up until 1913, they are appointed by the governments of the constituent
states of the Union. That power of appointment is not something that
the national governments will give up lightly. Not only does this situation
create an unhealthy detatchment between the Commission and the
European electorate, but it explains somewhat why there aren't more
mechanisms in place to check the power of the Commission: the
commissioners have no power base, and are very much beholden
to their sponsoring (democratically elected) governments, who are
assumed, incorrectly, to be willing and able to keep them in line.
The Connolly case is perhaps an example of an abuse of EC
authority, but to claim, as you have, that it implies that criticism of
the governments, the EU, or the EC is in any way *illegal*, or considered
to be "blasphemous" by the EC, is malicious intellectual dishonesty.
I am rather shocked that you are so eager to participate in it.
/Z
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBOtKllXpshlrYVcixAQHrVgf/VzI/KR+DG2Awo3VG1KE37bb07VfD9yHc
9NjaqPlACBbfGYYYKjvjRYyBXyHs/ubRS9xiuZVIqlYgrXteqx9t3u9FC+uAWoT0
IGd+eanxnYy5qog/68LT/x+AAKtFitsj1WVZwgCWDtyzcsEWEa/8ymYht8c323zP
wRxqOmZFNzfdBHXWqMke4qHMBjaBfVvPJ1fDE5SPs0woGN55QUja2p8+U39/nran
0mtJoCw9AAvvKq4zphfA8fB+RqLhPEvA5A5RBFvBYGO+Q6vv4DCT27cRdIkkqd7j
guijCnv0zer4D4tuVFpntM6ASqKck3VHW3BHbI9Sn0gy6SKaJ9WPzw==
=o+Ww
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Cheradenine Zakalwe
"ptsc" <ptsc AT nym DOT alias DOT net> wrote in message news:k9d3dtg0poh6h9gs4...@4ax.com...
> On 9 Apr 2001 05:52:55 -0000, Cheradenine Zakalwe <zak...@nym.alias.net>
> wrote:
> >"ptsc" <ptsc AT nym DOT alias DOT net> wrote in message news:pe1uctsk88lee22q8...@4ax.com...
> >> I don't even think it breaks Godwin's law to compare this to Adolf Hitler
> >> declaring it a crime to criticize the Chancellor.
It may or may not break Godwin's law, but it's pretty damned silly.
[snip]
> ...llegalizing criticism of the state, which this decision does, going
> further than merely illegalizing it by state employees, is precisely the sort
> of creeping totalitarianism that can not be tolerated in any free society.
What does "illegalizing" mean? I don't think that's an English word.
If you mean "criminalizing", you are attacking a straw man. Unless,
of course, you can name acountry of the European Union where
criticism of the government is a criminal offense. It certainly isn't
in any of the ones which with I am intimately familiar (UK, Germany,
France).
> >> >ISSUE 2112 Wednesday 7 March 2001
> >> >Euro-court outlaws criticism of EU
> >> >By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in Brussels
>
> >What publication is this from? There are some really vicious
> >anti-European propaganda rags out there, particularly in Britain,
> >whose standards of journalistic integrity are right up there with
> >"Freedom" magazine.
>
> The title is an exaggeration, but only a slight one.
I wasn't questioning the title. I was asking for the source of the
article, pointing out that there are some publications that I would
find deeply suspect. Should I take it from your non-response
that you don't know and/or don't care?
> In this case, an employee was not merely sacked but forced to pay the
> legal costs of the European Union in addition to being sacked. Essentially
> criticize the state and you too can be bankrupt, should the court so decide.
Straw man #2: Where was anyone bankrupted in any of this? And in
any case, if it was *Connolly* who brought a suit against the EC and
lost, it is perfectly normal that he should be stuck with the costs.
Or are you arguing that any country that does not cover the costs
of citizen lawsuits against the government, win or lose, is a fascist
slave state?
[snip]
> >Writing a book that slams your employers is a good way to get
> >fired just about anywhere in the world. Conolly could not have
> >been surprised - and I rather doubt that he really gave a shit.
> >He's got a good job elswhere (in the US, it appears).
>
> In the EU, where many member nations are socialist states, it should be obvious
> why removing the rights of what may, in some cases, be a majority of the
> citizens, is a bad idea.
Straw man #3. In which EU countries is the government the majority
employer? It certainly isn't in any of the ones I've visited.
[snip]
> >> >The court called the Connolly book "aggressive, derogatory and
> >> >insulting", taking particular umbrage at the author's suggestion that
> >> >Economic and Monetary Union was a threat to democracy, freedom and
> >> >"ultimately peace".
>
> >> Well, itsn't that special. I don't even know what Connolly said, but if he was
> >> saiyng that this fascist European kangaroo court is a menace to the world, he
> >> is almost certainly correct, and the criminals he was accusing have proved
> >> themselves equal to any criticism he possibly could have levelled.
>
> >Dude, it's in the paragraph. He said that EMU was a threat to democracy,
> >freedom, and ultimately peace, which the court found to be agressive,
> >derogatory, and insulting. Hell, it sounds agressive, derogatory, and
> >insulting to me, too, but he still may have had a point, and shouldn't
> >be gagged. That having been said...
>
> IMO, the Court did indeed display that the EU is a threat to democracy and
> freedom. It may, indeed, not be a threat to "peace," so long as that peace is
> the peace of the graveyard.
Straw man #4. Unlike the US, there is no death penalty in the EU.
Political dissidents aren't arrested (unless they start planting
bombs and stuff), much less exectuted.
> >> >However, it dropped an argument put forward three months ago by the
> >> >advocate-general, Damaso Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, which implied that Mr
> >> >Connolly's criticism of the EU was akin to extreme blasphemy, and
> >> >therefore not protected speech.
>
> >This is where I smell a right-wing UK anti-EU writer at work. An argument
> >was put forward which "implied" that his criticsism was akin to extreme
> >blasphemy. That could be anything from Colomer screeching that
> >Connolly must be burned at the stake to a snide comment that anyone
> >pissing in a church can expect to be shown the door. I want to see the
> >real quote before I give this any more credibility than Bob Minton's
> >alleged Nigerian crimes.
>
> The case number is C-274/99. Specifically, the court cited a blasphemy case,
> Wingrove v. United Kingdom, concerning a man who made a pornographic video
> depicting St. Teresa of Avila performing various obscene acts. The case in
> question, which I haven't seen, allegedly also specifically restricted its
> ruling (upholding the banning of the video because of extreme offence to
> Christians), by stating explicitly that it could be used to restrict political speech.
[I've applied your subsequent rectification to the above.]
I think that the citiation of the "blasphemy" case - which sounds to
me more like a "community standards" issue than one of blasphemy -
was a pretty bogus one on the part of the EC's lawyers, but doesn't
it seem just the least bit intellectually dishonest to you to convert the
citation of such a case into the allegation made by the writer of
the original article that the prosecutors claimed that Connolly's
criticism *itself* was "akin to extreme blasphemy"??
> >When Scientology organs mount a smear campaign against
> >Bob Minton, you're the first to notice the distortions, deceptions,
> >and hidden agenda. Why is it that you can't do the same when
> >someone mounts a smear campaign against a European
> >Union that, among other things, has shown itself far more
> >resistant to Scientology corruption than the US?
>
> Because I don't see a smear campaign,
"You're soaking in it".
> but that the article, whatever its tone,
> accurately represents the facts as I know them and knew them prior to this
> article.
So, since you knew abot all this beforehand, please, tell us: Who brought the
court case (the EC or Connolly), and what was the complaint (treason, bad
manners, or wrongful termination of employment)?
Then again, did the "facts as you know them" come from the same sources
as your information about European employment and civil rights?
There *is* a problem at the top of the European Union, and that is
that the executive body, the European Commission, is not directly
accountable to the voters of Europe. Very much like the US Senate
up until 1913, they are appointed by the governments of the constituent
states of the Union. That power of appointment is not something that
the national governments will give up lightly. Not only does this situation
create an unhealthy detatchment between the Commission and the
European electorate, but it explains somewhat why there aren't more
mechanisms in place to check the power of the Commission: the
commissioners have no power base, and are very much beholden
to their sponsoring (democratically elected) governments, who are
assumed, incorrectly, to be willing and able to keep them in line.
/Z
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBOtIpOHpshlrYVcixAQGCrgf+MBXXTOzUS/f1weBacbNKNW7cZfaB3BV9
MDwBz/6bKoBQA6rbyboqKR5INYoAYo9dMY41PfDm2mLd0bJKWRV4De+JA9CDSHzo
Cm+r0E2MQukTXpTL0rcHoI3tmz5pfFnJFhlX3qMmLWpGnaWhd48uUWbEitzy4+mN
lyX74lcJmZ4CEl6PouR6iq7p1GQRuTrSC4N+p3JO7+N7ktySMAv8dbRMUsAXDyfk
QM7vO/5FJjZlgV59kg/hM9BglE13ftU+jNQOqdmYGXIbkgzbHqqdFeERNso+YYMZ
GNOiLPOuWpbOHHuodOYDfE+FH1gqHQ3l2ChmmKlMTVnRqG0mXQQahQ==
=eITj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Cheradenine Zakalwe
Much as I hate to get in the way of a good round of
foreigner-bashing, some of this has gone a bit far...
"ptsc" <ptsc AT nym DOT alias DOT net> wrote in message news:pe1uctsk88lee22q8...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 7 Apr 2001 02:21:19 -0700, "Theta One" <thet...@icehouse.net> wrote:
>
> >I found this on another newsgroup.
>
> >Can any of our British friends confirm is this is true or not?
>
> Sadly, this is entirely true. The Europeans have lost their minds. Presumably
> this will be appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, as this is an
> outrageous precedent. It went beyond the mere idea that one could be fired for
> criticizing one's employer (which is, when the employer is the state,
> outrageous enough in itself especially considering that large portions of the
> population work for the government in many socialist European nations), and
> went on to state that you could essentially be prosecuted for criticizing the
> government.
How is this different from the "Pentagon Papers" case in the US,
back in the 1970's? Didn't we have a government employee
(Daniel Ellsberg, was it?) who disagreed with government policy
and wrote a book or series of articles which drew on the
confidential/secret information at his disposal, and wasn't he
sacked and prosecuted?
> I don't even think it breaks Godwin's law to compare this to Adolf Hitler
> declaring it a crime to criticize the Chancellor.
In France, it's illegal to publicly advocate the legalization of marijuana.
Then again, in the US, it's illegal in some places to burn flags, illegal
in airports to make jokes about bombs, and illegal nationwide to threaten
the life of the President, is it not? Every society puts limits on individual
freedoms. That doesn't make everyone Hitler.
The European Commission, just like the US Senate prior to 1913, is not
directly accountable to voters, a fact which is at the heart of a lot of
undemocratic policies. But as we the case in the US, the power
of appointment is not something that the constituent governments
of the European states will give up lightly.
> >ISSUE 2112 Wednesday 7 March 2001
> >Euro-court outlaws criticism of EU
> >By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in Brussels
What publication is this from? There are some really vicious
anti-European propaganda rags out there, particularly in Britain,
whose standards of journalistic integrity are right up there with
"Freedom" magazine.
> >THE European Court of Justice ruled yesterday that the European Union
> >can lawfully suppress political criticism of its institutions and of
> >leading figures, sweeping aside English Common Law and 50 years of
> >European precedents on civil liberties. The EU's top court found that
> >the European Commission was entitled to sack Bernard Connolly, a British
> >economist dismissed in 1995 for writing a critique of European monetary
> >integration entitled The Rotten Heart of Europe.
>
> Obviously these assholes need to be fired. They are human rights criminals and
> a disgrace to anyone viewing themselves as free. The UK should pull out of the
> EU and tell these wankers to go fuck themselves.
Writing a book that slams your employers is a good way to get
fired just about anywhere in the world. Connolly could not have
been surprised - and I rather doubt that he really gave a shit.
He's got a good job elswhere (in the US, it appears).
> >The ruling stated that the commission could restrict dissent in order to
> >"protect the rights of others" and punish individuals who "damaged the
> >institution's image and reputation". The case has wider implications for
> >free speech that could extend to EU citizens who do not work for the
> >Brussels bureaucracy.
>
> They damaged their own reputation with this criminal action. When I see
> actions like this of transnational quasi-governments, it makes me think the
> "One World Conspiracy Theorists" might have a point about these power-mad
> gluttons of fascism.
Uh, PTSC, just *what* criminal action? *Which* "actions like these"?
I see a guy being sacked for breach of confidentiality. The article
here doesn't even make clear who was charging whom with what
in the court case, i.e. whether it was Connolly losing a suit or appeal
that he brought against the EC. From other web sites, it looks as if
the suit that he lost was over whether a gag order could be applied
to him, but it still wasn't clear as to whether he was the plaintiff or the
defendant. Don't get me wrong - I don't think he should be gagged
and I sure as hell don't think he should be held up for legal costs
*unless* it was he who brought the suit in the first place - but your
xenophobic rhetoric is way out of proportion to the situation.
> >The court called the Connolly book "aggressive, derogatory and
> >insulting", taking particular umbrage at the author's suggestion that
> >Economic and Monetary Union was a threat to democracy, freedom and
> >"ultimately peace".
>
> Well, itsn't that special. I don't even know what Connolly said, but if he was
> saiyng that this fascist European kangaroo court is a menace to the world, he
> is almost certainly correct, and the criminals he was accusing have proved
> themselves equal to any criticism he possibly could have levelled.
Dude, it's in the paragraph. He said that EMU was a threat to democracy,
freedom, and ultimately peace, which the court found to be agressive,
derogatory, and insulting. Hell, it sounds agressive, derogatory, and
insulting to me, too, but he still may have had a point, and shouldn't
be gagged. That having been said...
> >However, it dropped an argument put forward three months ago by the
> >advocate-general, Damaso Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, which implied that Mr
> >Connolly's criticism of the EU was akin to extreme blasphemy, and
> >therefore not protected speech.
This is where I smell a right-wing UK anti-EU writer at work. An argument
was put forward which "implied" that his criticsism was akin to extreme
blasphemy. That could be anything from Colomer screeching that
Connolly must be burned at the stake to a snide comment that anyone
pissing in a church can expect to be shown the door. I want to see the
real quote before I give this any more credibility than Bob Minton's
alleged Nigerian crimes.
When Scientology organs mount a smear campaign against
Bob Minton, you're the first to notice the distortions, deceptions,
and hidden agenda. Why is it that you can't do the same when
someone mounts a smear campaign against a European
Union that, among other things, has shown itself far more
resistant to Scientology corruption than the US?
/Z
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBOtFTCnpshlrYVcixAQEx5gf/SIar9ZAjg1C9epJUbiLyPB7k2vhW8v1t
CYbMGKxQrDzB3a2RLLO4kRrjo40ZQ2gAh3omT3VJWCRZbOI11MGVhB8FyRBkPdWe
3L2mNIR+v/COc/ay5V4drRjkS4gQ2Pr3vcf9xDkAEOznnJtyVp5djl2DFj4eh+Gu
y7Brds7yz7kp3+KEfYpnjm28acuLj3nphyAwrXULfu0zeReoo5JeTIOUvJ71lVyZ
XoyyaEXVWN8AYkONWikh/AoPwYxd98pwtgUqegD1miaYjFwxXiG61diEZxSVSx+O
0tOnH6KYytRYUHXCa9pp7hcBrbFWccMMAzZHWDar2lcgMWpfUTsrog==
=R9lW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
The Great Suprendo
>What about in a socialist state where the majority of people work either
>directly or indirectly for the state?
There isn't any state remotely resembling this in the European Union at
the moment. A succession of Conservative administrations in many of the
countries - certainly the UK - has put a stop to all the
state-administered stuff.
The instruments of the state in the USA are far more complex and
far-reaching than those in the UK. In some cities you can be paying
taxes to three different authorities at once (city taxes; state taxes;
federal taxes etc) and they can be administered by up to four
authorities at once (the above three plus county level government ?).
BTW We haven't ever dreamt up anything quite like "separate but equal"
just yet in Europe.
> In that case, practically the majority
>of people would be denied the right to criticize the state, which is simply the
>most important aspect of freedom of speech.
A complete and utter straw man. If this were the case the countries
wouldn't be democracies. I don't think an American can seriously claim,
after that farce last November, the right to lecture other countries
about how democratic they are. At least our political parties aren't
puppets for the huge multinational corporations, oil prospectors and the
like, and they certainly don't have convicted drink drivers or
draft-dodgers at the helm.
>There is no benefit to society from preventing government employees from
>criticizing that very government.
How can the role of a civil servant - or an employee in any business,
government or otherwise - possibly be compatible with such criticism ?
> It not only deprives the private rights of
>that individual citizen, but the rights of the public to the benefit of
>informed commentary and criticism directly from those who work most closely
>with the issues in question, which are undeniably of benefit to the public.
It's not a civil servant's job to do this, and it would be the same in
any business. If you write an article criticizing your employers, you
will be sacked immediately - guaranteed - and possibly even taken to
court and sued.
>A precedent essentially gagging government employees from any criticism of the
>government, no matter how true, is dangerous to all people in the world and
>increases the likelihood of a totalitarian Stalinist-style government, which
>controls all means of employment, gaining power while gagging all those who
>have no choice but either to work for the government while ignoring its crimes
>in silence, or to starve in a gulag.
How can a civil servant who strongly disagrees with a government
possibly be trusted or expected to implement it's policies effectively ?
--
This post was brought to you by a suppurating ring-blister named Colin.
The Great Suprendo
>What about in a socialist state where the majority of people work either
>directly or indirectly for the state?
There isn't any state remotely resembling this in the European Union at
the moment. A succession of Conservative administrations in many of the
countries - certainly the UK - has put a stop to all the
state-administered stuff.
The instruments of the state in the USA are far more complex and
far-reaching than those in the UK. In some cities you can be paying
taxes to three different authorities at once (city taxes; state taxes;
federal taxes etc) and they can be administered by up to four
authorities at once (the above three plus county level government ?).
BTW We haven't ever dreamt up anything quite like "separate but equal"
just yet in Europe.
> In that case, practically the majority
>of people would be denied the right to criticize the state, which is simply the
>most important aspect of freedom of speech.
A complete and utter straw man. If this were the case the countries
wouldn't be democracies. I don't think an American can seriously claim,
after that farce last November, the right to lecture other countries
about how democratic they are. At least our political parties aren't
puppets for the huge multinational corporations, oil prospectors and the
like, and they certainly don't have convicted drink drivers or
draft-dodgers at the helm.
>There is no benefit to society from preventing government employees from
>criticizing that very government.
How can the role of a civil servant - or an employee in any business,
government or otherwise - possibly be compatible with such criticism ?
> It not only deprives the private rights of
>that individual citizen, but the rights of the public to the benefit of
>informed commentary and criticism directly from those who work most closely
>with the issues in question, which are undeniably of benefit to the public.
It's not a civil servant's job to do this, and it would be the same in
any business. If you write an article criticizing your employers, you
will be sacked immediately - guaranteed - and possibly even taken to
court and sued.
>A precedent essentially gagging government employees from any criticism of the
>government, no matter how true, is dangerous to all people in the world and
>increases the likelihood of a totalitarian Stalinist-style government, which
>controls all means of employment, gaining power while gagging all those who
>have no choice but either to work for the government while ignoring its crimes
>in silence, or to starve in a gulag.
How can a civil servant who strongly disagrees with a government
Cheradenine Zakalwe
Much as I hate to get in the way of a good round of
foreigner-bashing, some of this has gone a bit far...
"ptsc" <ptsc AT nym DOT alias DOT net> wrote in message news:pe1uctsk88lee22q8...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 7 Apr 2001 02:21:19 -0700, "Theta One" <thet...@icehouse.net> wrote:
>
> >I found this on another newsgroup.
>
> >Can any of our British friends confirm is this is true or not?
>
> Sadly, this is entirely true. The Europeans have lost their minds. Presumably
> this will be appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, as this is an
> outrageous precedent. It went beyond the mere idea that one could be fired for
> criticizing one's employer (which is, when the employer is the state,
> outrageous enough in itself especially considering that large portions of the
> population work for the government in many socialist European nations), and
> went on to state that you could essentially be prosecuted for criticizing the
> government.
How is this different from the "Pentagon Papers" case in the US,
back in the 1970's? Didn't we have a government employee
(Daniel Ellsworth, was it?) who disagreed with government policy
and wrote a book or series of articles which drew on the
confidential/secret information at his disposal, and wasn't he
prosecuted? Indeed, wasn't he convicted?
> I don't even think it breaks Godwin's law to compare this to Adolf Hitler
> declaring it a crime to criticize the Chancellor.
In France, it's illegal to publicly favor the legalization of marijuana.
Then again, in the US, it's illegal in some places to burn flags, illegal
in airports to make jokes about bombs, and illegal everywhere to threaten
the life of the President, is it not? Every society puts limits on individual
freedoms. That doesn't make everyone Hitler.
> >ISSUE 2112 Wednesday 7 March 2001
> >Euro-court outlaws criticism of EU
> >By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in Brussels
What publication is this from? There are some really vicious
anti-European propaganda rags out there, particularly in Britain,
whose standards of journalistic integrity are right up there with
"Freedom" magazine.
> >THE European Court of Justice ruled yesterday that the European Union
> >can lawfully suppress political criticism of its institutions and of
> >leading figures, sweeping aside English Common Law and 50 years of
> >European precedents on civil liberties. The EU's top court found that
> >the European Commission was entitled to sack Bernard Connolly, a British
> >economist dismissed in 1995 for writing a critique of European monetary
> >integration entitled The Rotten Heart of Europe.
>
> Obviously these assholes need to be fired. They are human rights criminals and
> a disgrace to anyone viewing themselves as free. The UK should pull out of the
> EU and tell these wankers to go fuck themselves.
Writing a book that slams your employers is a good way to get
fired just about anywhere in the world. Conolly could not have
been surprised - and I rather doubt that he gave a shit. He's
got a good job elswhere (in the US, it appears).
> >The ruling stated that the commission could restrict dissent in order to
> >"protect the rights of others" and punish individuals who "damaged the
> >institution's image and reputation". The case has wider implications for
> >free speech that could extend to EU citizens who do not work for the
> >Brussels bureaucracy.
>
> They damaged their own reputation with this criminal action. When I see
> actions like this of transnational quasi-governments, it makes me think the
> "One World Conspiracy Theorists" might have a point about these power-mad
> gluttons of fascism.
Uh, PTSC, just *what* criminal action? *Which* "actions like these"?
I see a guy being sacked for breach of confidentiality. The article
here doesn't even make clear who was charging whom with what
in the court case, i.e. whether it was Connolly losing a suit to get his
old job back. From other web sites, it looks as if the suit that he lost
/Z
iQEVAwUBOs+f2npshlrYVcixAQHBRAf/XiXRB2UndbTs4NuS7O7LP5RPLdkzrf6H
hZPtznKEy5RjxMcYEwtSkQmBKctezc9jyQNr6ckild2EqS+esIXg69ru8UQmjN4O
9IqPhHeCgBchD/f+sXfXhcTaQLhE3YXV6msfN8uyxKHgyVhcjcn3b2HglBPKVL4n
dE4JTq9arJBAJf9GBA42ZSdnYyCGGsuuk6QvzznKbbVZ2SEVdOA0/rBunYKCASE9
jP57Ws4MixLwEXRXntmzd8nJQLdecTeoZcBtTqDn+dYLRusB/kUrO3PpIlKYKTZF
QBzmKzBMs7sI865nv8rrxv5NSoliP4oc9KtMD5MExmjEvcRzKshZbQ==
=qsLG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
ptsc
<TheGreat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>A certain ptsc, of alt.religion.scientology "fame", writes :
>>What about in a socialist state where the majority of people work either
>>directly or indirectly for the state?
>There isn't any state remotely resembling this in the European Union at
>the moment. A succession of Conservative administrations in many of the
>countries - certainly the UK - has put a stop to all the
>state-administered stuff.
>The instruments of the state in the USA are far more complex and
>far-reaching than those in the UK. In some cities you can be paying
>taxes to three different authorities at once (city taxes; state taxes;
>federal taxes etc) and they can be administered by up to four
>authorities at once (the above three plus county level government ?).
I'd imagine you could easily say that public sector employment in terms of
working directly for the government might be higher in the EU, but that if you
counted in entirety all those working for the government either by working
directly for it, or by working for a company which contracts to the government,
that it might be roughly equal.
>BTW We haven't ever dreamt up anything quite like "separate but equal"
>just yet in Europe.
This has precisely what to do with whether government employees should be
punished or retaliated against for criticizing that government or its policies?
>> In that case, practically the majority
>>of people would be denied the right to criticize the state, which is simply the
>>most important aspect of freedom of speech.
>A complete and utter straw man. If this were the case the countries
>wouldn't be democracies. I don't think an American can seriously claim,
>after that farce last November, the right to lecture other countries
>about how democratic they are. At least our political parties aren't
I don't think people, in general, should resort to arguments by nationality.
>puppets for the huge multinational corporations, oil prospectors and the
>like, and they certainly don't have convicted drink drivers or
>draft-dodgers at the helm.
This has precisely what to do with whether government employees should be
retaliated against for criticizing the government?
Shall we skip all pretense at debate and go directly to unfavorable comparisons
of each others' countries' performance in World War II, as invariably happens
in discussions this this kind?
>>There is no benefit to society from preventing government employees from
>>criticizing that very government.
>How can the role of a civil servant - or an employee in any business,
>government or otherwise - possibly be compatible with such criticism ?
How can the role of an employee in a labor union, for any business whatsoever,
be "compatible" with criticizing the management of that corporation or
organization? That's absurd. We are discussing a book written by a government
employee, not while he was on work time, but while he was on vacation.
One's private activities need not always be "compatible" with one's employment,
unless you are arguing that an employer, in a sense, owns you and your private
time.
>> It not only deprives the private rights of
>>that individual citizen, but the rights of the public to the benefit of
>>informed commentary and criticism directly from those who work most closely
>>with the issues in question, which are undeniably of benefit to the public.
>It's not a civil servant's job to do this, and it would be the same in
>any business. If you write an article criticizing your employers, you
>will be sacked immediately - guaranteed - and possibly even taken to
>court and sued.
So one can presume that any employee in a labor union who pickets his or her
employer with signs criticizing that employer as unfair to workers should then
immediately be sacked, taken to court, and sued?
After all, you do state that any employee whatsoever who criticizes their
employers should be, quote: "sacked immediately - guaranteed - and possibly
even taken to court and sued."
I assure you that even in this disgraceful nation with a drunk driver at the
helm who succeeded a draft dodger, that in most cases involving labor unions,
employees fired for engaging in collective bargaining by picketing or even
fiercely criticizing their employer, who were then fired for doing so, would
not only take their former employer to court but would be virtually guaranteed
a large judgment against their former employer, as well as their job back.
>>A precedent essentially gagging government employees from any criticism of the
>>government, no matter how true, is dangerous to all people in the world and
>>increases the likelihood of a totalitarian Stalinist-style government, which
>>controls all means of employment, gaining power while gagging all those who
>>have no choice but either to work for the government while ignoring its crimes
>>in silence, or to starve in a gulag.
>How can a civil servant who strongly disagrees with a government
>possibly be trusted or expected to implement it's policies effectively ?
How can a civil servant who slavishly agrees with any action of his government
possibly be trusted or expect to serve his PEOPLE?
ptsc
ptsc
wrote:
>[Reposted due to apparent remailer/news gateway failure]
>"ptsc" <ptsc AT nym DOT alias DOT net> wrote in message news:k9d3dtg0poh6h9gs4...@4ax.com...
>> On 9 Apr 2001 05:52:55 -0000, Cheradenine Zakalwe <zak...@nym.alias.net>
>> wrote:
>> >"ptsc" <ptsc AT nym DOT alias DOT net> wrote in message news:pe1uctsk88lee22q8...@4ax.com...
>> >> I don't even think it breaks Godwin's law to compare this to Adolf Hitler
>> >> declaring it a crime to criticize the Chancellor.
>It may or may not break Godwin's law, but it's pretty damned silly.
>[snip]
>> ...llegalizing criticism of the state, which this decision does, going
>> further than merely illegalizing it by state employees, is precisely the sort
>> of creeping totalitarianism that can not be tolerated in any free society.
>What does "illegalizing" mean? I don't think that's an English word.
>If you mean "criminalizing", you are attacking a straw man. Unless,
>of course, you can name acountry of the European Union where
>criticism of the government is a criminal offense. It certainly isn't
>in any of the ones which with I am intimately familiar (UK, Germany,
>France).
"Illegalizing" would also refer to civil action. For example, certain civil
offenses are "illegal" but not criminal. It could also refer to behaviors that
could result in other codified penalties in administrative codes, or even
employment conditions for working for governments. Insofar as any sanction
financial, administrative, or penal can be assessed by the government for
violation, an action is "illegal" if in violation of it.
>> >> >ISSUE 2112 Wednesday 7 March 2001
>> >> >Euro-court outlaws criticism of EU
>> >> >By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in Brussels
>> >What publication is this from? There are some really vicious
>> >anti-European propaganda rags out there, particularly in Britain,
>> >whose standards of journalistic integrity are right up there with
>> >"Freedom" magazine.
>> The title is an exaggeration, but only a slight one.
>I wasn't questioning the title. I was asking for the source of the
>article, pointing out that there are some publications that I would
>find deeply suspect. Should I take it from your non-response
>that you don't know and/or don't care?
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard writes for The Spectator. I don't know if he wrote
this particular article for The Spectator, though he's written similar articles
on this subject for that publication.
>> In this case, an employee was not merely sacked but forced to pay the
>> legal costs of the European Union in addition to being sacked. Essentially
>> criticize the state and you too can be bankrupt, should the court so decide.
>Straw man #2: Where was anyone bankrupted in any of this? And in
>any case, if it was *Connolly* who brought a suit against the EC and
>lost, it is perfectly normal that he should be stuck with the costs.
I believe I agreed with the general principle of "loser pays," but not with the
decision of the court, and therefore not with the results of that decision,
including that he pays the costs of the suit.
>Or are you arguing that any country that does not cover the costs
>of citizen lawsuits against the government, win or lose, is a fascist
>slave state?
Did I say anything even implying that? In fact you snipped a paragraph where I
explicitly stated that I agreed with that general principle.
Here's the paragraph you snipped in which I explicitly state agreement with the
general principle of "losre pays," which makes this not only a straw man, but
one that I explicitly disclaimed in the course of the message to which you are
responding.
"I don't think he should be slapped with legal costs because I don't think he
should have lost the suit in the first place. (I do agree, in general
principle, with the fairly common practice in European courts of "loser pays,"
which rightly discourages frivolous litigation.)"
I trust you not to engage in similar misrepresentations of my position in the
future.
>[snip]
>> >Writing a book that slams your employers is a good way to get
>> >fired just about anywhere in the world. Conolly could not have
>> >been surprised - and I rather doubt that he really gave a shit.
>> >He's got a good job elswhere (in the US, it appears).
>> In the EU, where many member nations are socialist states, it should be obvious
>> why removing the rights of what may, in some cases, be a majority of the
>> citizens, is a bad idea.
>Straw man #3. In which EU countries is the government the majority
>employer? It certainly isn't in any of the ones I've visited.
None. I was wrong.
http://www.osec.ch/en/vademecum/vm_englisch.pdf
Public sector employment as a percentage of working population (1997)
CH 11.41
D 15.60
F 24.80
UK 14.40
I 16.10
A 22.50
(These abbreviations aren't explained, though
CH is obviously Switzerland, D probably Denmark,
F probably France, UK obviously the UK, I probably
Italy, and A perhaps America.)
In Norway, this approaches 30%
http://www.arena.uio.no/publications/wp97_10.htm
I should not have stated that, rather, I should have stated that in some
nations the state is the largest single employer, and that this represents a
highly significant portion of the population.
My other previous statement still stands: that the public benefits from
informed commentary on government activities by the people most likely to know
what is actully going on, that is, government employees.
>[snip]
>> >> >The court called the Connolly book "aggressive, derogatory and
>> >> >insulting", taking particular umbrage at the author's suggestion that
>> >> >Economic and Monetary Union was a threat to democracy, freedom and
>> >> >"ultimately peace".
>> >> Well, itsn't that special. I don't even know what Connolly said, but if he was
>> >> saiyng that this fascist European kangaroo court is a menace to the world, he
>> >> is almost certainly correct, and the criminals he was accusing have proved
>> >> themselves equal to any criticism he possibly could have levelled.
>> >Dude, it's in the paragraph. He said that EMU was a threat to democracy,
>> >freedom, and ultimately peace, which the court found to be agressive,
>> >derogatory, and insulting. Hell, it sounds agressive, derogatory, and
>> >insulting to me, too, but he still may have had a point, and shouldn't
>> >be gagged. That having been said...
>> IMO, the Court did indeed display that the EU is a threat to democracy and
>> freedom. It may, indeed, not be a threat to "peace," so long as that peace is
>> the peace of the graveyard.
>Straw man #4. Unlike the US, there is no death penalty in the EU.
>Political dissidents aren't arrested (unless they start planting
>bombs and stuff), much less exectuted.
That is not a strawman, but a metaphor. A strawman is an argument purported to
be from the opponent, when in fact the opponent said no such thing. It can
also be used for a distorted presentation of the opponent's argument.
A classic example would be snipping my comment agreeing with the general policy
of "loser pays" in civil litigation, then asking rhetorically if I was "arguing
that any country that does not cover the costs of citizen lawsuits against the
government, win or lose, is a fascist slave state."
When the ruling stated that political commentary could only be restrained in
the case of extreme blasphemy, and then this ruling was applied to political
commentary, that indeed makes criticism of the EU "akin to extreme blasphemy."
>> >When Scientology organs mount a smear campaign against
>> >Bob Minton, you're the first to notice the distortions, deceptions,
>> >and hidden agenda. Why is it that you can't do the same when
>> >someone mounts a smear campaign against a European
>> >Union that, among other things, has shown itself far more
>> >resistant to Scientology corruption than the US?
>> Because I don't see a smear campaign,
>"You're soaking in it".
>> but that the article, whatever its tone,
>> accurately represents the facts as I know them and knew them prior to this
>> article.
>So, since you knew about all this beforehand, please, tell us: Who brought the
>court case (the EC or Connolly), and what was the complaint (treason, bad
>manners, or wrongful termination of employment)?
Connolly brought the court case, for wrongful termination.
>Then again, did the "facts as you know them" come from the same sources
>as your information about European employment and civil rights?
>There *is* a problem at the top of the European Union, and that is
>that the executive body, the European Commission, is not directly
>accountable to the voters of Europe. Very much like the US Senate
>up until 1913, they are appointed by the governments of the constituent
>states of the Union. That power of appointment is not something that
>the national governments will give up lightly. Not only does this situation
>create an unhealthy detatchment between the Commission and the
>European electorate, but it explains somewhat why there aren't more
>mechanisms in place to check the power of the Commission: the
>commissioners have no power base, and are very much beholden
>to their sponsoring (democratically elected) governments, who are
>assumed, incorrectly, to be willing and able to keep them in line.
>The Connolly case is perhaps an example of an abuse of EC
>authority, but to claim, as you have, that it implies that criticism of
>the governments, the EU, or the EC is in any way *illegal*, or considered
>to be "blasphemous" by the EC, is malicious intellectual dishonesty.
>I am rather shocked that you are so eager to participate in it.
It's not malicious intellectual dishonesty, but a reading of the legal
precedent used in reaching the decision the court did. Connolly's article was
unmistakably and undeniably political commentary, which when it is argued it
can be punished under the precedent in Wingrove v. United Kingdom, relies on
that decision, which states that in cases of blasphemy, only blasphemy
involving "high degree of profanation" in cases of "restrictions on political
speech or on debate of questions of public interest."
In short, the citation of this precedent in a case involving unquestionably
political statements is an absurdity, especially when it is used to justify
sanctions against such political commentary.
http://www.hrcr.org/safrica/expression/wingrove_uk.html
[Relevant sections commenting on political commentary with relation to the
blasphemy laws. The case involved was specifically concerning the distribution
of a videotape involving various Christian figures, including Christ, engaging
in overtly sexual acts.]
[. . .]
Under Article 10 § 2 little scope for restrictions on political speech or on
debate of questions of public interest - wider margin of appreciation generally
available in relation to matters liable to offend intimate personal convictions
in the sphere of morals or religion - as with morals, no uniform European
conception of the requirements of protection against attacks on religious
convictions - national authorities better placed than international judge to
define these requirements and to rule on "necessity" of "restriction".
Final European supervision all the more necessary given breadth and
open-endedness of notion of blasphemy and the risks of arbitrary or excessive
interferences this entails - prior restraint in present case calls for special
scrutiny.
Blasphemy law does not prohibit expression of views hostile to Christian
religion or of any opinion offensive to Christians - law seeks to control
manner in which views are advocated - extent of insult to religious feelings
must be significant.
High degree of profanation required: safeguard against arbitrariness.
[. . .]
58. Whereas there is little scope under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention for
restrictions on political speech or on debate of questions of public interest
(see, mutatis mutandis, among many other authorities, the Lingens v. Austria
judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 103, p. 26, § 42; the Castells v. Spain
judgment of 23 April 1992, Series A no. 236, p. 23, § 43, and the Thorgeir
Thorgeirson v. Iceland judgment of 25 June 1992, Series A no. 239, p. 27, §
63), a wider margin of appreciation is generally available to the Contracting
States when regulating freedom of expression in relation to matters liable to
offend intimate personal convictions within the sphere of morals or,
especially, religion. Moreover, as in the field of morals, and perhaps to an
even greater degree, there is no uniform European conception of the
requirements of "the protection of the rights of others" in relation to attacks
on their religious convictions. What is likely to cause substantial offence to
persons of a particular religious persuasion will vary significantly from time
to time and from place to place, especially in an era characterised by an ever
growing array of faiths and denominations. By reason of their direct and
continuous contact with the vital forces of their countries, State authorities
are in principle in a better position than the international judge to give an
opinion on the exact content of these requirements with regard to the rights of
others as well as on the "necessity" of a "restriction" intended to protect
from such material those whose deepest feelings and convictions would be
seriously offended (see, mutatis mutandis, the Müller and Others v. Switzerland
judgment of 24 May 1988, Series A no. 133, p. 22, § 35).
ptsc
Cheradenine Zakalwe
I first wrote and sent my response on this thread on Saturday.
Normally, the mixmaster-mail2news system has a latency of
10 minutes to 4 hours, and when it had not appeared on my
server by Sunday morning, I tried resending. And then
re-resending after the retransmission did not appear, etc.
Now, finally, the logjam seems to have broken somewhere,
and a.r.s. may be treated to four or five not-quite-identical contributions
to this thread. My apologies. This is not deliberate spam, nor
do I view it as being sufficiently important to merit people seeing
my opinion five times! And of couse, what's worse is that I refined
the article a bit each time I resent it, but no one is going to read
the "final" version, having been subjected to the previous drafts.
/Z
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBOtFavnpshlrYVcixAQGtzwf/UIZs8hwOJ1yIK2yXXeRKfJkLLHeqrOuD
6eByeZm7qF258DJciOnCcydHnd1QADVx+1vzPg2xn+so2blidnzdRNkZsnVTRmo+
h0U/12uVkLuDsHJc9ZDIGGKzZN593kdFCiNOhSbmAiHglZnr2zOwduDN1qcWsJXM
HjHa+yh6X6PXw/ur15XWUZ5X2MzuijROK0xHJ//Fw+1zbMvLWcZsMd73LJFV9ApT
GhKjNU/9L/XKNY8zW8kR/RFBnAqqKGR6IcLhp0kctu164On9gs4tEtHTeUkOQiU+
3wS8NMqzhmhHjMMIDQcSaLKcjiXkE/+7KbUWilCHJlwc4lzOKjKbHw==
=A1xw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Cheradenine Zakalwe
[This is the third time I've tried to post a response to this
thread, but the remailers seem to be balky this weekend.]
Much as I hate to get in the way of a good round of
foreigner-bashing, some of this has gone a bit far...
"ptsc" <ptsc AT nym DOT alias DOT net> wrote in message news:pe1uctsk88lee22q8...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 7 Apr 2001 02:21:19 -0700, "Theta One" <thet...@icehouse.net> wrote:
>
> >I found this on another newsgroup.
>
> >Can any of our British friends confirm is this is true or not?
>
> Sadly, this is entirely true. The Europeans have lost their minds. Presumably
> this will be appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, as this is an
> outrageous precedent. It went beyond the mere idea that one could be fired for
> criticizing one's employer (which is, when the employer is the state,
> outrageous enough in itself especially considering that large portions of the
> population work for the government in many socialist European nations), and
> went on to state that you could essentially be prosecuted for criticizing the
> government.
How is this different from the "Pentagon Papers" case in the US,
back in the 1970's? Didn't we have a government employee
(Daniel Ellsberg, was it?) who disagreed with government policy
and wrote a book or series of articles which drew on the
confidential/secret information at his disposal, and wasn't he
sacked and prosecuted?
> I don't even think it breaks Godwin's law to compare this to Adolf Hitler
> declaring it a crime to criticize the Chancellor.
In France, it's illegal to publicly advocate the legalization of marijuana.
Then again, in the US, it's illegal in some places to burn flags, illegal
in airports to make jokes about bombs, and illegal nationwide to threaten
the life of the President, is it not? Every society puts limits on individual
freedoms. That doesn't make everyone Hitler.
The European Commission, just like the US Senate prior to 1913, is not
directly accountable to voters, a fact which is at the heart of a lot of
undemocratic policies. But as we the case in the US, the power
of appointment is not something that the constituent governments
of the European states will give up lightly.
> >ISSUE 2112 Wednesday 7 March 2001
> >Euro-court outlaws criticism of EU
> >By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in Brussels
What publication is this from? There are some really vicious
anti-European propaganda rags out there, particularly in Britain,
whose standards of journalistic integrity are right up there with
"Freedom" magazine.
> >THE European Court of Justice ruled yesterday that the European Union
> >can lawfully suppress political criticism of its institutions and of
> >leading figures, sweeping aside English Common Law and 50 years of
> >European precedents on civil liberties. The EU's top court found that
> >the European Commission was entitled to sack Bernard Connolly, a British
> >economist dismissed in 1995 for writing a critique of European monetary
> >integration entitled The Rotten Heart of Europe.
>
> Obviously these assholes need to be fired. They are human rights criminals and
> a disgrace to anyone viewing themselves as free. The UK should pull out of the
> EU and tell these wankers to go fuck themselves.
Writing a book that slams your employers is a good way to get
fired just about anywhere in the world. Connolly could not have
been surprised - and I rather doubt that he really gave a shit.
He's got a good job elswhere (in the US, it appears).
> >The ruling stated that the commission could restrict dissent in order to
> >"protect the rights of others" and punish individuals who "damaged the
> >institution's image and reputation". The case has wider implications for
> >free speech that could extend to EU citizens who do not work for the
> >Brussels bureaucracy.
>
> They damaged their own reputation with this criminal action. When I see
> actions like this of transnational quasi-governments, it makes me think the
> "One World Conspiracy Theorists" might have a point about these power-mad
> gluttons of fascism.
Uh, PTSC, just *what* criminal action? *Which* "actions like these"?
I see a guy being sacked for breach of confidentiality. The article
here doesn't even make clear who was charging whom with what
in the court case, i.e. whether it was Connolly losing a suit or appeal
that he brought against the EC. From other web sites, it looks as if
the suit that he lost was over whether a gag order could be applied
to him, but it still wasn't clear as to whether he was the plaintiff or the
defendant. Don't get me wrong - I don't think he should be gagged
and I sure as hell don't think he should be held up for legal costs
*unless* it was he who brought the suit in the first place - but your
xenophobic rhetoric is way out of proportion to the situation.
> >The court called the Connolly book "aggressive, derogatory and
> >insulting", taking particular umbrage at the author's suggestion that
> >Economic and Monetary Union was a threat to democracy, freedom and
> >"ultimately peace".
>
> Well, itsn't that special. I don't even know what Connolly said, but if he was
> saiyng that this fascist European kangaroo court is a menace to the world, he
> is almost certainly correct, and the criminals he was accusing have proved
> themselves equal to any criticism he possibly could have levelled.
Dude, it's in the paragraph. He said that EMU was a threat to democracy,
freedom, and ultimately peace, which the court found to be agressive,
derogatory, and insulting. Hell, it sounds agressive, derogatory, and
insulting to me, too, but he still may have had a point, and shouldn't
be gagged. That having been said...
> >However, it dropped an argument put forward three months ago by the
> >advocate-general, Damaso Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, which implied that Mr
> >Connolly's criticism of the EU was akin to extreme blasphemy, and
> >therefore not protected speech.
This is where I smell a right-wing UK anti-EU writer at work. An argument
was put forward which "implied" that his criticsism was akin to extreme
blasphemy. That could be anything from Colomer screeching that
Connolly must be burned at the stake to a snide comment that anyone
pissing in a church can expect to be shown the door. I want to see the
real quote before I give this any more credibility than Bob Minton's
alleged Nigerian crimes.
When Scientology organs mount a smear campaign against
Bob Minton, you're the first to notice the distortions, deceptions,
and hidden agenda. Why is it that you can't do the same when
someone mounts a smear campaign against a European
Union that, among other things, has shown itself far more
resistant to Scientology corruption than the US?
/Z
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBOtB8YXpshlrYVcixAQHzCQf8DKV7iwnsGTrsf+WZnkBq6rwQx/ijz/tR
IWwuCCROu45mHdio5L1tXyfGFgo3cqVGGcoQhADKsHGwYq4dLPGj96VjjSZejblx
uuDTVy4Fhrbq7K7VoeGZyEHbPOL2XIwOwDdP7uEGQnQEPKgYdTOyXQ2ap3LSRGBE
ipD8LXDYGRm7fv4a4pSD2X2A8DCzKE5QcKduC5mHr+Idt0qkNc2LRRkywD3reaiv
KIJCDBuT0W3BEgCfHnb+nRUp3JKnIUA9kHOQ6jJz/RW9lJ44wQU4bQtt+VheXAWM
aTQ2nzaIsTd+UIIs3djKj5ILFSjtMJwGND7lhYDZQB8dknHwcivpfA==
=03H9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
The Great Suprendo
>>The instruments of the state in the USA are far more complex and
>>far-reaching than those in the UK. In some cities you can be paying
>>taxes to three different authorities at once (city taxes; state taxes;
>>federal taxes etc) and they can be administered by up to four
>>authorities at once (the above three plus county level government ?).
>
>I'd imagine you could easily say that public sector employment in terms of
>working directly for the government might be higher in the EU,
Without statistics of course (from either me or you) this argument is
completely meaningless. In many aspects Americans enjoy more freedom
from the state than we do, but in many aspects they do not. It's not a
simple cut and dry issue.
>>BTW We haven't ever dreamt up anything quite like "separate but equal"
>>just yet in Europe.
>
>This has precisely what to do with whether government employees should be
>punished or retaliated against for criticizing that government or its policies?
That was just a wee stab on my part. Sorry.
>Shall we skip all pretense at debate and go directly to unfavorable comparisons
>of each others' countries' performance in World War II, as invariably happens
>in discussions this this kind?
OK, but only if in return you stop patronizingly referring to us all as
socialized countries. Although you may not agree with it, try to have a
bit of respect for the way the democratic wishes of the people are
implemented. The American definition of "socialism" is very different
from the one used in Europe so it's not a good term to use anyway (was
Franklin D. Roosevelt a socialist?).
>>How can the role of a civil servant - or an employee in any business,
>>government or otherwise - possibly be compatible with such criticism ?
>
>How can the role of an employee in a labor union, for any business whatsoever,
>be "compatible" with criticizing the management of that corporation or
>organization? That's absurd.
No it's not. A trade union exists (whether or not you agree with such
things) to try to protect the rights of employees. It does not make
public judgements criticizing a business' product or it's modus
operandum *except* with relation to how it treats it's employees. In
some countries here it is illegal to sack someone for simply being a
member of the union, where it is not illegal to sack them if they make a
public statement detrimental to the functioning of the business or
organisation, so the distinction is quite clear in law.
> We are discussing a book written by a government
>employee, not while he was on work time, but while he was on vacation.
The fact that he was a government employee is not relevant. He'd have
been sacked if he'd written the book about any employer.
>One's private activities need not always be "compatible" with one's employment,
>unless you are arguing that an employer, in a sense, owns you and your private
>time.
If you completely lack principle and work for an employer with whom you
strongly disagree, it's a matter for yourself (assuming that you have a
choice, which of course many working people do not).
>>It's not a civil servant's job to do this, and it would be the same in
>>any business. If you write an article criticizing your employers, you
>>will be sacked immediately - guaranteed - and possibly even taken to
>>court and sued.
>
>So one can presume that any employee in a labor union who pickets his or her
>employer with signs criticizing that employer as unfair to workers should then
>immediately be sacked, taken to court, and sued?
This is another straw man. The role of a trade union is to criticially
examine only one tiny aspect of an employer's conduct - that of the
employer's policy towards the employees. And if a lot of employers had
their way then yes, they would be sacked (and this has happened in the
UK). However trade unions have a special privilege which is usually
enshrined in law. A trade union should rarely criticize the product,
business decisions or organization of a business *except* if it is
relevant to it's member welfare.
You didn't address the point which was that if this book had been
written about a private employer, they'd have been sacked.
>After all, you do state that any employee whatsoever who criticizes their
>employers should be, quote: "sacked immediately - guaranteed - and possibly
>even taken to court and sued."
I didn't say "should be". I said "will be". I wasn't expressing an
opinion, but a fact.
>I assure you that even in this disgraceful nation with a drunk driver at the
>helm who succeeded a draft dodger,
[Bush himself is a draft dodger]
> that in most cases involving labor unions,
>employees fired for engaging in collective bargaining by picketing or even
>fiercely criticizing their employer, who were then fired for doing so, would
>not only take their former employer to court
[assuming the employee has the money to afford legal rep of course]
> but would be virtually guaranteed
>a large judgment against their former employer, as well as their job back.
The law is the same in most parts of Europe. However your version of
things is highly ideological. In practice the employer won't sack you
for being in the union (they aren't stupid), they'll sack you on a
trumped up misconduct charge. It's usually so expensive to fight the
charge that they don't get to do that part at all.
>>How can a civil servant who strongly disagrees with a government
>>possibly be trusted or expected to implement it's policies effectively ?
>
>How can a civil servant who slavishly agrees with any action of his government
>possibly be trusted or expect to serve his PEOPLE?
Interesting. Can you define for us the role of a civil servant in
contrast with the role of an elected politician ?
I'll save you the bother. The elected politicians are there to make the
decisions and serve the people. The civil servants are there to do what
the politicians tell them to do. The civil servants don't get to
publicly criticize decisions taken by *democratically elected*
representatives - that's what the people are supposed to do in the
polling stations.
ptsc
<TheGreat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>The instruments of the state in the USA are far more complex and
>>>far-reaching than those in the UK. In some cities you can be paying
>>>taxes to three different authorities at once (city taxes; state taxes;
>>>federal taxes etc) and they can be administered by up to four
>>>authorities at once (the above three plus county level government ?).
>>I'd imagine you could easily say that public sector employment in terms of
>>working directly for the government might be higher in the EU,
>Without statistics of course (from either me or you) this argument is
>completely meaningless. In many aspects Americans enjoy more freedom
>from the state than we do, but in many aspects they do not. It's not a
>simple cut and dry issue.
I quoted some stats in another response, which proved me wrong on the
"majority employer" statement; the government remains, however, the largest
single employer in many states (including the United States).
ptsc
ptsc
<TheGreat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[Snip various preliminary griping.]
>>Shall we skip all pretense at debate and go directly to unfavorable comparisons
>>of each others' countries' performance in World War II, as invariably happens
>>in discussions this this kind?
>OK, but only if in return you stop patronizingly referring to us all as
>socialized countries. Although you may not agree with it, try to have a
I'm not, you might be interested to know, using the word "socialism" or
"socialized" as an insult or derogatory term. Most European countries are, to
some extent, socialized. That's neither a good nor a bad thing by itself.
>bit of respect for the way the democratic wishes of the people are
>implemented. The American definition of "socialism" is very different
>from the one used in Europe so it's not a good term to use anyway (was
>Franklin D. Roosevelt a socialist?).
From the use of deliberate expansion of public sector employment as a move
toward stabilizing the economy, to an extent, yes. Obviously he couldn't call
himself that at the time, but he certainly had tendencies in that direction.
>>>How can the role of a civil servant - or an employee in any business,
>>>government or otherwise - possibly be compatible with such criticism ?
>>How can the role of an employee in a labor union, for any business whatsoever,
>>be "compatible" with criticizing the management of that corporation or
>>organization? That's absurd.
>No it's not. A trade union exists (whether or not you agree with such
>things) to try to protect the rights of employees. It does not make
>public judgements criticizing a business' product or it's modus
>operandum *except* with relation to how it treats it's employees. In
>some countries here it is illegal to sack someone for simply being a
>member of the union, where it is not illegal to sack them if they make a
>public statement detrimental to the functioning of the business or
>organisation, so the distinction is quite clear in law.
I don't see why speech specifically protecting employee rights should be given
any greater protection solely due to its content. In fact, equal rights should
be extended toward all forms of speech, barring non-coercive contracts to the
contrary. I don't think getting a job should automatically be an agreement to
be a mindless dittohead and require the singing of company anthems, nor
automatically make any criticism whatsoever an automatic ticket out the door.
>> We are discussing a book written by a government
>>employee, not while he was on work time, but while he was on vacation.
>The fact that he was a government employee is not relevant. He'd have
>been sacked if he'd written the book about any employer.
He wrote a political book specifically about the European Union. What
particular opinions specifically reflected on his employer? Further, why
should criticism of any kind be proscribed for government employees? The
purpose of a government body is not to serve its own interests, but to serve
the interests of the public.
The public is not well-served by stifling criticism by those most likely to
have direct personal knowledge of the actual state of affairs within the
government.
>>One's private activities need not always be "compatible" with one's employment,
>>unless you are arguing that an employer, in a sense, owns you and your private
>>time.
>If you completely lack principle and work for an employer with whom you
>strongly disagree, it's a matter for yourself (assuming that you have a
>choice, which of course many working people do not).
I would be unlikely to work for an employer with whom I strongly disagree on
every major subject, however, it is entirely possible to work within a field
and still criticize practices which are common to it, or to work for a
government body and be critical of activities of the government. The ability
to tolerate and even improve based on outside and inside criticism should be
the hallmark of a democracy, not a cloying creeping totalitarianism where
government employees are expected to conceal the truth in silence when
something is wrong.
>>>It's not a civil servant's job to do this, and it would be the same in
>>>any business. If you write an article criticizing your employers, you
>>>will be sacked immediately - guaranteed - and possibly even taken to
>>>court and sued.
>>So one can presume that any employee in a labor union who pickets his or her
>>employer with signs criticizing that employer as unfair to workers should then
>>immediately be sacked, taken to court, and sued?
>This is another straw man. The role of a trade union is to criticially
>examine only one tiny aspect of an employer's conduct - that of the
>employer's policy towards the employees. And if a lot of employers had
>their way then yes, they would be sacked (and this has happened in the
>UK). However trade unions have a special privilege which is usually
However, employers do NOT have their way in this respect, and for very good
reason. Further, there are whistleblower laws specifically to protect
employees who report illegal or even unethical conduct by employees,
specifically because employers do NOT get to have their way to the detriment of
their employees and the public.
>enshrined in law. A trade union should rarely criticize the product,
>business decisions or organization of a business *except* if it is
>relevant to it's member welfare.
Nevertheless it happens. Read a Teamsters Union magazine some time. Generally
when a labor dispute gets ugly virtually everything gets commented on, and
often rather harshly. Lawsuits fly, and often more gets criticized about the
company than the situation merely being limited to a few polite comments about
unfairness to workers.
>You didn't address the point which was that if this book had been
>written about a private employer, they'd have been sacked.
I don't see it as very much of a point, considering that a private employer is
an entity usually of limited scope which presumably exists to make a profit.
Its stated and intrinsic goal is to serve its own interests, and it should have
a greater leeway in taking action to achieve this goal. Further, it would be
less common for a political opinion to have direct impact on one's employer.
An employer who regularly fired people for voting for the wrong candidate, or
having the wrong political opinions, would be viewed at best as a fascist and
at worst prosecuted civilly, as such conduct could very easily slip into the
realm of wrongful discharge.
In the case of a government, a political opinion, by necessity, would directly
impact the employer, that being the government. A government does not have the
goal of a for-profit corporation, that is, to preserve its own profit
margin--at least, presumably, in a democracy it does not have that goal. A
government has the primary purpose of serving the public interest. The public
interest is best served by robust debate on all political topics, from the most
popular all the way down to the radical or even fringe opinions. The public
interest is not served by stifling that robust debate under any but the most
compelling circumstances.
Certain high officials not happening to like that political opinion does not
strike me as a particularly compelling reason to justify retaliatory actions
against the holders of minority opinions. A government is generally restrained
in its actions by universally recognized rights, and all government actions are
circumscribed by these limitations. Government action to stifle the public
debate which is necessary to a democracy, including the retaliatory firing of
an employee for stating the wrong opinions, does not serve the public interest,
therefore the government in doing so has violated the very rights it exists to
protect.
>>After all, you do state that any employee whatsoever who criticizes their
>>employers should be, quote: "sacked immediately - guaranteed - and possibly
>>even taken to court and sued."
>I didn't say "should be". I said "will be". I wasn't expressing an
>opinion, but a fact.
Again, there are companies where this is so, and there are those where it is
not. Generally the companies which do not have a better class of employee, as
people will agree to work for them.
>>I assure you that even in this disgraceful nation with a drunk driver at the
>>helm who succeeded a draft dodger,
>[Bush himself is a draft dodger]
>> that in most cases involving labor unions,
>>employees fired for engaging in collective bargaining by picketing or even
>>fiercely criticizing their employer, who were then fired for doing so, would
>>not only take their former employer to court
>[assuming the employee has the money to afford legal rep of course]
Or has a good enough case to get a lawyer to take it on contingency
>> but would be virtually guaranteed
>>a large judgment against their former employer, as well as their job back.
>The law is the same in most parts of Europe. However your version of
>things is highly ideological. In practice the employer won't sack you
>for being in the union (they aren't stupid), they'll sack you on a
>trumped up misconduct charge. It's usually so expensive to fight the
>charge that they don't get to do that part at all.
A company with a history of doing such things will find itself at the receiving
end of lawsuits from a strong union, especially if it appears to be a
coordinated strategy.
>>>How can a civil servant who strongly disagrees with a government
>>>possibly be trusted or expected to implement it's policies effectively ?
>>How can a civil servant who slavishly agrees with any action of his government
>>possibly be trusted or expect to serve his PEOPLE?
>Interesting. Can you define for us the role of a civil servant in
>contrast with the role of an elected politician ?
A civil servant is an employee, that is to say an employee of the government.
The civil servant is being paid a certain salary to do certain things while he
is being paid to do them.
>I'll save you the bother. The elected politicians are there to make the
>decisions and serve the people. The civil servants are there to do what
>the politicians tell them to do. The civil servants don't get to
>publicly criticize decisions taken by *democratically elected*
>representatives - that's what the people are supposed to do in the
>polling stations.
I don't believe anywhere in this you have provided a justification for
retaliatory action toward a civil servant for expressing an unpopular opinion
on his own time (on vacation in fact), which happened to disagree with that of
his employer. I also do not think you have supported the claim that any form
of working for the government should equate to a complete abdication of all
responsibility to comment on or criticize the government, or a socially harmful
chilling of public debate, with, in some cases, a huge chunk of the population
(that is to say, all public employees with direct knowledge of government
matters) essentially removed from the public debate under a pall of silence.
This could not serve the interests of the public, or the stated purpose of the
government, to serve the public.
The chilling of public debate by any act of the government, without truly
compelling cause, is not a good thing.
ptsc
The Great Suprendo
>>socialized countries. Although you may not agree with it, try to have a
>
>I'm not, you might be interested to know, using the word "socialism" or
>"socialized" as an insult or derogatory term. Most European countries are, to
>some extent, socialized. That's neither a good nor a bad thing by itself.
America is "to some extent" also socialized. Amtrak is one example.
Highways. Medicare.
>From the use of deliberate expansion of public sector employment as a move
>toward stabilizing the economy, to an extent, yes.
> Obviously he couldn't call
>himself that at the time, but he certainly had tendencies in that direction.
"tendencies" ? It sounds like you're afraid to admit that he probably
accomplished a lot more left wing stuff than many European leaders have.
>I don't see why speech specifically protecting employee rights should be given
>any greater protection solely due to its content. In fact, equal rights should
>be extended toward all forms of speech, barring non-coercive contracts to the
>contrary. I don't think getting a job should automatically be an agreement to
>be a mindless dittohead and require the singing of company anthems, nor
>automatically make any criticism whatsoever an automatic ticket out the door.
Nobody requires you to sing the praises of a company in public. In fact
doing so just makes you look like a mindless dittohead (as I said).
Indeed, companies often discourage employees from discussing them or
their products in public, as people in the public will often get the
false impression that the employee is some sort of spokesperson - not
desirable from a business point of view.
But all of that is completely different from actively criticizing the
employer.
>>> We are discussing a book written by a government
>>>employee, not while he was on work time, but while he was on vacation.
>
>>The fact that he was a government employee is not relevant. He'd have
>>been sacked if he'd written the book about any employer.
>
>He wrote a political book specifically about the European Union. What
>particular opinions specifically reflected on his employer? Further, why
>should criticism of any kind be proscribed for government employees? The
>purpose of a government body is not to serve its own interests, but to serve
>the interests of the public.
Yes - but a civil servant's role is to carry out the functions of the
government. It's insane to think that a civil servant could actively
complain about a task, job or area of competence and expect not to get
away with it. If I were working for Exxon and publically said that I
didn't like the way they were treating the environment, having been
required by them to drill in a certain environmentally safe region, how
long do you think I'd last ?
>The public is not well-served by stifling criticism by those most likely to
>have direct personal knowledge of the actual state of affairs within the
>government.
Government investigations, enquiries and official independent overviews
are there to see to this. Civil servants are simply not qualified to
make judgements in this way. Civil servants are supposed to do what they
are told, and as per the Exxon example above, if they don't like it then
they are compelled to quit.
>>If you completely lack principle and work for an employer with whom you
>>strongly disagree, it's a matter for yourself (assuming that you have a
>>choice, which of course many working people do not).
>
>I would be unlikely to work for an employer with whom I strongly disagree on
>every major subject, however, it is entirely possible to work within a field
>and still criticize practices which are common to it,
Sorry. You may say to your boss "I think this stinks", but you don't
repeat it in public and tell everyone who you work for. Don't try to
tell me that you can drag your employer through the dirt and keep your
job.
>or to work for a
>government body and be critical of activities of the government. The ability
>to tolerate and even improve based on outside and inside criticism should be
>the hallmark of a democracy, not a cloying creeping totalitarianism where
>government employees are expected to conceal the truth in silence when
>something is wrong.
Inside and outside criticism should come from those appointed and
employed to ensure that standards are maintained - overseeing bodies and
the like serve this role. Civil servants are simply there to do what
they are told.
>>This is another straw man. The role of a trade union is to criticially
>>examine only one tiny aspect of an employer's conduct - that of the
>>employer's policy towards the employees. And if a lot of employers had
>>their way then yes, they would be sacked (and this has happened in the
>>UK). However trade unions have a special privilege which is usually
>
>However, employers do NOT have their way in this respect, and for very good
>reason.
I didn't say they had their way. I said *if* they had their way. Please
try to save your own energy by not replying to arguments I didn't make.
>>You didn't address the point which was that if this book had been
>>written about a private employer, they'd have been sacked.
>
>I don't see it as very much of a point, considering that a private employer is
>an entity usually of limited scope which presumably exists to make a profit.
>Its stated and intrinsic goal is to serve its own interests, and it should have
>a greater leeway in taking action to achieve this goal. Further, it would be
>less common for a political opinion to have direct impact on one's employer.
Replace "make a profit" with "implementing government policy" and
explain to me what the difference is.
>An employer who regularly fired people for voting for the wrong candidate, or
>having the wrong political opinions, would be viewed at best as a fascist and
>at worst prosecuted civilly, as such conduct could very easily slip into the
>realm of wrongful discharge.
Absolutely.
>In the case of a government, a political opinion, by necessity, would directly
>impact the employer, that being the government. A government does not have the
>goal of a for-profit corporation, that is, to preserve its own profit
>margin--at least, presumably, in a democracy it does not have that goal. A
>government has the primary purpose of serving the public interest. The public
>interest is best served by robust debate on all political topics, from the most
>popular all the way down to the radical or even fringe opinions. The public
>interest is not served by stifling that robust debate under any but the most
>compelling circumstances.
How can the public interest be served when the civil servants allow
their partisan views to interfere with the implementation of democratic
public policy ? It is for the democratically elected government to make
a decision over whether or not the public interest is being served.
>Certain high officials not happening to like that political opinion does not
>strike me as a particularly compelling reason to justify retaliatory actions
>against the holders of minority opinions.
This is not a matter of high officials not liking an opinion. This is a
matter of that opinion being presented in public .
>circumscribed by these limitations. Government action to stifle the public
>debate which is necessary to a democracy,
Stifling debate ? Civil servants aren't there to create debate. In fact
they are rarely supposed to even discuss the business of their internal
work in public. It's the politicians who are supposed to be debating and
arguing about what to do. Civil servants are supposed to do as they are
told by the politicians. If they don't do what they are told then how
can they possibly be good employees ?
>>Interesting. Can you define for us the role of a civil servant in
>>contrast with the role of an elected politician ?
>
>A civil servant is an employee, that is to say an employee of the government.
>The civil servant is being paid a certain salary to do certain things while he
>is being paid to do them.
And an elected politician ?
The Great Suprendo
>>completely meaningless. In many aspects Americans enjoy more freedom
>>from the state than we do, but in many aspects they do not. It's not a
>>simple cut and dry issue.
>
>I quoted some stats in another response, which proved me wrong on the
>"majority employer" statement; the government remains, however, the largest
>single employer in many states (including the United States).
Those statistics would have to be normalized against the size of the
state, the nature of the land within it and the types of industry etc.