General Question

Paradox25's avatar

Is this totalitarianism in the making?

Asked by Paradox25 (10048 points ) January 17th, 2014

I consider myself to be a liberal, liberal in the sense that I support free speech, the freedom of the ability to express criticism towards any organization or ideologue, the freedom to privacy in my own home, the freedom to vote and freedom from discrimination based upon my sex, gender, race, ethnicity, political views, religion (or non belief) and the like.

Someone on another website had sent me this article written by the European Union, which implies potential future groundwork from my understanding. The ideas in the article are concerned with combating intolerance and hate. However, after reading it the article appears to go pretty far in what it defines as ‘hate’ and ‘intolerance’, such as a wide range of criticisms ranging anywhere from criticizing Islam to even criticizing feminism.

It appears from reading this that it would be a criminal offense to simply criticize feminist policies in school and the government, and to criticize certain aspects of the other ideologues mentioned. I would suggest for everyone to read the link since the material isn’t horribly long, and seems straightforward to me in order to respond to my question better.

This potential legislation isn’t being enforced yet, and can still be subject to change. However, the fact these ideas have even made it this far, and that this could happen anywhere in the world with the rise of political correctness concerns me. As my question states, is this another form of totalitarian censorship in the making?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

9 Answers

Patton's avatar

For a liberal, you seem to have the paranoia of a conservative. It’s only a 12 page document, so try reading it carefully. Feminism is mentioned under the section concerning tolerance promotion. The same is true of Islamophobia, which is mentioned along side anti-Christian sentiment. None of these things are mentioned under the section concerning penal sanctions. There it is established that libel, which is already a crime, can be committed against groups rather than just individuals. This has nothing to do with criticizing anyone’s ideology or policy recommendations. Criticism will still be allowed. What you can’t do is lie maliciously in order to trick people into believing that feminists are for universal castration or that Muslims routinely kidnap Jewish babies and cook them into pies. That’s not totalitarianism in the making.

glacial's avatar

Sounds like you’ve been hitting the anti-feminist blogs again. This is exactly the kind of comment that gets posted on sites like theantifeminist or avoiceformen. In fact, a quick google search shows that this has been said on those sites.

No, it is not totalitarianism. As @Patton said, try reading the document instead of the spin.

This is tired stuff, man. Give it a rest.

Kropotkin's avatar

“If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don’t like. Goebbels was in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re in favor of freedom of speech, that means you’re in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise.” —Noam Chomsky.

I think I’ll leave it at that.

DWW25921's avatar

Ha!!! You can’t embrace Islam and Feminism at the same time! That’s crazy talk! In answer to your question, yes. But, It’s not going to work for the reason I’ve already stated.

Paradox25's avatar

@glacial Give what a rest man? This is only the fourth question I had asked pertaining to feminsim and MRA’s in my more than two years on here, and I had even criticized MRA’s in one of them. I only post on one MRA website, only occasionally, and most of my posts actually get downvoted out of existence.

@Patton I’m not sure why you assumed I didn’t read all of the pages. I specifically searched for the entire document so to avoid reading cherry picked sections of the document posted on some MRA and MGTOW websites. Maybe I’m wrong here, but it seems clearly obvious that feminism is a part of the default groups mentioned in section 1a when one reads section 2e. The reason why I singled feminism out in regards to section 1a is that unlike other groups, feminist policies are mainstream in a good portion of Europe.

The actions in section 1b seem to be rather vague since holding a group to ridicule, slandering a group or holding it to false charges could consist of virtually anything not deemed politically correct in my opinion. Does this mean that if a boy makes a critique of feminist policies in his school that he will not be in violation of section 1b? Does this mean that if a MRA blogger or ideologue posts statistics or data pertaining to several issues that feminist organizations deem as false, or wrong, that the former could not possibly be subject to criminal charges as defined under section 1a?

I was aware of the emphasis on equal tolerance for various groups, which also consists of Christians. I was aware of the two way street tolerance emphasized in the article. To me there are several things in that document which seem rather vague though. I also believe that most issues need to hear other voices in order to effectively deal with these in the best way possible whether those voices are politically correct or not. This has nothing to do with making claims on the level that all Muslims are terrorists, or that all feminists hate men.

Patton's avatar

@Paradox25 I see you have the legal understanding of a conservative, too. Your opinion of what counts doesn’t matter. Ridicule, slander, and false charges all have legal definitions, and they all require more than criticism. The document isn’t vague when understood in the context of the laws it refers to. You’re just hyping a non-issue.

Paradox25's avatar

@Patton I guess that only time will rather than your or my own opinion. However, I’m still trying to figure out why you keep insinuating that I’m a conservative, when I’m far from it. I’m probably more liberal than even most progressives are on here. You still never addressed my points in my previous posts either, but just talked over me.

Patton's avatar

@Paradox25 I didn’t address your “points” because they are absurd and already covered. The answer to all of your questions is that none of those people would be charged under this law. That’s obvious to anyone who has bothered to understand it and isn’t overdosing on paranoia. And I’m not saying you’re a conservative. I’m saying you have all of the information-resistant tendencies that conservatives show. That should bother you precisely because you are (or claim to be) liberal.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther