July 31, 2005
THINK IT, DON'T SAY IT (via David):
Majority would curb freedom (Nina Berglund, Aftenposten English Web Desk)
A vast majority of Norwegians say they'd like to see limits placed on the constitutional freedom of extremist groups, like neo-Nazis, to express themselves. They'd also favor a ban on public meetings of racist groups or Muslim or Christian fundamentalists. [...]"This is very surprising, and shows that there's a certain anti-democratic current running through the population," said lawyer Cato Schiøtz, one of the Norway's foremost experts on freedom of expression.
The survey results also defy those in another survey taken more recently, where a majority of Norwegians said the war on terrorism must not damage individual human rights. (see link list).
Schiøtz linked the NSD survey results to "an element of common intolerance" lying under the surface of lofty claims to the contrary.
"You only have to scrape the surface to find the undemocratic opinions," Schiøtz told Aftenposten. "It's like racism. You don't have to scrape very deep with the average Norwegian before the clear racist interpretations emerge."
He thinks most Norwegians are less liberal than they'd like to believe.
To the contrary, it's not that they're antidemocratic or unliberal but that they carry one face of liberalism, modus vivendi liberalism, it to its logical extreme. If every opinion is equally valid then none can be expressed for fear we'll contradict one another and create tension. Posted by Orrin Judd at July 31, 2005 12:53 PM
Wouldn't it be simpler to just ban those groups who have publicly stated that they have been instructed by God to kill everyone who doesn't share their faith.
As far as I know, Islamists are the only group that fits that description on deck right now.
Posted by: erp at July 31, 2005 1:06 PMpost-vocal society
Posted by: cjm at July 31, 2005 3:28 PMA good point from erp. No chance of anything so reasonable, however. This Norwegian "opinion" is simply a homosexual ploy to attack Christianity.
Quare, how may suppression of speech be called "liberalism." I suppose the next thing we shall hear is that muzzling badspeak is "progressive."
Posted by: Lou Gots at July 31, 2005 3:35 PMGiven the fact that the most important Norwegian in the last 90 years of world history is probably Vidkun Quisling, this result should not be surprising.
This is merely another aspect of their national ostrich syndrome. They still believe that they cannot be affected by terror, that they can wish it away, or that their lousy weather, worse food, and complete unimportance will protect them.
A vast majority of Norwegians say they'd like to see limits placed on the constitutional freedom of extremist groups, like neo-Nazis, to express themselves. They'd also favor a ban on public meetings of racist groups or Muslim or Christian fundamentalists.
In my opinion, these folks were just being unusually candid when answering the pollsters. If others (Americans included) weren't concerned with how their responses would appear, they'd probably express something similar.
I'll admit it: I want unfettered liberty for the good guys, and all the surveillance we can muster for the bad guys. Naturally, i have no idea how you do that.
Posted by: sheepdog at July 31, 2005 4:40 PMSilencing Ronald Reagan seems excessive.
Posted by: oj at July 31, 2005 5:02 PMThe problem arises when you define "the good guys" as "everyone who agrees with me", which seems to be the so-called Progressive definition, which isn't much different than that of the Jihadis.
Perhaps a better solution is to say that full civil rights do not extend to persons and groups which are unwilling to support the same righsts and privileges of non-members of their group that they expect from those non-members and society at large. (I'm thinking of the CAIRites, who act as if any criticism of Islam is intolerable, while they are free to intimidate with impunity.) To use the cliche, our norms are not a suicide pact, and there's no reason to tolerate those who would use them against us.
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at July 31, 2005 6:53 PMIts not undemocratic to outlaw intolerance in any form. We just need a good workable definition of illegal intolerance.
Posted by: oldkayaker at July 31, 2005 9:26 PMThe problem arises when you define "the good guys" as "everyone who agrees with me"
I know what you're saying, and when you try to make it complicated it will be.
Later in your comment you try to cover all the bases in boiling down a single rule for civil rights. Just as your solution gets to be pretty hard to distill into a concise phrase, so does defining "the good guys."
It's like conservatism: no need to quibble over struct interpretation of the Constitution, the test is how it affects my right to be left alone.
If someone, in the course of doing his own thing, deliberately threatens the life or welfare of me or my loved ones, he's a bad guy. At the root level, it's not complicated
Posted by: sheepdog at August 1, 2005 1:16 AMI'd vote for ERP's suggestion.
Bart, the food there is pretty damned good.
Posted by: Genecis at August 1, 2005 11:36 AMare norwish women hot ?
Posted by: cjm at August 1, 2005 4:56 PM