Eastern EU states want to ban hammer and sickle.

Sand

Seeing as Prince Harry has managed to spark an EU over-reaction with the Germans now pressing for an EU wide ban on the swastika, MEPs from the new member states are pushing for a ban of a symbol of another totalarian state/idealogy.

But Mr Frattini's spokesman, Frisco Roscam Abbing, said the commissioner felt it "might not be appropriate" to include communist symbols in the context of discussions on xenophobia and anti-Semitism.

I dont understand that, as whats being discussed is the banning of symbols - racism and xenophobia will not be affected by the banning of symbols. Otto Schily, the German Interior Minister, has said that he doesnt think a ban on symbols will be effective, as parties like the NDP in Germany already sidestep the ban using red,white and black logos that are very similar to Nazi symbols but arent actually swastikas and so on. To be honest, the people most affected by the ban will be "peaceful protestors". As such, banning communist symbols is entirely appropriate to the discussion.

It's possible that the possibility of the ban on Nazi symbols going ahead without including communist symbols could lead to the undermining of support from the states formerly oppressed by the USSR. Certainly, the USSR was as least as responsible for wiping out tens of millions of people who for one reason or another resisted the communist vision for the state, as well as systematic abuses of human rights, so certainly the hammer and sickle is as offensive to their victims as the swastika is to victims of the Nazis - who werent Jewish by default, 5 million other "dissidents" and "undesirables" died in concentration camps as well.

Its an over-reaction either way, but surely if theyre going to ban Nazi symbols they need to also ban communist symbols?

solice

But Mr Frattini's spokesman, Frisco Roscam Abbing, said the commissioner felt it "might not be appropriate" to include communist symbols in the context of discussions on xenophobia and anti-Semitism.

Im confused, is outlawing a symbol of an ideology that is still supported by millions not promiting xenophobia?

Mad Cyril

To me, the Union flag symbolises oppression, occupation, murder, slavery and imperialism. If every symbol which offended somebody was banned it would be absolutely rediculous.

Also I would like to point out that unqualified comparison of Communism to Naziism is inaccurate and historicaly negligent.

Redleslie2

Sod them. They were on the nazis side in the war and if it wasn't for the commies we'd all be speaking german right now etc etc.

BBC

Sand

If every symbol which offended somebody was banned it would be absolutely rediculous.

Agreed, but not every symbol is going to be banned anyway because some lobby groups are more effective than others.

Also I would like to point out that unqualified comparison of Communism to Naziism is inaccurate and historicaly negligent.

How so?

Is there an evil brand of totalarian government and a non-evil brand? Are victims of one worse of than victims of the other? Less likely to be offended by the symbols of those who murdered them in their millions?

OfflerCrocGod

I say banning ANY symbol is wrong and stupid. How can you have laws againts xenophobia and "hate-crimes", do they take a saliva sample and test to see if you are xenophobic? The whole idea is a ****ing joke.

Voltaire wrote:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Teneka

Also I would like to point out that unqualified comparison of Communism to Naziism is inaccurate and historicaly negligent.

Em what?

Surely you're joking right?

Carpo

I think that it would be reasonable to assume that if one should be banned for a particlur reason then so should the other for the same reason. However, I think the notion of banning these symbols is a rediculous one, and so reason has seemingly gone out the window already. Its like these people are trying to forget what happened for fear of offending someone. The general level of knowledge of what happened under both the Nazis and the Soviets seems to be bad enough (in my opinion) and now they what to repress that memory some more??

Mad Cyril wrote:

Also I would like to point out that unqualified comparison of Communism to Naziism is inaccurate and historicaly negligent.

While I would agree absolutly with the principle of what you are saying, I should also point out that the original post was a qualified comparion in that both regiemes carried out mass murder on a massive scale and so both symbols that represent them are likely to cause an comparitive amount of grief amonst thier victims survivors.

Teneka wrote:

Em what?

Surely you're joking right?

You dont agree that making generalisations about the historys of these regiemes is historicaly negligent? (Not that Sand did)

arcadegame2004

Redleslie2 wrote:

Sod them. They were on the nazis side in the war and if it wasn't for the commies we'd all be speaking german right now etc etc.

BBC

The Czechs were not on the side of Hitler. Just correcting you there, since it is a big charge to lay against a country.

I support the idea of a ban.

SkepticOne

I'm against the idea of a ban. Symbols such as this only have the power people invest in them. As someone pointed out on the other thread about the Swastika, it is not the symbol that is the problem but what is done by people invoking the symbol.

Both Marxism and National Socialism are now seen by most as morally and intellectually bankrupt ideologies. However to ban their symbols them would be to reinvigorate those symbols since banning them would be suggesting that the symbol itself has power (and therefore needs to be banned).

Better to keep them in the open where they will simply represent failed political movements for most people. The relatively small number of deluded fanatics will continue to use the symbols whether or not they are banned.

simu

SkepticOne wrote:

I'm against the idea of a ban. Symbols such as this only have the power people invest in them. As someone pointed out on the other thread about the Swastika, it is not the symbol that is the problem but what is done by people invoking the symbol.

Both Marxism and National Socialism are now seen by most as morally and intellectually bankrupt ideologies. However to ban their symbols them would be to reinvigorate those symbols since banning them would be suggesting that the symbol itself has power (and therefore needs to be banned).

Better to keep them in the open where they will simply represent failed political movements for most people. The relatively small number of deluded fanatics will continue to use the symbols whether or not they are banned.

I agree completely. This symbol-banning fad is becoming rediculous.

billy the squid

personally i would be agains a ban of any symbols. why? well the way I look at it it was an important part of history, and it is only by reviewing history that we can avoid making the same mistakes over and over again. if we ban these symbols and keep quiet what they were used to represent then not only would people forget history but we would be acting no differently than the people who stood under these symbols by oppressing others points of view.

The Corinthian

simu wrote:

This symbol-banning fad is becoming rediculous.

Indeed. The experience of banning such symbols in Germany has shown that it doesn't work and the fact that the swastika is still used in both heraldry and eastern religions makes the entire exercise morally dubious. Excluding the symbol of Soviet Communism, which systematically oppressed and murdered even more innocent people than National Socialism did, just adds insult onto insanity.

Frankly I think they should just ban that fscking crazy frog if they’re looking to do something useful.

therecklessone

The Corinthian wrote:

Frankly I think they should just ban that fscking crazy frog if they’re looking to do something useful.

Gets my vote.

C Fodder

the fact that the swastika is still used in both heraldry and eastern religions makes the entire exercise morally dubious

Just because an ancient symbol jets hijacked by a morally corrupt Austrian and his henchmen and symbolises for a generation absolute evil, is not a reason to ban the symbol.

The hammer and sickle was for a few generations in the western world either a symbol of hope for a better fairer society or the mark of the real true enemy. Banning these symbols will deny the history of the twentieth century and allow the horrors to be repeated again.

Redleslie2

Those MEPs might be better off trying to sort out the neo-nazis (like these gents here) in their respective states instead of pushing the usual fascist rubbish about how the commies were worse.

The Corinthian

Redleslie2 wrote:

Those MEPs might be better off trying to sort out the neo-nazis (like these gents here) in their respective states instead of pushing the usual fascist rubbish about how the commies were worse.

Well that proves that uncle Joe Stalin was a lovely man, I suppose.

Four legs good, two legs bad...

arcadegame2004

instead of pushing the usual fascist rubbish about how the commies were worse.

They were worse.

Redleslie2

This message is hidden because The Corinthian is on your ignore list.

Probably a load of hearsay anyway.

arcadegame2004 wrote:

They were worse.

I would ask you to "prove" that, then I'd ask you to give estimates on deaths attributable to capitalists/"people of the book"/mongols and so on but with all due respect, there'd be absolutely no point since your ability to provide material facts to support your arguments leaves much to be desired.

The Corinthian

Redleslie2 wrote:

This message is hidden because The Corinthian is on your ignore list.

Probably a load of hearsay anyway.

Not that you'd know because you ignore me (while magically responding too me too).

I would ask you to "prove" that, then I'd ask you to give estimates on deaths attributable to capitalists/"people of the book"/mongols and so on but with all due respect, there'd be absolutely no point since your ability to provide material facts to support your arguments leaves much to be desired.

As does yours for objectivity and reason - It’s a rare thing to see someone so fanatical in his devotion to an ideology that he will use any tactic to avoid the possible admission that his ideology is as brutal as the one that he claims to oppose.

And that’s why I do not pretend to ignore you.

Redleslie2

This message is hidden because The Corinthian is on your ignore list.

More hearsay I'll wager.

You two should give a little straight arm salute of gratitude to the commies for successfully sabotaging the spanish civil war and handing victory to the fascists anyway.

The Corinthian

Redleslie2 wrote:

This message is hidden because The Corinthian is on your ignore list.

More hearsay I'll wager.

Well that was predictable

sceptre

Redleslie2 wrote:

This message is hidden because The Corinthian is on your ignore list.

That's your own private decision that adds nothing to the discussion when posted. Let alone twice in quick succession (actually it's less that and more if you want to ignore someone, it might be more successful if you ignored them. Privately of course.).

arcadegame2004

Redleslie2 wrote:

This message is hidden because The Corinthian is on your ignore list.

Probably a load of hearsay anyway.


I would ask you to "prove" that, then I'd ask you to give estimates on deaths attributable to capitalists/"people of the book"/mongols and so on but with all due respect, there'd be absolutely no point since your ability to provide material facts to support your arguments leaves much to be desired.

Here is a source: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm

It shows that estimates of deaths in the 1930's caused by Stalin almost all settle for at least 20 million, all the way up to around 63 million in the extreme upper limit of estimates.

John Heidenrich, How to Prevent Genocide: A Guide for Policymakers, Scholars, and the Concerned Citizen (2001): 20M, incl.

* Kulaks: 7M
* Gulag: 12M
* Purge: 1.2M (minus 50,000 survivors)

When you consider that the entiire numbers killed in the Nazi concentration camps is commonly estimate at 12 million, with 6 million of them being Jewish, this serves to back up my point.


Even this ignores the killings of 2 million Tibetans since the 1959 invasion, and the slaughter of 25% of the population of Cambodia by Pol Pot and hisKhmer Rouge regime.

And we're not even talking about North Korea, the genocide of ethnic-minorities in Laos yet...

Redleslie2

I refer the right honourable gentleman to the reply I made earlier.

The Corinthian

Redleslie2 wrote:

I refer the right honourable gentleman to the reply I made earlier.

gandalf

Next post I see from either of you continueing your childish little fued and there will be bannings!!! And you may not get back in !!!

AngelofFire

The thing about the swatstika is that its unquestionably a symbol of hatred used only by groups who descriminate against people on the grounds of religion, skin colour and ethnic identity. The hammer and sickle on the other hand is used by trotskyites and some democratic socialists, the type of people that Stalin threw into the gulags.

pickarooney

AngelofFire wrote:

The thing about the swatstika is that its unquestionably a symbol of hatred used only by groups who descriminate against people on the grounds of religion, skin colour and ethnic identity.

Are you just saying this to be funny or did you really not read any of the recent threads about the swastika, its origins, its meaning and its importance to many Asian communities in Europe?

The Corinthian

AngelofFire wrote:

The thing about the swatstika is that its unquestionably a symbol of hatred used only by groups who descriminate against people on the grounds of religion, skin colour and ethnic identity. The hammer and sickle on the other hand is used by trotskyites and some democratic socialists, the type of people that Stalin threw into the gulags.

The only person that I ever met who lived in a Gulag was there as a result of his mother (he was born there). She wasn’t a Trotskyite or any sort of democratic socialist, but ethnically German and unlucky enough to have been living in Konigsberg (now Kaliningrad). So those nice hammer and sickle wielding chaps had no problem discriminating against people on the grounds of ethnic identity - you might ask the Crimerian Tartars about that too, while you’re at it.

The hammer and sickle represents, for millions of people, decades of oppression by the Soviet Union and other Communist Regimes. For them it represents no less a reminder of an obscene ideology that consistently caused famine in the name of collectivism and systematic extermination in the name of class revolution wherever it has was practiced.

Personally I think that the banning of any of these symbols is simply propagandistic hysteria (Frattini’s recent appointment to the European Commission was frankly Italy’s gain). But if one is going to ban the symbols of the violent and extremist ideologies of the twentieth century, one might as well be consistent rather than continue to live with rose tinted glasses.

Sand

Personally I think that the banning of any of these symbols is simply propagandistic hysteria (Frattini’s recent appointment to the European Commission was frankly Italy’s gain).

My own personal opinion is that a mixture of guilt over Germanys past and paranoia regarding the possibity of the resurgence of national socialism - and Germanys unemployment hasnt been higher since the 1930s according to recent figures, 5 million with government make work schemes, up to 20 million(!!!!) without make work schemes - drives the need to ban Nazi symbology. The drive is almost to prove to itself and others that Germany is the most anti-nazi nation around and to misguidely attempt to hamstring parties like the NDP - mostly the former though, as the latter hasnt been shown to be the case.

Soviet symbology is not part of the equation for the German backers of the ban on Nazi symbology, because they dont need to prove their anti-sovietness.

Prince Harry and his sense of humour/appropriate attire have a lot to answer for.

Redleslie2

Sand wrote:

My own personal opinion is that a mixture of guilt over Germanys past and paranoia regarding the possibity of the resurgence of national socialism - and Germanys unemployment hasnt been higher since the 1930s according to recent figures, 5 million with government make work schemes, up to 20 million(!!!!) without make work schemes - drives the need to ban Nazi symbology.

The waves of murders and assaults on foreigners by neo-nazis in europe has something to do with it. IMHO this is just the latest attempt by a few cranks to normalise fascism, divert attention from the holocaust anniversary and pander to the far right in countries which had rather dodgy records during the war.

Twats like this don't help.

The Corinthian

Redleslie2 wrote:

IMHO this is just the latest attempt by a few cranks to normalise fascism, divert attention from the holocaust anniversary and pander to the far right in countries which had rather dodgy records during the war.

Of course the opposite of this is hardly healthy either - put a swastika on a thug and he’s a bad guy, put an Anarchist’s symbol and suddenly he’s a good guy, even though frankly both groups are driven by hate and little else.

Yet like the simple beasts of Animal Farm the mantra similar to “four legs good, two legs bad” seems to prevail with some. Leaving them repeating the same tired dogma of one side being good and one being evil, not on the basis of their actions, but on the basis of labels. That’s why they cannot comprehend the notion that for many in eastern Europe the hammer & sickle might be perceived in much the same light as the swastika is in western Europe, or that the swastika might not be seen as a bad symbol at all in, say, India.

Frankly twats like this don’t help either, but I doubt if some of their supporters here would understand why.

pete

The Corinthian wrote:

Of course the opposite of this is hardly healthy either - put a swastika on a thug and he’s a bad guy, put an Anarchist’s symbol and suddenly he’s a good guy, even though frankly both groups are driven by hate and little else.

I'd like to see what the basis for this claim is, as it flies in the face of everything I know about anarchism. No, i am not an anarchist.

Frankly twats like this don’t help either, but I doubt if some of their supporters here would understand why.

What's that got to do with anything?

The Corinthian

pete wrote:

I'd like to see what the basis for this claim is, as it flies in the face of everything I know about anarchism. No, i am not an anarchist.

All extreme ideologies will tend to share a common belief that change or control must be brought about through violent means. Anarchism, like Nazism or even Marxism have had histories that are (and continue to be) inextricably linked to violence. That may not be in your encyclopaedic knowledge of anarchism, but then again it’s easy to be selective in everything you know about something if you induce rather than deduced your beliefs.

What's that got to do with anything?

To illustrate the aforementioned point.

pete

The Corinthian wrote:

Anarchism, like Nazism or even Marxism have had histories that are (and continue to be) inextricably linked to violence.

The same could be said for democracy. I fail to see how this supports your statement that anarchism is "driven by hate and little else".

That may not be in your encyclopaedic knowledge of anarchism

Did i miss the bit in the rules that says you have to be patronising dick to post here? I simply said that your claim "...flies in the face of everything I know about anarchism." - I did not claim an "encyclopaedic knowledge", so please, step down from the high horse.

To illustrate the aforementioned point.

How? It was a photo of 2 people, dressed in black, outside a shop. Presumably in Seattle. In the absense of context I don't see how this illustrates anything.

F Fiesta

It was a photo of 2 people, dressed in black, outside a shop

Missing the bit where the smashed the window in?

pete

F Fiesta wrote:

Missing the bit where the smashed the window in?

I think it is, yes.

Did you have a point?

OfflerCrocGod

pete wrote:

The same could be said for democracy. I fail to see how this supports your statement that anarchism is "driven by hate and little else".

Democracy is not an "extreme" ideology.

pete

OfflerCrocGod wrote:

Democracy is not an "extreme" ideology.

I never said it was.

The Corinthian

pete wrote:

The same could be said for democracy. I fail to see how this supports your statement that anarchism is "driven by hate and little else".

As has been pointed out democracy is not an extreme ideology, so your response is either irrelevant or an attempt at a man of straw argument. Democracy does not seek to engender change through violence, so the same could not be said.

Did i miss the bit in the rules that says you have to be patronising dick to post here? I simply said that your claim "...flies in the face of everything I know about anarchism." - I did not claim an "encyclopaedic knowledge", so please, step down from the high horse.

Point taken. I may well be a patronising dick, in which cast I apologise - or alternatively I would simply appear so to any idiot who was feeling threatened. Either is possible, possibly both.

How? It was a photo of 2 people, dressed in black, outside a shop. Presumably in Seattle. In the absense of context I don't see how this illustrates anything.

Two people, dressed in black, outside a shop, with one about to smash the window - you would appear to only see what you want to see.

Yet when a previous poster puts forward a similar picture of another extremist, you don’t bat an eyelid. So are you judging someone based upon their actions or their labels? Four legs good, two legs bad?

therecklessone

The Corinthian wrote:

Point taken. I may well be a patronising dick, in which cast I apologise - or alternatively I would simply appear so to any idiot who was feeling threatened. Either is possible, possibly both.

If its of any help I wasn't threatened, would like to think I'm reasonably intelligent, and detected a hint of "patronising dick" as well...

pete

The Corinthian wrote:

As has been pointed out democracy is not an extreme ideology, so your response is either irrelevant or an attempt at a man of straw argument.

Look I'm not going to get drawn into a pseudo-intellectual dick measuring contest, so I'll keep this really simple.

You claimed that anarchism was driven by hate and little else. I asked you to elaborate on this. I didn't ask you about marxism, communism, baduism or anything else. I am genuinely interested in how you arrived at this conclusion. Certainly, some anarchists may advocate violent means to effect change. But as I pointed out, so do many democrats, and does not equate to being "driven by hate and little else".

Democracy does not seek to engender change through violence, so the same could not be said.

*cough* iraq regime change *cough*

And before you say anything, yes, I'm well aware that The Official Democracy Rule Book makes no mention of the use of violence to further political goals, but hey! When did that ever stop any of our favourite democracies out here in the real world?

Point taken. I may well be a patronising dick, in which cast I apologise - or alternatively I would simply appear so to any idiot who was feeling threatened. Either is possible, possibly both.

Don't worry TC - you're far from threatening, and I'm far from being an idiot. I really don't understand your fondness for personal insults, given your apparently superior intellect.... In any case, apology accepted.

Two people, dressed in black, outside a shop, with one about to smash the window - you would appear to only see what you want to see.

I'm well aware of what the picture is. My point was that simply posting a link to it serves no purpose. Where's the context? Where's your point?

Four legs good, two legs bad?

For the love of god will you please read another book. Your catchphrase is becoming somewhat grating.

The Corinthian

pete wrote:

Look I'm not going to get drawn into a pseudo-intellectual dick measuring contest, so I'll keep this really simple.

If you don’t want to get drawn into a pseudo-intellectual dick-measuring contest, simply don’t reply. Don’t get drawn into a pseudo-intellectual dick measuring contest and then make a point that you’re not really getting drawn into it.

You claimed that anarchism was driven by hate and little else. I asked you to elaborate on this. I didn't ask you about marxism, communism, baduism or anything else. I am genuinely interested in how you arrived at this conclusion. Certainly, some anarchists may advocate violent means to effect change. But as I pointed out, so do many democrats, and does not equate to being "driven by hate and little else".

Extremist ideologies have at their core the concept of violence as a legitimate tool of promoting and perpetuating that ideology; revolution, as it were - be it Socialist, Fascist or whatever. Regrettably, this will tend to engender hate so as to facilitate a target for the violence; in the case of Nazism this was race based, for Communism this is class based, in the case of Anarchism it is represented by authority (and often also class).

Anarchism is not a bad example of violent extremism, for my purposes, as it presently promotes the same type of thuggish behaviour that one could (with a slight change of clothes and symbols) expect of Nazi-skinheads. And as much as you would like to claim that this is only some anarchists, events in recent years, such as those in Genoa or Seattle, would tend to indicate that this is a far more prevalent trend that you would like us to believe.

*cough* iraq regime change *cough*

Within a state democracy does consider violence as a legitimate tool of governance, were the US government to legitimise the use of violence to affect change within the US, it would cease to be a democracy. What you’re discussing is foreign policy, which is an entirely different issue as it is outside the remit of self-governance.

Don't worry TC - you're far from threatening, and I'm far from being an idiot. I really don't understand your fondness for personal insults, given your apparently superior intellect.... In any case, apology accepted.

Given you were the one to make the first insult I find your apparent lack of understanding rather disingenuous. Either that or you should probably re-evaluate that intellect of yours.

I'm well aware of what the picture is. My point was that simply posting a link to it serves no purpose. Where's the context? Where's your point?

I’ve already explained it in response. If you’re having difficulty understanding what I wrote, please address it directly and I’ll explain it.

For the love of god will you please read another book. Your catchphrase is becoming somewhat grating.

If it’s getting grating enough it may eventually sink into that skull of yours.

Or would you prefer to see everything on the basis of black and white labels?

bonkey

This thread is closed. I've had enough of this childish bickering.

The Corinthian - this is your final warning. If you can't remain civil to other posters, stop posting in this forum.

jc