Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
      4. Frontier Pursuits
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. DLC
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
      7. The Diamond Casino Heist
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Sign in to follow this  
Svip

Denmark - land of the perhaps too free

Recommended Posts

Svip

Freedom of Speech has been a topic that Denmark has been discussing wildly lately. This is mainly due to the events following the Muhammed-cartoons.

 

But Denmark's image has been damaged, and probably will stay damaged for decades to come. Denmark used to be a small quiet place - almost paradise like - in foreign countries, with healthcare for everyone and the welcome for everyone. However, that image has been crushed due to the cartoons of Muhammed.

 

The image of Denmark is now a small nationalistic and racistic state where foreign-hatred parties are winning ahead, because of the crisis of the Muhammed cartoons. And in Danish politics, politicans can get away with saying things that would ruin a political career in almost every nation of Denmark's allies.

 

If I may quote (translated from Danish to English):

  • "Islam shall be fought as nazisism and communism, we shall wipe out this religion that spreads across Europe like a plauge."
-- Jesper Langballe, Danish Politican, member of Danish People's Party ("Dansk Folkeparti"), 2002I ask you, everyone who live in the Western world or is an ally of Denmark, if any politican have said this in the parlament of your country - would his/her career still remain? No? I thought so. The same person, Jesper Langballe, is still in the Danish parlament, even though he said that four years ago. Should note that he has been saying similar stuff since then. I would personally label him as an idiot.

 

So, the real issue: Can you get away with saying too much in Denmark? Even as a politican? Or is just the other countries who lack freedom of speech?

Edited by Svip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KDD

..hmm, this is not a simple discussion..

 

I for one find the reaction to the cartoons pathetic, that's why I loved the reaction of the jewish community who wanted to have a contest on who could make the best cartoon about the holocaust, now that is what I call character..

 

Although I don't agree on the way Mr. Langballe expresses his opinion, I do find the Islam a bit too outdated, not to say barbaric. They should have modernised their beliefs a bit.

Also, their reactions are not justifyable, calling out for an religic war (Jihad), we live in 2006, not 1106. In my opinion the Islam is like the Catholic Church during the inquisition, where all non-believers were imprisoned/exiled/killed. They are trying to impose their beliefs on everyone, instead of having a religion everybody wants to join out of free will because it has all the right ideas. I don't claim there's a religion holding that essence, but Japan comes close, their religion says you should incorporate good things from other religions.

 

Now, I'm not religious at all, I don't give a flying donkey about religion. I only know that about 90% of todays (military) conflicts have to do with religion, so I say, religin brings only war, no enlightenment...

 

 

KDD

 

P.S.: I still think of Denmark like I used to, nothing changed. I would love to go there sometimes, I still think it has a magically paradise-like appeal..

Edited by KDD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

You cannot have a democracy if you limit expression of political oppinions, however moronic they may be. That is what it hangs on. If you take it away, the system falls appart. This is even more important in cases when the person who's expressing his oppinions is a member of parlament. That means that a large chunk of population has supported that person in the elections. If you simply shut that person up, you'd be pissing off a large group of people. That usually does not end well. But even if the group is small enough that they are uncapable of causing serious trouble, you en up with political persecution of that group. Very soon people will start accusing each other of belonging to that group just to get rid of competition, and you will end up with a huge witch hunt.

 

Now, I have mentioned before that there is a question whether democracy is the best form of government, but if you accept a democratic government, you must allow people to express their oppinions.

 

Finaly, to answer your question of whether other countries don't have enough freedom of speech because such a statement would be career ending move, it is not necessaraly so. The reason why this would be a career ending move is not because someone would try to shut that person up, but simply because that person would loose all support. This is how it is supposed to work. Nevertheles, that polititian should still be allowed to grab a soap box and preach whatever it is that he believes, even after he looses his position of power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWEETSAPRIK

The reason why this would be a career ending move is not because someone would try to shut that person up, but simply because that person would loose all support.

I have to agree with that.

 

A US politician could make the same statements, there are no laws against it, and anyone is free to say such things. If said politician was removed from his/her office it wouldn't be because of a lack of freedom of speech, it would be because of the public reaction to his remarks. If the person was in a position where they weren't elected and could be fired, their boss would most likely do so, just to avoid the sh!tstorm that such a comment would start, and to seperate themselves and their group from those statements.

 

If a politician (or any person for that matter) wanted to say something that offensive, or more offensive, they are within their rights to do so. Having freedom of speech doesn't mean that there aren't going to be consequences, it just means you're free to say what you want (with certain exceptions) without penalty of law.

 

For example, if I was an elected official I could legally say that "All people of ___ religion/race/class are the devil" without breaking any laws. However, after the people I spoke out against and anyone with half a brain heard my statements, they would be with their rights to never vote for me again.

 

I don't think that fact that your government hasn't done something to stop him from saying this is bad. It's good that people are allowed to say (almost) anything without being charged with a crime. Allowing freedom of speech means that eventually some retard will come along and say something you find offensive.

 

I think the real issue/question here is "how does this moron still have supporters?" I don't see how any person that isn't prejudiced against muslims could hear such comments and not be at least a little offended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Truth7

The Islamic reaction to the cartoons was just a show of the regressive nature of Islam. It's ridiculous that in the 21st century we have s torching embassies becaise some guy MILES AND MILES AWAY, who has no direct relation to the said or effect upon him, feels that his belief system has been hurt. Aww- time to grab the molotovs.

 

In order for society to progress, we bring in the new and take out the old and obsolete-- in the Great Depression, people criticized the pro-industry laissez faire economics and politics, so we ousted them for new laws to help the average Joe. Same for George Bush Sr. People criticized his running of the government, so they elected Bill. Things MUST be open to criticism in order for society to progress- for the old to come out and then new to come in. If we irrationally stuck to VCR's for whatever reason, watching movies would be not as great as now. You can never be too free, because criticism is essential to oust the irrelevant and hurtful to society (i.e. religious whackiness and ) for the new (more liberal belief system or no religion at all). So open the doors to all kinds of criticism and offensive stuff. Why, if criticism of slavery had this kind of reaction in the 1800's, it've been hard for society to move past that. I'm thinking in a thousand years, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam will all be a thing of the past we look back on and laugh about, like how we used leeches and thought the earth was the center of the universe a few hundred years ago. Let's speed up the process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Demarest

Words can't hurt. Hell, even intent cannot hurt. Without actual action, there's no harm. The fact that ANYBODY would allow such a thing to make such an impact demonstrates the state of the world that has us criticizing and complaining about everything. Even the US (the country that was founded on the foundation of things such as free speech) had a stance that it was offensive. How pussy do we have to be as a world to subscribe to such nonsense?

 

I think it's good that a politician could make such a bold statemnt. After all, it's the process of trying to please everybody that's pussed us all out as much as it has. I'm also glad that after making such a bold statement, it hasn't appeared to effect his fruitfulness as a politician. If only they all could take a stand for what they believe is right. I'm not pissing on anybody's religion, but for as long as a group is going to terrorize others (and over such petty sh*t), I think it's dismissive to consider them as a religion if they're acting more like a terrorist sect. BUT that's really neither here nor there. The man uttered some words... so what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jizzyman

 

I ask you, everyone who live in the Western world or is an ally of Denmark, if any politican have said this in the parlament of your country - would his/her career still remain? No? I thought so.

I believe you thought wrong. In fact, I do think that it is a good thing that the skeletons of others be out in the open, even if actively doing violence, than the way it seems to be in so many "democratic" societies - actively doing violence while still "in the closet".

 

I do find the comparison of Islam to Nazism and Communism exessive. Nazism being the holocaust criminals and Communists being Stalin's USSR...

 

Islam... if only we could find some enemies at home that we could beat up and release our pent up frustrations from having to hide our homosexuality...............................

 

 

blink.gifblink.gifblink.gif

 

Did I just say what I think I just said?

 

*"Brokeback Mountain" Theme song plays*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
millermagic

I take it this has to do with the drawings of Allah?

 

I think it is fine. The Muslims don't control the country and people are free. Plus the Muslims have no respect for the western world and don't listen to the western world, so why should the western world conform to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vercetti Gangsta
Plus the Muslims have no respect for the western world and don't listen to the western world, so why should the western world conform to them.

Negative. Many muslims have no problem with the western world... I'm an atheist, but my parents are both muslims. They have no problem with the western world at all.

Anywho about the drawings, I think it's not acceptable. One of the drawings of Muhammed had a turban that looked like a bomb on it. That's an insult in my oppinion.

I do not hate Denmark, I can't hate Denmark just because the press made some drawnings about Muhammed. I live in Denmark infact, and I appreciate all the work the danish goverment does... Denmark is still the same for me! turn.gif

I have to agree though, that the reaction from many muslims was abit overreacted.

But there has been calm demonstrations in Indonesia though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
millermagic

I didn't word that too well - I didnt mean all, I just meant the radical ones that are in power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWEETSAPRIK

I think a good thing to remember is the huge difference between Muslims in places like Palestine, and Muslims that live in some western countries. (Again, not always. I'm sure there are some completely non-violent Muslims in the middle east, and some bloodthirsty Muslims living in western countries.)

 

For example:

Watch a video of people in a place like Palestine picking up the muddy guts left from when some suicide bomber blew himself up. They throw the "remains" into plastic bags and other things so that it can be taken care of (I assume they bury it as they would a full person.) The adults that are there give the children candy for the bits and pieces that they find. They consider this person a "hero", he or she "died for the cause", etc., etc.

 

Now I find that both disgusting and disturbing, and I find it hard to understand what's going through their mind, much less put myself in their shoes. But I have to imagine that Muslims that live in better conditions feel the same as I do about it.

 

Whenever someone says something so sweeping and ignorant about an entire group of people, they make themselves sound just as ignorant. Had that politician said "radical Islam", or "Islamic extremism" or something along those lines, he might not have come off as such a prejudiced douche.

 

There are Christians that would happily kill an abortion doctor, and ones that think that homosexuals are sinners and should be killed, but they don't speak for all Christians. Saying that Muslims are violent is a completely incorrect generalization. Calling their religion a "plague" that needs to be "wiped out", and comparing it to nazism, or communism is just ignorant and hateful.

 

I think the real problem here is perception. When someone says "Muslim" most people tend to think of the kind of Muslims that are more common in the "third world" as compared to a Muslim that lives in your neighborhood, goes to your college, or works at your office. I think another problem is the ratio between violent Muslims willing to die if they can take you with them, and nonviolent Muslims that are just like you or me. Another thing that adds to this is how vocal the different types are. You're much more likely to see/hear someone screaming "I hate you infidel and I will die if it means I can kill you" than you are "I don't hate anyone, I just want to go to work and provide for my family." Probably because the latter type is more likely to be at work, school, or home, then rioting and burning someone in effigy while toting an AK47.

 

Now I don't have a particular respect for any religion. I don't believe in the majority of what most religions preach. But I'm not going to pigeonhole any religion in it's entirety. Like other religions/faiths, there are many good people that happen to follow Islam. To advocate the "wiping out" of any religion is pretty f*cked up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2
One of the drawings of Muhammed had a turban that looked like a bomb on it. That's an insult in my oppinion.

Of course, it's an insult. It's pretty much meant as an insult. But if you get angry over someone insulting you, you deserve nothing better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Demarest
@SWEET: Human are very sense-laden creatures. As such, we tend to disregard input that is homeostatic as it saves valueable time and resources. We take this a step forward by relying on labels to categorize those around us generally speaking. That generalization is inherent and while not entirely unavoidable, it is prevalent enough to not hold it against those who engage in it. For example, back in the 80's, for Christians to try and scam people out of their money with lavish resorts and such were newsworthy and so much of Christianity had to suffer being lumped in with them. Even VC made a mockery of this. Many terrorist acts have muslims claiming responsibility as more of a gang than a religion and so that's the misnomer that is applied generally speaking. That's natural and it occurs on all levels to all types of peoples. The subject of religion tends to send people into a tizzy because we've over the years chosen to sacrifice freedom of expression for the illusion of not offending anybody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWEETSAPRIK

That generalization is inherent and while not entirely unavoidable, it is prevalent enough to not hold it against those who engage in it.

I couldn't disagree more. First, it is entirely avoidable, all one has to do is make even the slightest effort to be specific. Second, how prevalent something is in no way relates to whether it is correct or not. Third, it's everyone's right to hold someone's own words against them, most especially one's elected officials.

 

It's obviously human nature to generalize some things from time to time, but that doesn't excuse such generalizations, and it doesn't make them correct. Knowing that people tend to do it might go to helping us understand human nature a bit more, but how often other people do it doesn't make his statement any more true or false.

 

Personally, the only time I might consider excusing such a statement is if he misspoke. If right after that he said something like "well not all Muslims, I have no problem with nonviolent Muslims, I meant the ones that want us dead" that would be something else entirely. People would still be within their rights to fault him, but they could also chalk it up to a simple mistake, a slip of the tongue. However, since Svip said he's been saying similar things like that since then, I have to assume that it wasn't a mistake at all.

 

I wasn't faulting him for generalizing anyway, I was stating that his comments were prejudiced, when they might not have been if he'd just been more specific. Advocating the "wiping out" of any religion (any whole group for that matter) is obviously going to be offensive to that group, and perhaps others outside it as well. If he didn't know that some people might be offended before he said it, he's a retard. I'm sure there are some hateful ignorant people that might vote for him just because of those statements, but I doubt he'll be getting many Muslims to vote for him. Though I doubt he cares since he wants to wipe them out anyway.

 

Many terrorist acts have muslims claiming responsibility as more of a gang than a religion and so that's the misnomer that is applied generally speaking.

That's all I was saying. The idea that all Muslims think the same, or are all violent is a misnomer. What isn't is the fact that he's talking about "wiping out" a religion that has some members that are completely nonviolent. If I had to choose between siding with a group that has both violent and nonviolent members, or a single person that has advocated purging our planet of an entire religion, it wouldn't be a tough choice.

 

The quote also isn't that clear on what he means. Does "wiping out Islam" mean rounding Muslims up and forcing them to adhere to a religion he has decided to be acceptable, or does it just mean killing anyone who's a Muslim? Either way I think he deserves a smack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Demarest

That generalization is inherent and while not entirely unavoidable, it is prevalent enough to not hold it against those who engage in it.

I couldn't disagree more. First, it is entirely avoidable

Which I provided for. If you're going to disagree with somebody, take up an opposing stance instead of resonating what they've said.

 

 

all one has to do is make even the slightest effort to be specific.
Labels are generalized and therefore it is implied that they cannot be altruistic. To stop and say it every single time you use a label wastes everybody's time if not insults their intelligence. If you see terrorist act after terrorist act propogated by the same group of people, then it is human nature to associate the two. It's a process even gerbils have exhibited. The primal nature of it was my point. Yes we are civilized and therefore have a responsibility to remember that there's going to be a large sum of exception. You'll have to take that up elsewhere. I'm one of the biggest opponents of labels, generalizations, and marginalization you'll find. I do not however let my own belief as to what constitutes "the better way" cloud an inherent fact about ourselves.

 

 

Second, how prevalent something is in no way relates to whether it is correct or not.
Nor did I claim. I'd thank you kindly to not put words into my mouth. Again, to observe the presence of something in no way indicates an acceptance of it.

 

 

Third, it's everyone's right to hold someone's own words against them, most especially one's elected officials.
I wasn't talking about elected officials. I'm talking about the way a creature autonomically associates two things when they're repeatedly subjected to one in the presence of the other. It's a chemical connection in the brain. That's instinct. You're saying to override it because we as "civilized creatures" know that to address an entire group as exuding one characteristic (save of course the one characteristic that defines the group) is wrong based on inherent improbability. That's a choice. My point was that you cannot blame a creature for its instinctive reaction. If you'd like, you can defer to the conscious brain in an attempt to spread what you believe to be correct, but for us to go round and round to establish what we all already understand really serves no purpose. So I'll leave it at that. Edited by Demarest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWEETSAPRIK

Second, how prevalent something is in no way relates to whether it is correct or not.
Nor did I claim. I'd thank you kindly to not put words into my mouth. Again, to observe the presence of something in no way indicates an acceptance of it."it is prevalent enough to not hold it against those who engage in it." blink.gif

Again, he can generalize as much as he wants and I can decide whether or not to hold that against him, but when he advocates wiping out an entire religion, yeah I'm going to hold that against him.

 

 

Third, it's everyone's right to hold someone's own words against them, most especially one's elected officials.
I wasn't talking about elected officials.I was. He's either an elected official, or at the very least a politician who would like to be elected. (I'm admittedly not up to speed on his political career, or Svip's government.) Either way he's not some random person that made a comment. I hold politicians making statements to the press to a higher standard than some guy talking to his friend over a beer.

 

 

My point was that you cannot blame a creature for its instinctive reaction.
Yes one can. He like all humans is capable of acting on more than just instinct. If I can speak about terrorists, Muslims, and even Muslim terrorists without calling all Muslims terrorists and then calling for their destruction, than so can he.

 

Again, for me this isn't really even about him lumping all Muslims together as being violent, it's about him wanting to "wipe them out." His opinions on Muslims while offensive to me, are really his business. When he states them out loud he is going to get people that agree, and people that dont, I don't. But more than either of those, it's his threats against an entire religion I find most offensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Demarest

I was talking about human beings in general. This man has no impact on us. To make our comments in pasing woudl be one thing. However this is debates and discussions and the point of either is edification. If we talk about ourselves, humanity, etc, then edification can be derived. For that matter, the one politician you seem stuck on was mentioned as an example with the topic for discussion itself laid out as a more generalized concept.

 

No matter how much YOU would like to think otherwise, instinct comes first, THEN the conscious can choose/try to override it. It's even the way our brains are constructed, so you can't really argue that. I thought I cautioned you about disagreeing with somebody by repeating what they said?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWEETSAPRIK

 

No matter how much YOU would like to think otherwise, instinct comes first, THEN the conscious can choose/try to override it. It's even the way our brains are constructed, so you can't really argue that.
Where did I say anything to the contrary? I didn't, I'll thank YOU not to put words in my mouth. He could have chosen to override it, but he didn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

Labels are very important, though. There are 6 billion people on the planet. That's way too frigin' many. If you live in a city, and espetially if you have a job that requires you to deal with people, you come across hundreds if not thousands of people every day. Sometimes, in fact, most of the time, it doesn't matter who these people are. But every now and then you need to make quick descision about a person. Stereotypes allow us to quickly figure out what kind of behavior to expect from the person, to see if that person presents some danger, and if you need to communicate, what kind of language to use. Yes, some times such stereotypes work against us. Make us prejudiced. However, it is an unavoidable side efect of something that is really necessary in a society. We just have to get used to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Demarest

Well since you asked...

 

My point was that you cannot blame a creature for its instinctive reaction.
Yes one can. He like all humans is capable of acting on more than just instinct.

I said instinct then conscious. You said conscious above all. I said instinct then conscious. Now you're trying to say that that's what you were saying. But that quote there doesn't provide for a) that instinct happens regardless (I DO believe that's why it's categorized as instinct) and b) that conscious comes AFTER instinct. You're again trying to engage me over what I originally said about all of us by applying it to one man. Try to stay on topic then.

 

@K^2: I understand the need for labels. In fact, the way the mind processes new and old data sort of indicates the need for the same. I think it's equally important for people to realize that it's not the end all be all and to keep an open mind that members of that group might not be the same despite other precursors otherwise qualifying them for the same classification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
J-zilla
Freedom of Speech has been a topic that Denmark has been discussing wildly lately. This is mainly due to the events following the Muhammed-cartoons.

 

But Denmark's image has been damaged, and probably will stay damaged for decades to come. Denmark used to be a small quiet place - almost paradise like - in foreign countries, with healthcare for everyone and the welcome for everyone. However, that image has been crushed due to the cartoons of Muhammed.

 

The image of Denmark is now a small nationalistic and racistic state where foreign-hatred parties are winning ahead, because of the crisis of the Muhammed cartoons. And in Danish politics, politicans can get away with saying things that would ruin a political career in almost every nation of Denmark's allies.

 

If I may quote (translated from Danish to English):

  • "Islam shall be fought as nazisism and communism, we shall wipe out this religion that spreads across Europe like a plauge."
-- Jesper Langballe, Danish Politican, member of Danish People's Party ("Dansk Folkeparti"), 2002I ask you, everyone who live in the Western world or is an ally of Denmark, if any politican have said this in the parlament of your country - would his/her career still remain? No? I thought so. The same person, Jesper Langballe, is still in the Danish parlament, even though he said that four years ago. Should note that he has been saying similar stuff since then. I would personally label him as an idiot.

 

So, the real issue: Can you get away with saying too much in Denmark? Even as a politican? Or is just the other countries who lack freedom of speech?

user posted image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GM Dude

I think it was just a joke.

These Muslims took it too seriously.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mister Pink

I believe in free speech. I also believe that every individual has a responsiblility not to abuse the right or liberty. This politician abused it. Especially when he's in parliment.

 

Denmarks reputation hasn't been ruined either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom Toole

I found the comics tasteless.

 

I find that freedom of speech is not the right to ridicule, libel, verbally abuse, make propaganda.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dem57

 

Freedom of Speech has been a topic that Denmark has been discussing wildly lately.  This is mainly due to the events following the Muhammed-cartoons.

 

But Denmark's image has been damaged, and probably will stay damaged for decades to come.  Denmark used to be a small quiet place - almost paradise like - in foreign countries, with healthcare for everyone and the welcome for everyone.  However, that image has been crushed due to the cartoons of Muhammed.

 

The image of Denmark is now a small nationalistic and racistic state where foreign-hatred parties are winning ahead, because of the crisis of the Muhammed cartoons.  And in Danish politics, politicans can get away with saying things that would ruin a political career in almost every nation of Denmark's allies.

 

If I may quote (translated from Danish to English):

  • "Islam shall be fought as nazisism and communism, we shall wipe out this religion that spreads across Europe like a plauge."
-- Jesper Langballe, Danish Politican, member of Danish People's Party ("Dansk Folkeparti"), 2002

 

 

I ask you, everyone who live in the Western world or is an ally of Denmark, if any politican have said this in the parlament of your country - would his/her career still remain?  No?  I thought so.  The same person, Jesper Langballe, is still in the Danish parlament, even though he said that four years ago.  Should note that he has been saying similar stuff since then.  I would personally label him as an idiot.

 

So, the real issue: Can you get away with saying too much in Denmark?  Even as a politican?  Or is just the other countries who lack freedom of speech?

I think that denmark has a good system of freedom of speach and that other countries should'nt stereo type danish people for what som other danish people did.

 

 

OFFTOPIC: Jesper Langballe?? as in Jesper Lång Balle? Lång balle= long di*k in swedish

lol tounge.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2
I found the comics tasteless.

 

I find that freedom of speech is not the right to ridicule, libel, verbally abuse, make propaganda.

But who is to decide? If someone tells you what is and what is not tasteless, is your speech still free? I am not sure if a society needs absolutely free speech, but you either have it in an unrestricted form, or not even say that you have such a right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • 2 Users Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 2 Guests

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.