Can people forfeit their rights

[Sneakgab]

Hmmm. I suppose if a system gets broken the people need to be able to raise arms and that might involve ''talking about it''. The great thing about freedom of speech is that if some random fool calls violence then others can make public their arguments against them. Of course, the problem lies with a stupid populace who will follow the random fool.

Well, when this pope calls for violence people DON'T have to agree. If they want to be stupid and follow then they can get arrested for breaking the law. I suppose all the violence and what not could have been avoided by shutting this guy up, but the alternative is selective free speech. In the hands of a trustworthy and benign ruling force that might be nice but since no such ruling force exists maybe it would be fore the better to allow this kind of thing for when we need to progress democracy against an unwilling ruling force. Basically, it seems like the costs are worth it. :- :- :-

[Anathema]

"Would you support the workers if they try to defend their position by firing on the police?"

Depends on the exact logistics. If the police are shooting, for example, I would be quite happy to point out that the state is now putting the artificial property 'rights' of the few over the actual lives of the many and behaving in such an authoritarian way that Sweden is no better than Syria. My sympathies would be with the workers, even if they have to fight back.

I can't vouch for the police of Sweden, but that wouldn't happen in the Netherlands anytime soon. While our police force naturally has its problems, they still have rules of conduct about using their firearms and if they won't break them where everyone can see it. If they knew the "defenders" had guns they'd try to just wait them out, unless they had hostages- in wich case offensive action from the police would be warranted anyway.

Over here there have been incidents where anarchist squatters secretly rigged "their" residences with booby traps for when the police would try to remove them.

[Edric O]

Sorry for offending you.

I wasn't thinking of you or anyone specific when I wrote that. I do believe though, that acts of disobedience (violence not excluded) wich I would sympathize with when directed against an opressive state, are out of place in this part of their world. In short, resisting against the state in Syria or Eritrea makes you a freedom fighter, over here it means you're at best clueless and at worst a violent criminal, or even a terrorist.

We were talking about people advocating acts of violence against the state but not actually performing any such acts themselves. The issue at stake is not whether violence against the state is justified - obviously that depends on the nature of the state and the nature of the violent group. I would support a communist group fighting a capitalist state, but oppose an Islamist group fighting that same state. Likewise I would support a liberal group fighting against a feudal state but not a liberal group fighting against a socialist state.

The issue at stake is whether the state has the right to punish those who advocate violence against it (but do not actually perform acts of violence) and suppress their freedom of speech. My answer is vehemently no - regardless of the nature of the state or the group speaking against it. You seem to be saying that restricting freedom of speech is ok when used against the people you oppose, but not ok when they do it to you. Why?

Real, physical acts of violence are clear and obvious. "Advocating violence," on the other hand, is a vague concept. What counts as "advocating violence?" Telling people to kill civilians? Telling people to fight against the military? Telling people to fight in self-defense? Quoting the writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau or Thomas Jefferson about revolution? (speaking of which, should we ban the works of authors who argue that violent revolution can be justified?)

You see where this is going. Actions are clear and undisputable. Words are not. A state that has the power to punish people for criticizing it in a certain way will soon acquire the power to punish people for criticizing it at all.

Also, please explain what makes Western states legitimate in your eyes. They base their claims to legitimacy on the will of the people, but in most cases that is pure bullsh*t, since government policy can actively defy the will of the people.

Besides, this whole thread started with a radical islamic preacher, who aren't really known for their passionate belief in civil and political rights.

That's irrelevant to the issue of freedom of speech. The whole point of such freedom is that it does not depend on what you are saying. Otherwise we have a case of "you're free to say whatever you want, as long as you agree with us."

I'm not in favour of Orwellian surveilance of any speech anywhere, anytime. I don't think that any sudden, emotional outburst or evidently vain statements should be prosecuted either. However, say that if someone is deliberately reaching out to a big audience like Wilders posting a video on Liveleak, or an imam preaching in a mosque, and calls upon people to bring violence against a minority (or in the latter case, the majority) prosecution should be an option.

Umm, any group of people is either a majority or a minority. Are you saying that anyone reaching to a big audience and calling for violence against anyone else should be prosecuted? So, for example, if the government calls for war against some other country, it should be prosecuted for advocating violence? If the police calls for a crackdown on criminals, for war against some other country, it should be prosecuted for advocating violence?

Or is it just Wilders and the crazy imam who should be prosecuted? But in that case, why them? What justifies the double standard?

On that note: how far would you go? Suppose that in the UK, Norway or any western country some workers lock themselves up in a factory or an industrial compound in the belief that this will unleash a class struggle. Suppose further that they've got some firearms. A court orders that they're acting illegally and the police approaches to remove them. Would you support the workers if they try to defend their position by firing on the police?

That depends on one thing: Whether I agree with them that their actions will benefit the class struggle. If I believe that they will, then yes, absolutely, I would support these workers without any reservations.

[Edric O]

Once again to clarify.

I am referring to the UK system of justice, where people have rights and an amount of freedom of speech.

Violence should never be necessary to bring about change in a democratic society.

If we lived in an ideal democracy, I would agree with you, but we don't. Far from it. Western nations are increasingly less democratic and more oligarchic. To use Britain as an example, what realistic chance do you have of bringing about any change in the forseeable future that is not approved by either Gordon Brown or David Cameron? It doesn't have to be something as major and ground-breaking as introducing socialism. It can be something as simple and obviously beneficial as an electoral reform for proportional representation in the House of Commons. No matter how many people support it, it will never ever pass. The two biggest parties will not allow it.

So if you really think it is possible to change the system while playing by its own rules, I would suggest you reconsider.

I campaigned and marched in support of Freeing Mandela and supported the ANC.

An armed struggle against a dictatorship/fascist regime is totally different to armed conflict in a democratic society.

I agree, and I respect you for marching in support of the ANC - I was in primary school when apartheid fell. But why should you be free to advocate an armed struggle in the case of the dictatorship but not in the case of the democracy? I can see that one of those struggles may be good while the other may be evil, but freedom of speech means freedom to support any side in a controversy, the evil as well as the good. Once you say that people should only be free to support "good" armed struggles, who decides which armed struggles are "good"?

I agreed with the armed struggle of the ANC (although not with the street bombings) BUT i could never agree with the terror tactics of the IRA, the difference between the two is quite clear to me.

We're not talking about the violence itself here, we're talking about people who support violence. Why should someone be allowed to speak in favour of the ANC but not in favour of the IRA?

[Anathema]

Real' date=' physical acts of violence are clear and obvious. "Advocating violence," on the other hand, is a vague concept. What counts as "advocating violence?" Telling people to kill civilians? Telling people to fight against the military?[/quote']

Yes to all.

Telling people to fight in self-defense? Quoting the writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau or Thomas Jefferson about revolution? (speaking of which' date=' should we ban the works of authors who argue that violent revolution can be justified?)[/quote']

No, and nope.

You see where this is going. Actions are clear and undisputable. Words are not. A state that has the power to punish people for criticizing it in a certain way will soon acquire the power to punish people for criticizing it at all.

Also' date=' please explain what makes Western states legitimate in your eyes. They base their claims to legitimacy on the will of the people, but in most cases that is pure bullsh*t, since government policy can actively defy the will of the people.[/quote']

While there are inevitably very, very few people who agree with everything their government does, the vast majority of people in western democracies support their government structure as a whole. Most people have a few changes in mind that they'd like to see implemented but only a tiny amount of people wants to throw away the baby with the bathtub.

Umm' date=' any group of people is either a majority or a minority. Are you saying that anyone reaching to a big audience and calling for violence against anyone else should be prosecuted? So, for example, if the government calls for war against some other country, it should be prosecuted for advocating violence? If the police calls for a crackdown on criminals, for war against some other country, it should be prosecuted for advocating violence?[/quote']

If I, in no uncertain terms, call for your assassination (I don't suppose you think that should be punishable either?) I am not calling for violence against a group. About military and police action, ever heard of something called monopoly of violence?

[alchemi2]

So in answer to the original question Edric0?

In your view there is never a point where someone can forfeit their rights no matter what they do/advocate?

[Edric O]

So in answer to the original question Edric0?

In your view there is never a point where someone can forfeit their rights no matter what they do/advocate?

No, my view is that people can indeed forfeit their rights by doing something. But they cannot forfeit their rights by saying or advocating something.

You can forfeit your rights by killing Mr.X. You cannot forfeit your rights by talking about how much you wish Mr.X was dead.

[Edric O]

Yes to all.

We can both agree that killing civilians is wrong.

But what about the military or police? Are there never cases when violence against the military or police is justified?

No, and nope.

Ok, so if, for example, I told a group of workers to take control over a factory and defend themselves with lethal force if the police or army attack them - in other words, if I told these workers to use violence against the state in self-defense - should I be punished for it?

Also, you said that people should not be allowed to advocate violent revolution in a liberal democracy. Thomas Jefferson advocated violent revolution and argued that such a revolution can sometimes be justified even against an elected government. Why shouldn't his writings be banned, then, according to your views?

If I, in no uncertain terms, call for your assassination (I don't suppose you think that should be punishable either?) I am not calling for violence against a group.

I am not sure I understand which side you are taking here. Are you saying that people should or should not be punished for advocating violence against specific individuals (rather than groups)?

For my part, of course I don't believe you should be punished for calling for my assassination. I think such a call should be denounced and rebuked by the media, and maybe you should be denied a platform for spreading your message - but punished? No.

About military and police action, ever heard of something called monopoly of violence?

Yes, but I did not know there was also a monopoly on advocating violence. So the state should be allowed to tell you to kill people, but no one else should be allowed to do the same?

[Anathema]

Violence against policemen or the military are very rarely applauded on the spot, but somethimes vindicated by history. If a few people are so dissillusioned with liberal democracy that they decide to plant bombs on ministries or whatever, I'd wager that in a 100 years they still won't think back to those incidents in friendly terms. We don't know, but at this moment, I'll side with liberal democracy (and by extension, the people charged with defending it, like cops)

Ok' date=' so if, for example, I told a group of workers to take control over a factory and defend themselves with lethal force if the police or army attack them - in other words, if I told these workers to use violence against the state in self-defense - should I be punished for it?[/quote']

Well, that depends. In the past workers' unions have resorted to "entrenching" themselves into factories etc. as a bargaining tactic (for higher wages and the like) but that's obviously different.

Say that you were the leader of a workers' union, and called for the members to commandeer an installation and run it for yourself. You further say that you'll defend the installation by whatever means necessary, even if that involves lethal force. If the police takes this "threat" seriously and comes along prepared and a firefight ensures, I think that the lives lost would be on your head. You let it come to that.

I am not sure I understand which side you are taking here. Are you saying that people should or should not be punished for advocating violence against specific individuals (rather than groups)?

For my part' date=' of course I don't believe you should be punished for calling for my assassination. I think such a call should be denounced and rebuked by the media, and maybe you should be denied a platform for spreading your message - but punished? No.[/quote']

Well, it should be clear that I disagree with you here. I don't think that I should get away unpunished if I made a public appeal for people to assassinate you any less then I would be if I paid someone in cash to do it.

Yes' date=' but I did not know there was also a monopoly on advocating violence. So the state should be allowed to tell you to kill people, but no one else should be allowed to do the same?[/quote']

The idea is that violence is sometimes required to stamp out forces that are destructive to society (crime foremost, but also anti-democratic fringe groups like blackshirts); it's inevitable that any sort of domestic order will perish if it doesn't have the means to defend itself against infractions. You could say it's an unfortunate necessity, and in a proper state it's kept in check by democratic accountability and a system of checks and ballances. The police has no other objective or authority than to uphold the law, and because sometimes individuals resist this results in violence. That's something entirely different from a scenario where the state orders someone to be killed.

[nemafakei]

"The police has no other objective or authority than to uphold the law, and because sometimes individuals resist this results in violence."

Are you claiming that this is true of liberal democracies, or is it still part of your ideal state description?

"You let it come to that"

So did the police chief who ordered the policemen to bring guns to kill the workers with.

[alchemi2]

I believe there is a difference between advocating proactive violence and defensive violence.

The police have no need to storm an occupied factory, they could quite easily outwait the squatters.

If the majority support radical change, then defending that is acceptable in my view but violence should always be the last resort not the first choice.

[Edric O]

Violence against policemen or the military are very rarely applauded on the spot, but somethimes vindicated by history. If a few people are so dissillusioned with liberal democracy that they decide to plant bombs on ministries or whatever, I'd wager that in a 100 years they still won't think back to those incidents in friendly terms. We don't know, but at this moment, I'll side with liberal democracy (and by extension, the people charged with defending it, like cops)

Well, planting bombs never solved anything - in fact it usually makes things worse by turning public opinion against you and giving the government an excuse to become more powerful. So it's likely that anyone planting bombs will be seen as somewhat stupid in the future.

But a general strike, a factory occupation, a rebellion or a revolution - those things can actually change society, and those are the things I advocate in the fight against capitalism.

As for liberal democracy, I do not believe that it is democratic in any meaningful sense at the present time. I agree with most of its basic principles, but they have to be implemented differently, giving the people more power over their elected representatives and some power over legislation itself.

Well, that depends. In the past workers' unions have resorted to "entrenching" themselves into factories etc. as a bargaining tactic (for higher wages and the like) but that's obviously different.

Say that you were the leader of a workers' union, and called for the members to commandeer an installation and run it for yourself. You further say that you'll defend the installation by whatever means necessary, even if that involves lethal force. If the police takes this "threat" seriously and comes along prepared and a firefight ensures, I think that the lives lost would be on your head. You let it come to that.

No, the lives lost would be the responsibility of whoever fired the first shot.

But, on the topic of free speech, do you believe I should have the freedom to advocate what you described above? I'm not talking about personally leading the workers, I'm talking about publishing a book or a newspaper urging them to resist by whatever means necessary.

Well, it should be clear that I disagree with you here. I don't think that I should get away unpunished if I made a public appeal for people to assassinate you any less then I would be if I paid someone in cash to do it.

Why not? Pat Robertson got away with calling for the assassination of Hugo Chavez.

The idea is that violence is sometimes required to stamp out forces that are destructive to society (crime foremost, but also anti-democratic fringe groups like blackshirts); it's inevitable that any sort of domestic order will perish if it doesn't have the means to defend itself against infractions. You could say it's an unfortunate necessity, and in a proper state it's kept in check by democratic accountability and a system of checks and ballances. The police has no other objective or authority than to uphold the law, and because sometimes individuals resist this results in violence. That's something entirely different from a scenario where the state orders someone to be killed.

That is correct in principle, but (a) we do not have a "proper state" with proper democratic accountability, and (b) if you argue that police violence is sometimes necessary for the good of society, I can just as easily argue that revolutionary violence is sometimes necessary for the good of society.

And in any case, you have not explained if you support a state monopoly on advocating violence. You have only explained that the police is necessary, which is perfectly true but not our current topic of debate.

violence should always be the last resort not the first choice.

I agree. It should be used only as a last resort, but it should remain as an option on the table.

[alchemi2]

I can't help wondering if Mr E Powell would have faced prosecution under today's legislation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/7343256.stm

[Khan]

I'd like to see if there's a transcript of the speech. Although from the looks of it he didn't incite violence he merely seems to be saying he was worried about what might happen in the future. I am going to try to find the speech though.

[Anathema]

Why not? Pat Robertson got away with calling for the assassination of Hugo Chavez.

I remember that. I'm not going to defend the United States judiciary or Pat Robertson.

That is correct in principle, but (a) we do not have a "proper state" with proper democratic accountability, and (b) if you argue that police violence is sometimes necessary for the good of society, I can just as easily argue that revolutionary violence is sometimes necessary for the good of society.

And in any case, you have not explained if you support a state monopoly on advocating violence. You have only explained that the police is necessary, which is perfectly true but not our current topic of debate.

As for what a true democracy is, Rousseau thought that the Swiss had the right idea with direct democracy but he acknowledged that it was only possible for city states or cantons, not territories the size of France. Arguably improved communication technology and a more educated citizenry make it easier, but this advantage is cancelled out by the fact that economical and social issues have become that much more complex.

Polticians are (or should be) "democraticly" accountable in the sense that if they screw up, they'll be sacked in the coming election. This is IMO hard to maintain in regards to the United Kingdom because parties win because they've won the majority of constituences, while nationwide they often receive less than 50% of the votes. If I were a UK citizen I'd vote for the Liberal Democrats for the sole reason that they're the only party that has consistently advocated proportional representation.

Nevertheless, not many British people would call their government illegitimate.