...and Democratic?

[Beelzebub]

Somehow, I doubt that Niemoller had in mind, political parties devoted to the destruction of the State, when he served-up that historic quote.

States are created, rise, fall, and are eliminated all the time.
That a state might think itself above what is right and just is no excuse to pander to it.

 

[Kondor3]

I would argue that no boundaries exist to free speech, however there are necessary limitations on reckless or malicious speech...

Sorry to be splitting hairs here, Challenger, but I've gotta disagree...

Free Speech is a state of affairs in which one is free to say anything...

1. responsible speech

2. irresponsible speech

3. reckless speech

4. malicious speech

...etc... etc... etc...

And, a great deal of irresponsible speech, reckless speech, and malicious speech, is actually allowed, and protected, under the Free Speech umbrella...

One need look no further than the domain of Hate Speech, to know that some things are allowed or tolerated (albeit largely shunned), and to know that some things are not...

One is not allowed to yell 'Fire' in a crowded theater, and to defend that action, under the umbrella of Free Speech...

One is not allowed to publicly and seriously advocate for the death of an elected official or public officer, and to defend that action, under the umbrella of Free Speech...

One is not allowed to publicly disclose the day's Launch Codes for the Nuclear Football function, and to defend that action, under the umbrella of Free Speech...

One is not allowed to verbally incite to riot, and to defend that action, under the umbrella of Free Speech...

And on and on and on...

Given that reckless and malicious speech is a mixed bag of allowed and disallowed communication, and that 'allowed' aspects of those are defensible under the umbrella of Free Speech, it seems to make sense to treat Free Speech as the overarching umbrella principle, with these others being subordinate to the higher-level label...

I could be wrong, but that's the way my brain fires on that one...

 

[Kondor3]

Somehow, I doubt that Niemoller had in mind, political parties devoted to the destruction of the State, when he served-up that historic quote.

States are created, rise, fall, and are eliminated all the time. That a state might think itself above what is right and just is no excuse to pander to it.

Nobody is pandering to a particular state here...

We are talking about the right of any state to suppress a political party when that party is devoted to the destruction or undermining of the state...

Mind you, if the people of that state do not wish such a party to be suppressed, then it is their right to compel their government to lift such a ban...

But, failing popular coercion of the government under such circumstances, parties which present a mortal danger to a nation or government are routinely banned by a large number of countries, friend and foe and in-between, with considerable justification.

When Constitutionality and Safety confront each other in such a context, Safety wins, nearly every time.

 

[Lipush]

Allowing a political party that says you should die is not making you better, it makes you pure stupid.

Allowing a political party that says "you should die" is what makes you a democracy, supressing dissent makes you a tyranny. Saying "you should die" is completely different to "trying to kill you". If you don't understand the difference, you don't understand what Western democracy is all about.

Except that in Balad's case, they don't just say it, they act on it.

And no, again, it's not democratic, because for the upteenth time, Balad party disobeys the Knesset Basic law. Can you just leave the freedom of speech thing alone for a minute, and stick to the point here?

Individual members might allegedly disobey the Knesset Basic Law, but what evidence can you produce to back up your assertion that the Balad party as a whole does this? One of your ex-Presidents is a convicted rapist, and a threat to the security of women everywhere but that's no reason to ban all of Likud from the Knesset (although that sounds like a good idea in any event ) Moshe Katsav - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia but he's just at the tip of an iceburg in that respect List of Israeli public officials convicted of crimes or misdemeanors - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia.

Ultimately if you ban political parties because they disagree with you, how can they express themselves politically? If not through the ballot box, then through the bomb and/or bullet? Or is that the Zionist Israeli plan all along, provoke Israeli muslims into violence so they can be expelled, once and for all? Then start on the Christian Israelis..

Does this ring a belll with anyone?

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.


,

Ok, now we're getting somewhere, it's about time.

Your argument here is interesting, so let me give you the answer.

In Balad's Party platform, articles 2,3, and 5, it directly goes against Israel as a Jewish state, calling to enforce the idea of "country of all its citizens", and to erase any connection to any religious ethnic groups. It calls to a one state solution, basically, mixed citizenship. THAT's Balad's "I BELIEVE", so called.

Now, let us look at the Knesset Basic law:

Knesset Basic Law Article 7A

A candidates list shall not participate in elections to the Knesset, and a person shall not be a candidate for election to the Knesset, if the goals or actions of the list or the actions of the person, expressly or by implication, include one of the following:
1. Negation of the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state;
2.Incitement to racism;
3.support for armed struggle by a hostile state or a terrorist organization against the State of Israel.

The new bill, "Zoabi law", goes against individuals, not political parties as a unit. But Balad is to be tested by its Charter.

But if a group of people from that same party go against the law, one time after the other, in a way it becomes a pattern, you cannot say it's individulat behavior anymore.

Must a political party go against the law in order to express itself? I believe that issue is rediculous.

By all means, on two occasions the Balad party was banned from standing in elections based on this 1985 ammendment to the original 1958 law, and on both occasions this ruling was overturned by the Israeli Supreme Court. Balad has no case to answer according to the Supreme Court of Israel but the Right and Far Right wings in Israeli politics keep trying to ceate new ways to ban them. How you can not see this as a cynical attempt at gerrymandering or at worst voter suppression over 20% of your population?

The fact that they try to ban them indicates nothing, but the fact that they're allowed to do so. The left called to ban Kahane's party, even though he had large4r support than Balad has now. Politicians try to throw out rivals all the time, it's what they do. Why looking so much into it?

My point is, they should be taken out not because Likud or Israel Beitenu wants that, I mean, screw them, too! but they should be taken out because they ACT against the state, not only expressed themselves against it.

 

[Challenger]

...One is not allowed to yell 'Fire' in a crowded theater, and to defend that action, under the umbrella of Free Speech....

If I might be allowed a small correction to your post, "One is not allowed to yell falsely, 'Fire' in a crowded theater, and to defend that action, under the umbrella of Free Speech

 

[Humanity]

To clarify my stance...

I do not wish for some umbrella to enable me to defend my words. I want the freedom to say what the hell I like.

That is not to say that I have my OWN morals, my OWN rules... But I certainly do NOT want someone telling what they should be!

HOWEVER....

If I do choose to say something that is considered racist or incitement then, should I be breaking the criminal law of the land, then I should be ready for whatever punishment is given...

HOWEVER....

To write a constitution that blocks free speech is, in my opinion, criminal and oppressive.

 

[Lipush]

To clarify my stance...

I do not wish for some umbrella to enable me to defend my words. I want the freedom to say what the hell I like.

That is not to say that I have my OWN morals, my OWN rules... But I certainly do NOT want someone telling what they should be!

HOWEVER....

If I do choose to say something that is considered racist or incitement then, should I be breaking the criminal law of the land, then I should be ready for whatever punishment is given...

HOWEVER....

To write a constitution that blocks free speech is, in my opinion, criminal and oppressive.

The constitution doesn't phohibit free speach, it prohibits covering incitement of political parties as free speech.

That is one of the reason why Michael Ben Ari's party woudln't have last long, because it was based on racism.

 

[Beelzebub]

Somehow, I doubt that Niemoller had in mind, political parties devoted to the destruction of the State, when he served-up that historic quote.

States are created, rise, fall, and are eliminated all the time. That a state might think itself above what is right and just is no excuse to pander to it.

Nobody is pandering to a particular state here...

We are talking about the right of any state to suppress a political party when that party is devoted to the destruction or undermining of the state...

Mind you, if the people of that state do not wish such a party to be suppressed, then it is their right to compel their government to lift such a ban...

But, failing popular coercion of the government under such circumstances, parties which present a mortal danger to a nation or government are routinely banned by a large number of countries, friend and foe and in-between, with considerable justification.

When Constitutionality and Safety confront each other in such a context, Safety wins, nearly every time.

That is a limited take on the OP.

We are not just discussing what a state can do, and does do, but also what it should and shouldn't do.

 

[Kondor3]

...One is not allowed to yell 'Fire' in a crowded theater, and to defend that action, under the umbrella of Free Speech....

If I might be allowed a small correction to your post, "One is not allowed to yell falsely, 'Fire' in a crowded theater, and to defend that action, under the umbrella of Free Speech

Point conceded, and nicely done.

 

[toastman]

Somehow, I doubt that Niemoller had in mind, political parties devoted to the destruction of the State, when he served-up that historic quote.

States are created, rise, fall, and are eliminated all the time.
That a state might think itself above what is right and just is no excuse to pander to it.

All the time ? How many states have been eliminated in the last 20 years?

 

[Kondor3]

...We are not just discussing what a state can do, and does do, but also what it should and shouldn't do.

Indeed. And, in that spirit, a state's first duty is to the safety of its citizens, and, when that safety is threatened, a state SHOULD take steps to ban or eliminate the threat.

 

[Beelzebub]

You need to consider a longer historical perspective than that Toasty.

But if you prefer to be so limited:
Sudan, which became two states.

A wider time scale would see that European State sovereignty has been significantly surrendered to the EU, such that Europe dismissed the Greek government and put a group of technocrats in charge.
Communist Russia / The USSR which was a federated state dissolved not so long back.
You may have heard of Nazi Germany, which was dissolved, and its territory divided between conquering powers and two new states. The DDR being one of them. Which also no longer exists. West Germany might be argued to have been transformed both politically and geographically, such that it is an expanded state - Or a completely different state.

Korea was divided by war and became two new states, ending the state which was Korea.

The UK - a sovereign state - could have been destroyed by Scottish independence. It wasn't but it was closer than many expected.

Going back to antiquity, neither Carthage nor Rome exist now. Nor do the City States of Greece. Nor does the nation of Hebrew people.

Japan lost home rule, massive territory, autonomy and had its culture transformed by outside forces. Is that end of one state and the start of another with a similar name? Quite possibly.

In fact, no modern country has remain unchanged over the last 100 years such that it has the same regime, people, culture, outlook, ethos and politics. While a state tries to protect what it is, "what it is" is revolutionised continuously. So what would be treachery or crime 50 years ago is expected and normal now.

States trying to control their people and limit their freedoms are like the Oceans claiming domination over their water particles. They are not controlling them, they are just drawing imaginary lines and saying that they have power to keep people from crossing them. When the people decide to do something different, it is the state which is transformed. Whether a completely transformed state is the same as the last one could be discussed endlessly.

Chew over The Austrian Empire vs modern Germany if you feel inclined.

 

[Beelzebub]

...We are not just discussing what a state can do, and does do, but also what it should and shouldn't do.

Indeed. And, in that spirit, a state's first duty is to the safety of its citizens, and, when that safety is threatened, a state SHOULD take steps to ban or eliminate the threat.

Safety does not mean making other people unsafe.
That is a fallacious argument.

If Israel was interested in the safety of "its people" then it would fix agree borders (1967) and make peace, and receive the backing of most of the world, in doing so.

While a war monger, Israel will have an endless queue of enemies. If it made peace the whole world would back its security. Even me.

 

[toastman]

You need to consider a longer historical perspective than that Toasty.

But if you prefer to be so limited:
Sudan, which became two states.

A wider time scale would see that European State sovereignty has been significantly surrendered to the EU, such that Europe dismissed the Greek government and put a group of technocrats in charge.
Communist Russia / The USSR which was a federated state dissolved not so long back.
You may have heard of Nazi Germany, which was dissolved, and its territory divided between conquering powers and two new states. The DDR being one of them. Which also no longer exists. West Germany might be argued to have been transformed both politically and geographically, such that it is an expanded state - Or a completely different state.

Korea was divided by war and became two new states, ending the state which was Korea.

The UK - a sovereign state - could have been destroyed by Scottish independence. It wasn't but it was closer than many expected.

Going back to antiquity, neither Carthage nor Rome exist now. Nor do the City States of Greece. Nor does the nation of Hebrew people.

Japan lost home rule, massive territory, autonomy and had its culture transformed by outside forces. Is that end of one state and the start of another with a similar name? Quite possibly.

In fact, no modern country has remain unchanged over the last 100 years such that it has the same regime, people, culture, outlook, ethos and politics. While a state tries to protect what it is, "what it is" is revolutionised continuously. So what would be treachery or crime 50 years ago is expected and normal now.

States trying to control their people and limit their freedoms are like the Oceans claiming domination over their water particles. They are not controlling them, they are just drawing imaginary lines and saying that they have power to keep people from crossing them. When the people decide to do something different, it is the state which is transformed. Whether a completely transformed state is the same as the last one could be discussed endlessly.

Chew over The Austrian Empire vs modern Germany if you feel inclined.

Great Job Beezle. You managed to post all of this without answering my question.

 

[toastman]

...We are not just discussing what a state can do, and does do, but also what it should and shouldn't do.

Indeed. And, in that spirit, a state's first duty is to the safety of its citizens, and, when that safety is threatened, a state SHOULD take steps to ban or eliminate the threat.

Safety does not mean making other people unsafe.
That is a fallacious argument.

If Israel was interested in the safety of "its people" then it would fix agree borders (1967) and make peace, and receive the backing of most of the world, in doing so.

While a war monger, Israel will have an endless queue of enemies. If it made peace the whole world would back its security. Even me.

War monger ? Load of crap. Don't attack Israel, and you won't be attacked. A country that refuses to be pushed around and attacked when her enemies feel like it is not a war monger.

 

[Beelzebub]

...We are not just discussing what a state can do, and does do, but also what it should and shouldn't do.

Indeed. And, in that spirit, a state's first duty is to the safety of its citizens, and, when that safety is threatened, a state SHOULD take steps to ban or eliminate the threat.

Safety does not mean making other people unsafe.
That is a fallacious argument.

If Israel was interested in the safety of "its people" then it would fix agree borders (1967) and make peace, and receive the backing of most of the world, in doing so.

While a war monger, Israel will have an endless queue of enemies. If it made peace the whole world would back its security. Even me.

War monger ? Load of crap. Don't attack Israel, and you won't be attacked. A country that refuses to be pushed around and attacked when her enemies feel like it is not a war monger.

It is if it insists on creating enemies then making incursions until they have no option, but violent resistance.

 

[Humanity]

...We are not just discussing what a state can do, and does do, but also what it should and shouldn't do.

Indeed. And, in that spirit, a state's first duty is to the safety of its citizens, and, when that safety is threatened, a state SHOULD take steps to ban or eliminate the threat.

Safety does not mean making other people unsafe.
That is a fallacious argument.

If Israel was interested in the safety of "its people" then it would fix agree borders (1967) and make peace, and receive the backing of most of the world, in doing so.

While a war monger, Israel will have an endless queue of enemies. If it made peace the whole world would back its security. Even me.

War monger ? Load of crap. Don't attack Israel, and you won't be attacked. A country that refuses to be pushed around and attacked when her enemies feel like it is not a war monger.

Israel has no stomach for peace....

Not in their agenda....

Stop the, let's be generous, stop the bullying...

 

[docmauser1]

Sudan, which became two states.

Sweden recognized palistan, so it's no problem, isn't it?

 

[docmauser1]

Safety does not mean making other people unsafe.

Palistanians are notorious for ignoring safety rules.

 

[docmauser1]

Israel has no stomach for peace....

Palistanians have a peculiar understanding of peace, of course.