Belgium's Identity Crisis

[BradLohaus]

I've been following this lately. It's very interesting, I think. Pat Buchanan has a good, short article on the situation.

Is Belgium Breaking Up?
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57881

As you'll see at the end of the article, the EU does not look good in this matter.

Terry Davis, the secretary general of the Council of Europe, issued a statement declaring, "The freedom of expression and freedom of assembly are indeed preconditions for democracy, but they should not be regarded as a license to offend."

I think we are on the same road here. The EU is just farther along.

[Extra Stout]

I think we are on the same road here. The EU is just farther along.
The nation-states of Europe are very different in their existentiality from the USA. The existence of the EU relaxes the need for the territorial integrity of traditional multi-ethnic states like Belgium and Spain, and makes them subject to Yugoslavia-like fragmentation. The nation-state model and psyche complicates and obstructs the process of immigrant assimilation. It also leads to minority groups clamoring for their own nation-state.

The United States is not a nation-state, that is, its reason for being is not to provide a homeland for ethnic Americans. It is a state built upon certain enlightened political ideals, to which any person from anywhere on Earth can assent. This is why immigrant assimilation historically has been much easier here than it is in Europe.

[xrayzebra]

The nation-states of Europe are very different in their existentiality from the USA. The existence of the EU relaxes the need for the territorial integrity of traditional multi-ethnic states like Belgium and Spain, and makes them subject to Yugoslavia-like fragmentation. The nation-state model and psyche complicates and obstructs the process of immigrant assimilation. It also leads to minority groups clamoring for their own nation-state.

The United States is not a nation-state, that is, its reason for being is not to provide a homeland for ethnic Americans. It is a state built upon certain enlightened political ideals, to which any person from anywhere on Earth can assent. This is why immigrant assimilation historically has been much easier here than it is in Europe.


ES, but do you find that many are no longer trying
to assimilated into "our" culture here in the US? It
seems to me that we now hyphenate everything
dealing with race. Even within the caucasian race.
Like Irish Americans, Italian Americans and so forth.
It seems to me that in times past we would refer to
where someone originally came from and in some
cases not a country but a part of the U.S. And now
everyone assigns a race before the American.

It concerns me. Because we are becoming like
Europeans in many ways. In stead of being
uniquely American like we used to be.

[BradLohaus]

The nation-states of Europe are very different in their existentiality from the USA. The existence of the EU relaxes the need for the territorial integrity of traditional multi-ethnic states like Belgium and Spain, and makes them subject to Yugoslavia-like fragmentation. The nation-state model and psyche complicates and obstructs the process of immigrant assimilation. It also leads to minority groups clamoring for their own nation-state.

The United States is not a nation-state, that is, its reason for being is not to provide a homeland for ethnic Americans. It is a state built upon certain enlightened political ideals, to which any person from anywhere on Earth can assent. This is why immigrant assimilation historically has been much easier here than it is in Europe.

I don't disagree with that, but I was only talking about the erosion of the freedom of speech, not the breakup of the USA.

[BradLohaus]

ES, but do you find that many are no longer trying
to assimilated into "our" culture here in the US? It
seems to me that we now hyphenate everything
dealing with race. Even within the caucasian race.
Like Irish Americans, Italian Americans and so forth.
It seems to me that in times past we would refer to
where someone originally came from and in some
cases not a country but a part of the U.S. And now
everyone assigns a race before the American.

It concerns me. Because we are becoming like
Europeans in many ways. In stead of being
uniquely American like we used to be.

I don't disagree with any of that either.

[Extra Stout]

ES, but do you find that many are no longer trying
to assimilated into "our" culture here in the US? It
seems to me that we now hyphenate everything
dealing with race. Even within the caucasian race.
Like Irish Americans, Italian Americans and so forth.
It seems to me that in times past we would refer to
where someone originally came from and in some
cases not a country but a part of the U.S. And now
everyone assigns a race before the American.

It concerns me. Because we are becoming like
Europeans in many ways. In stead of being
uniquely American like we used to be.
That depends on how you look at being "Irish-American," "Italian-American," "Mexican-American," etc.

On the one hand, it can mean that a person completely assents to American ideas about human rights, individual freedoms, and the primacy of the English language in public life, and is loyal to and patriotic about the United States, actively participating in its polity, and yet maintains a certain distinctiveness in areas of culture, such as food, music, art, architecture, religion, other customs and rituals, and private use of language. That seems like a good thing to me, and without it life in the U.S. would be much less interesting.

On the other hand, it could mean that a person retains loyalty to another country, and believes that its ideas about human rights and freedoms should have equal or greater billing here, and that its language should have equal or greater billing in public life, does not accept the American polity, and believes his ethnic group should have its own. That is not acceptable, and is in fact seditious.

[Slomo]

I don't disagree with that, but I was only talking about the erosion of the freedom of speech, not the breakup of the USA.What fucking erosion?

Frank Vanhecke is a fascist with a legal political party (who by the way is way too successful) and his racist idea are accessible to whoever is stupid enough to listen to them.

Now Buchanan as an example takes a fascist anti Muslim rally as a base for this claim, but forgets to mention that the guy was breaking the law and violently resisting arrest. Of course he didn't forget to mention the minute of silence for the 9/11 victims - great! I'm sure their families were thrilled by the fact that Belgian Fascist use the death of their loved ones to further their political agenda.

I'm really not worried about the freedom of speech (btw I can still make jokes in European airports) but I am worried by the lack of moral hygiene when it comes to some of your political commentators.

[BradLohaus]

What fucking erosion?

Frank Vanhecke is a fascist with a legal political party (who by the way is way too successful) and his racist idea are accessible to whoever is stupid enough to listen to them.

Now Buchanan as an example takes a fascist anti Muslim rally as a base for this claim, but forgets to mention that the guy was breaking the law and violently resisting arrest. Of course he didn't forget to mention the minute of silence for the 9/11 victims - great! I'm sure their families were thrilled by the fact that Belgian Fascist use the death of their loved ones to further their political agenda.

I'm really not worried about the freedom of speech (btw I can still make jokes in European airports) but I am worried by the lack of moral hygiene when it comes to some of your political commentators.

Uh, what about David Irving, the guy who went to prison in Austria on the charge of "trivialising, grossly playing down and denying the Holocaust."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4733820.stm

We can think whatever we want to about those kinds of people, but should they be sentenced to prison? If that's not an erosion of the freedom of speech, then I don't know what is.

There's also the Swedish preacher who was arrested, charged, convicted, and sentenced to one month in jail for preaching about the Bible's position on homosexuality. His conviction was overturned, eventually making it all the way to the Swedish Supreme Court, but nevertheless, the law is on the books in Sweden:

"Under Swedish law, Bull points out, any person who shows disrespect for a person's sexual orientation may be sentenced up to four years in prison. He says things could have gone very differently for Pastor Green in the courts, but public outcry made a difference in the outcome of the legal controversy."

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/12/92005f.asp

You may agree with the "hate speech" laws as they stand now, but that's not the point. The point is that the time will come when something that you want to say is considered to be "hate speech" and then you can be charged with a crime and thrown in jail for saying it. People in the USA have called for similar laws here.

[Extra Stout]

I don't disagree with that, but I was only talking about the erosion of the freedom of speech, not the breakup of the USA.
European countries cannot erode a right which they never extended to their citizens in the first place.

[BradLohaus]

European countries cannot erode a right which they never extended to their citizens in the first place.

Ha! Yeah, you got me there ES. God bless the 1st amendment; at least as long as we hold on to it.

Still, everyone in the USA should be frightened by the fact that laws are on the books in Europe that can send a person to prison for offending another person.

All it will take in this country is a Supreme Court decision that declares that "hate speech" is not protected by the 1st amendment.

[xrayzebra]

Ha! Yeah, you got me there ES. God bless the 1st amendment; at least as long as we hold on to it.

Still, everyone in the USA should be frightened by the fact that laws are on the books in Europe that can send a person to prison for offending another person.

All it will take in this country is a Supreme Court decision that declares that "hate speech" is not protected by the 1st amendment.

Yeah, 1st amendment. But we have the "Hate Crime" on
the books and they want to expand it. How long do you
think the First is going to last with crap like this
going on. Is it only a small step to suppressing any
"thought" or "word" being made a crime.

[spurster]

Yeah, 1st amendment. But we have the "Hate Crime" on
the books and they want to expand it. How long do you
think the First is going to last with crap like this
going on. Is it only a small step to suppressing any
"thought" or "word" being made a crime.
And you want the surveillance that helps make this possible.