EU Lawmakers starting down a slippery slope

[Mormolyce]

Europe in its modern sense formed well after any mass migration waves from outside of Europe, so not sure where you are going with that. Most mass migrations haven't historically really been good in Europe, quite a lot of blood and gore, not pleasant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Period

That's just the start. There would be no Europe without migration.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Glorious revolutionary EU must silence evil people who wish to squelch radiant light unto all nations! /s

As a serious note, this will likely backfire horrible and be atrociously abused to cut out any speech the EU Commissioners ect do not like.

The funniest part is this is the backfire result of populism.

And before someone cries about blaming the other side, that's what's called "do as I say, not as I do".

- - - Updated - - -

Europe has definitely never seen migration before.

It's not like there was a whole era of it that virtually created Europe or anything.

But please keep repeating these alt-right talking points, they never get old.

It's weird when people think that the US is the only migrant nation in existence, just because it's a more recent instance of it.

[turboether]

Ah, the tyranny of good intentions. There will inevitably be resistance against such state censorship if abused. It is a dangerous line to walk.

[Kalis]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Period

That's just the start. There would be no Europe without migration.

I said Europe in its modern sense, but nevermind that.

The original poster said...

EU is starting to fall apart under the weight of migration

You replied...

Europe has definitely never seen migration before.

It's not like there was a whole era of it that virtually created Europe or anything.

Ignroing that EU and Europe aren't technically synonyms, you are saying that events which caused widespread destruction and chaos in Europe would not not be akin to saying it will 'fall apart'?

You've just provided an example of how European society fell apart, to argue against someone saying it will fall apart. You're making their argument for them and not realised it.

[Yriel]

There is a great deal of difference. Immigration as a whole is a process which under circumstances can be an intended process say for purposes of filling vacant job spots. Germany is no stranger to that as they had been attempting to gain more immigrant workers some years ago with mixed results. At the beginning of this millennium Germany tried to invite Indians in order to fill empty IT spots which led to the infamous "Computerinder" meme. The result was laughable at best though but their motion was laudable: Germany was kind of a backyard country when it came to IT at the turn of the millennium. There's also campaigns in the healthcare sector as its strapped for workers. People confuse immigrants with "filthy and unclean leeches and terrorist scum" too quickly and too often. In fact what's been talked about is controlled immigration of skilled workers which Germany needs due to overaged and barely reproducing population.

Just today they announced that unemployment dropped further but with the addition of increased underemployment rate as well. This should be a giveaway. A lot Germans seem to be blind for this and are afraid they are getting overrun by hordes of strangers of ghastly faiths. The other side of the medal is however that long before refugees entered Germany the government has been trying to attract skilled workers from abroad but Germany isn't too attractive as a whole for workers. There's regions where it's nice to work at but the ones where they would be really needed are too dangerous to go to. Say the East of my own state has statistically every fourth company closing down in the next 10 years due to lack of young people replacing the older ones. This is a peculiar issue unique to Germany only and one they can only resolve through controlled immigration programmes.

Still i don't see the difference.
You are right, Germany needs qualified immigration, i just don't see how the refugees help with that.

No politican talks about sending them all back after the syrian war, quite the opposite, everyone wants to integrate them and make them live here. So again, where is the difference between refugees and immigrants. Because right now refugees just seem to be unqualified immigrants.

[Slant]

You're an authoritarian though, so you being okay with censorship of views you don't like is understandable. I am not an authoritarian, so I oppose censoring members of Parliament, as they are there to express views that we may not be able to, or that we may not find palatable.

Last time the likes of you came to power in Europe, you got a hiding, it won't turn out any better for you next time.

Again, what they say is a matter of public record. It's not hidden. You are hyperboling.

- - - Updated - - -

If i understand the article correctly, your MEP will still be shouting that racist stuff, and will be disciplined in the same way as before, only this time it wll be removed from footage so you won't know what your MEP said. Maybe i should read the article again, but thats the way i understood it.

No, he most likely won't. Because racist commentary will get him banned from the parliament for the reminder of that session. One dimensional thinking and not being able to see a bigger picture, not a good basis for debate.

[Deleted]

Again, what they say is a matter of public record. It's not hidden. You are hyperboling.

- - - Updated - - -



No, he most likely won't. Because racist commentary will get him banned from the parliament for the reminder of that session. One dimensional thinking and not being able to see a bigger picture, not a good basis for debate.

But they are already removed from the floor in the current legislation right? All the new rules do is allow the Parliament to remove footage of it from recordings and broadcast?

[Kalis]

Again, what they say is a matter of public record. It's not hidden. You are hyperboling.

It is being deleted from the video record, is it not? Considering we live in a visual and aural age, then it is clearly an intent to censor.

[Kiri]

Still i don't see the difference.
You are right, Germany needs qualified immigration, i just don't see how the refugees help with that.

No politican talks about sending them all back after the syrian war, quite the opposite, everyone wants to integrate them and make them live here. So again, where is the difference between refugees and immigrants. Because right now refugees just seem to be unqualified immigrants.

Merkel herself has been saying that for over a year....

As for the rule itself, the way I see it this is only an amendment of a rule that already existed, which lets the president cut the feed so that hate-speech, defamatory and xenophobic remarks would not be publicized. They would still keep a record of what was said for legal reasons in four languages. It is pretty stupid, but 1984 levels? Not really. Especially since it is a self-imposed measure of the parliament, so it was not imposed on them by some authoritarian uberpresident.
It is not like members of the parliament are forbidden to say what they want anywhere else (anymore so than under respective laws of course). And given that a record exists, those affected can always fight back on legal grounds.

[Deleted]

Again, what they say is a matter of public record. It's not hidden. You are hyperboling.

The presidents can choose to delete the record after the session. Which is a power they already had, and used, for passages that insulted the institution of the PE.

[paralleluniverse]

Looks like EU is heading down the slippery slope of not only censoring speech that isn't politically correct but entirely removing it from the record. For politicians like Le Pen and Wilders, it means heavy fines and censorship of their entire political platform. In what seems to be a race towards novel like conditions of 1984, EU is determined to beat American progressives.

The only people actually destroying the constitutional protection of free speech in the US is the Trump Administration and their war on the press. In fact, their banning of media they don't like is viewpoint discrimination, a violation of the First Amendment.

[Slant]

But they are already removed from the floor in the current legislation right? All the new rules do is allow the Parliament to remove footage of it from recordings and broadcast?

Only for that session. This isn't a law, this isn't even something you have a say over. This is house rules decided upon by the parliament itself. It's like the House of Commons deciding MPs shouldn't insult each other and if they do they should be removed from the session. This isn't an attack on democracy, this is bloody house rules to keep conduct civil.

Hyperboling about a TV broadcast is missing the point. The parliament isn't there to entertain you or me. It's there to create legislation. What they say, whatever they say, down to the tiniest cough and clearing their throat, is being recorded minutely by several stenotypists simultaneously. It's not that it's removed from footage, it's more that footage of the parliamental debate regarding legislation (note the italic bit, this is the important part) is halted as long as someone is disrupting that debate with rants that violate house rules. Do you see what I mean? Everything is recorded. But public broadcasting is limited to the actual debate and the parliament absolutely has the right to deny populists and racists the platform they most crave if they do not stick to the topic. You can still read up on their bullshit if you want to, to ensure democracy isn't being fouled.

- - - Updated - - -

It is being deleted from the video record, is it not? Considering we live in a visual and aural age, then it is clearly an intent to censor.

That's the worst kind of censorship, tbh. Hiding it from TV and then publically posting the written record of those sessions. What kind of hippie censorship is that? "Oh, we'll censor it only a little bit..."

- - - Updated - - -

The presidents can choose to delete the record after the session. Which is a power they already had, and used, for passages that insulted the institution of the PE.

Well, if that is the power the parliament gives the president of itself? I am not too familiar with every detail of the EU parliament's house rules, but as far as I know, it's up to them to decide how they want to keep order and structure to their sessions.

[Pannonian]

Wow, its like the Superbowl would be broadcasted with a 5 second delay so the could censor it if something happens. They would never do that!

[Kalis]

That's the worst kind of censorship, tbh. Hiding it from TV and then publically posting the written record of those sessions. What kind of hippie censorship is that? "Oh, we'll censor it only a little bit..."

So in an age where internet and TV news dominates, you don't see an issue with deleting what would be more compelling evidence than claims that someone said something?

I don't believe you think that. Mainly due to it being a blatant issue.

[Slant]

Because that's what those idiots loved to do: Rant in the EP just to get votes for their national far-right parties.
This is just one of the first steps to eradicate the far right from the EU, more will be coming.

Hang on... this isn't to "eradicate" the far right from the EU, as that would be grossly undemocratic. As much as we detest them, they are a political stream and as such they have the same right to representation that the system allots them. The purpose of these rules is to enforce proper conduct owed to a forum of their decor, they are supposed to be the parliament for the whole of Europe after all. Not to silence dissenting opinions.

If it so hapens that it mostly hits far right, it's on the far right. But it should never be designed as a weapon against the far right.

- - - Updated - - -

So in an age where internet and TV news dominates, you don't see an issue with deleting what would be more compelling evidence than claims that someone said something?

I don't believe you think that. Mainly due to it being a blatant issue.

You can look up those records on the internet? http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/home.html

What is your problem? Since when has TV broadcast become a fundamental pillar of democracy? It isn't. It never was. It was always supplemental, not the basis of reporting from parliaments. Not here, not in Britain, not in the EU. Unless you want to follow your American brethren and decide on the next leader with 3-4 silly debates.

- - - Updated - - -

Wow, its like the Superbowl would be broadcasted with a 5 second delay so the could censor it if something happens. They would never do that!

Again, parliaments are not meant to entertain. They're meant to create legislation.

[Ravenblade]

Still i don't see the difference.
You are right, Germany needs qualified immigration, i just don't see how the refugees help with that.

No politican talks about sending them all back after the syrian war, quite the opposite, everyone wants to integrate them and make them live here. So again, where is the difference between refugees and immigrants. Because right now refugees just seem to be unqualified immigrants.

The difference is that immigrants don't have to be refugees, they could say come from Portugal, Sweden, Russia, Thailand or anywhere else. This is what they had tried already. A lot refugees don't necessarily have the skills being sought after.

No politician is talking about sending them back because nobody talked about sending back because the war isn't over yet and when the time comes I am pretty certain that existing asylum grants will be re-examined. Probably with the usual results i.e. integrated and educated people with jobs and colleagues will be sent back, non-integrated people still live on the fringes of society or as criminal while being officially tolerated.

[Kalis]

Wrong. It's when you let people do whatever they want that has lead to the largest death tolls.

You are an authoritarian that calls condones violence against political opposition, just like Mao, Stalin...gonna Godwin this now...Hitler. Congratulations, that is some fine company you keep there.

The hilarious thing is that you think you are one of the 'good guys'.

You jerking off too absolute freedom of speech isn't going to change that.

I am talking about members of Parliament in Parliament.

These MP's can say whatever they want in their own free time.

What is the point of Parliament? To only say what is acceptable to some?

If they decide to go on a racist rant in the Parliament, they will be shut up.

Who decides what is racist or xenophobic? For example, would calling Belgium a 'non-country' be xenophobic? Or fair comment?

Because that's what those idiots loved to do: Rant in the EP just to get votes for their national far-right parties.
This is just one of the first steps to eradicate the far right from the EU, more will be coming.

What is coming? Death camps?

- - - Updated - - -

You can look up those records on the internet? http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/home.html

What is your problem? Since when has TV broadcast become a fundamental pillar of democracy? It isn't. It never was. It was always supplemental, not the basis of reporting from parliaments. Not here, not in Britain, not in the EU. Unless you want to follow your American brethren and decide on the next leader with 3-4 silly debates.

Are you still playing coy? Is video evidence more or less influential than something written? Answer honestly, then see if you can guess what the issue with this legislation is.

- - - Updated - - -

Hang on... this isn't to "eradicate" the far right from the EU, as that would be grossly undemocratic.

Is it only suddenly dawning on you that Kangodo is an extremist authoritarian?

[Pannonian]

There are rules on how to behave in the parliament. Some parties have been using over the top rhetoric well-knowing that it isn't tolerated (and got kicked out for it), but they still use the broadcast to spew these messages. The broadcasts are intended to give transparency on the government work, not as a platform for propaganda, so taking away the possibility to use the broadcast as a platform seems like a sensible approach.

Some comments are not acceptable in the parliament, thats nothing new:



there are rules inside and he got kicked because of article 165 - so its only how you deal with misbehavior, not new forms of misbehavior.

[Slant]

Are you still playing coy? Is video evidence more or less influential than something written? Answer honestly, then see if you can guess what the issue with this legislation is.

Is it only suddenly dawning on you that Kangodo is an extremist authoritarian?

I'm not playing coy, but you're seeming to misunderstand that this is a) not legislation, it's house rules and b) what the purpose of video transmission from the parliament is. First, it's house rules. The parliament gives itself these rules just like the British House of Common does. The reason is to enforce proper conduct and enable political debate in an efficient manner. It is not the task of the parliament to entertain the public or even inform the public beyond the minimum requirements, which are public records. No parliament on the planet is forced to broadcast their proceedings. German parliament sure as heck doesn't broadcast every debate. Although, apparently TV broadcasters have no interest in broadcasting our boring parliament, as the German President of Parliament once lamented... instead they showed some soap operas... :P

But I digress: If you want to make TV broadcast the pillar of democracy... well, I would say "go and tell your representative to have it changed", but a) that would facilitate further debate on the role of TV broadcasting for parliament sessions and b) you're practically not part of the EU for all intents and purposes in the near future. So, do excuse me when I say... "you don't like it? So what?" It's not like Britain has much to say about the EU these days.

- - - Updated - - -

I disagree.
This is a movement that is forming militia's in Europe.
They are arming themselves, they are attacking innocent people and they are committing terrorist attacks.
These people shouldn't have any political rights here and our democratic system should not be a tool to get rid of that same democratic system.

I agree with that. And I agree with the result. But I disagree with your phrasing. These house rules are decidedly not a political tool to silence dissenting opinion, no matter how extreme. That is not their purpose and it would be highly democratic if they were designed in that fashion. Their only purpose is to warrant a certain decorum and proper proceedings within the parliament's sessions. As I said before, if it so happens to only affect extreme right-wing parties, so be it. It's on them to not abuse the house for their propaganda. But it should never be seen as a tool against them.

This is a very delicate issue, but people should remember that this is the core of European democracy. We should keep the house clean, but we should not weaken it in the process. I am in favour of halting TV broadcastings temporarily until propagandistic ranting is over and proper debate continues. But I absolutely understand @Kalis in that this is a very clumsy "hack" to gloss over the negative parts of parliament that are part of it. If Kalis got his way, I would not be too upset over it. He's having a firm stance against it, I understand that. But when in doubt, I think I'd rather err on his side than running in danger of actually accidentally censoring something the public should know.

Take Le Pens rant against Hollande and Merkel for example. I found it highly offensive and insulting. However, something tells me that it is a legit political stance that deserves to have its platform. At least that rant, I'm not too familiar with her other views and speeches. Would you have cut her speech from broadcast or not?

Oh, erm, about those militias... when I ask Kalis to not hyperbole about this, I'd like to ask you the same. There are no militias of nazis forming in Europe. You have single incidents of right-wing violence, yes. Crimes all of them, yes. But this is hardly organised revolution in the style of the Munich coup by the NSDAP.

[Kiri]

What is the point of Parliament? To only say what is acceptable to some?

It is to debate and legislate. If you have to call people racial slurs in order to do either of these things, then you are doing it wrong.
Also it is not 'acceptable to some', it is what has been voted upon and decided upon to be acceptable. Those who voted against it just have to accept it, much akin to other votes.