Really weird most recent tweet by Jonny Daniels - implying that Grzegorz Braun [a well known critic of his and Judaism in general] is a Jew himself. I don't know if Daniels is just trying to wind up Braun fans.
Not sure what all these dudes want from us. Just money or something else... I've never understood them. Better focus on our own affairs and ignore the the whole oy vey.
What the hell is he playing at now? I could understand him apologising because the nationalists have had enough of his bollocks, but that tweet is plain weird.
By the way, I spent a good hour trying to trace him online, and it's all very strange. The first mention I can find of him is here - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoring_Courage_tour - when he was working as a "scheduler" for Glenn Beck in 2011. For someone apparently so media-savvy, why is there barely any mention of him online before 2013?
There's also two websites that both mention him as a Republican strategist in Israel, but that's it. And curiously, he seems to be well connected to Mormons too.
Scheduler for Glenn Beck? Really? I didn't know that. So it could be that before 2011 he was in the Israeli army, although there was probably something after that, before the Beck stuff.
Yup, it looks like his association with Glenn Beck is what led him to others within the Republicans. He's definitely a known face in Republican circles, which ties in perfectly with why he was able to suddenly jump into the heart of PiS. It also explains the sudden massive interest in Poland, though I think at this point, we can agree that he's really here representing American-Israeli interests.
Who or what he represents in Poland I don't know. Politicians in Poland are weird, all that goings had been very strange. Johnny Daniels had been an adviser to Mitt Romney's presidential campaign. Asked to run for Knesset. A real rolling stone.
Israeli Knesset Rejects Bill Recognizing the Armenian Genocide armenianweekly.com/2018/02/14/israeli-knesset-rejects-bill-recognizing-armenian-genocide "The Israeli leadership diminishes itself by so transparently treating genocide remembrance as a commodity to be bartered with Erdogan," gotta love those Israeli guys.one would think that Jews would understand Armenians ..ehh
@Maf, where humankind errs, it clearly needs government to firmly step in and set things right, that's only common sense. Remember the old wisdom "Man proposes, God disposes" (Czlowiek strzela, Pan Bog nosi kule)!
Lol, hilarious the logical inconsistencies in the lefts argument, they seem to like authoritarianism when its used to brow beat people into accepting their version of social justice by using the states legitimate monopoly on violence. Brilliant.
Say, some child is being bullied mercilessly in the schoolyard. The young boy (presumably) could try their best to fend off the bully. Then again, as with more than may care to admit, they might need some help from a school authority to protect and defend the child against such bullying! Have the kid ask his fellow pupils, "Gee, ya think I asked for it, or not?". these days, chances are the other kids would side with the bully, not the victim...the price of what is sometimes termed (in-)human nature. In addition, some out there are simply not as equipped to engage in rough housing and street fighting, no matter how hard they try to shed a nebbishy self image. Why ought anyone allow the truly deserving to suffer, penalizing them, while rewarding the wrong doer aka the bully?
My point is that gov't. in most civilized societies is, at least SHOULD, be there to protect and defend citizens from hatred, bullying, and violence against the weaker of this world, born through no choice of their own, less burly, tough-looking or physically intimidating than certain others. The average person usually falls short of their responsibilities to follow the Bible's guidelines; they need a higher force to intervene. We are all commanded to do so. Like the proverbial traffic signs, it's not a suggestion, it's the unspoken law.
No not really. There is a very big distinction between hateful feelings or rhetoric, being mean, and physical violence. Only the latter is illegal and punishable by law. The previous two are and should not be purview of the state to sanction people for.
There is a very big distinction between hateful feelings or rhetoric, being mean, and physical violence. Only the latter is illegal and punishable by law.
That's not quite true. There has been a tacit acknowledgement for a long time of how powerful non-physical attacks can be. That's why mental cruelty/abuse can be cited in a divorce case. And now cyber bullying is being recognized. Bullying through social exclusion is very common amongst teenagers and can be found in many adult settings and the workplace too. I personally think that 'hateful rhetoric' as you call it, should be liable for consequences if it's uttered in a public setting because it breaches the laws of civilized behaviour and social responsibility which we all share in maintaining.
Sure. But you do see the problem with that right, physical violence is an objectively observable and therefore punishable thing. The problem with ' hate speech', or mean and offensive speech, is that it is entirely subjective and based on a person's perception. Atch, i imagine some things I would consider to be offensive you would not and vice versa. Should the state then start sanctioning people based on the individual feelings of what that person finds offensive? How can someone know if something is likely to be offensive to another person? I'm sure you can draw a line at some point, but certainly the net will have to be cast very wide, and we've seen the sorts of issues that arise from that with UK police arresting 4,000 people last year for saying mean things on social media. So, we'll let government draw the arbitrary line in the sand about what constitutes another person's feelings being hurt? Sure, just hope that you realize the implications this has for controversial speech. In the United States people are claiming that having to listen to conservative oriented speakers at their college constitutes 'violence' against them. Others have said that affirming the fact there are only 2 genders is a form of violence that makes trans people feel unsafe. Should people censor their own beliefs in order to avoid running afoul of the law? Certainly in some European countries giving scrutiny to the belief system of Islam is considered hate speech, while openly denigrating Christian beliefs is not. So, I think that this is a totally arbitrary concept of law, and I think it will end up doing a lot of harm.
@ShockedinPoland
Sorry I thought it was quite clear I was speaking about the left/right on social issues only. And rather, I was probably referencing more the American left/right paradigm, but I'll be sure to clarify that for you in the future.
some child is being bullied mercilessly in the schoolyard
So you want to infantilize adults.... really? Children are not moral agents (not fully) adult citizens are.
in most civilized societies is, at least SHOULD, be there to protect and defend citizens from hatred, bullying, and violence against the weaker of this world
Which is why Israel takes such exquisite care of the Palestinians, a beacon to the world!
responsibilities to follow the Bible's guidelines
Nope. Not gonna work with me. I don't buy into religious arguments. Build a civil society argument for limiting speech that the government doesn't like (which is what all 'hate speech' laws quickly devolve into).
In the United States people are claiming that having to listen to conservative oriented speakers at their college constitutes 'violence' against them.
I think that if one is going to have, let's say a law of consequences, then it should operate within the boundaries of basic common sense and I would have zero tolerance for that kind of nonsense. Common sense and common courtesy should be the boundary within which 'hate speech' is defined. A politician, be they conservative or left wing, should not use 'unparliamentary language'. If they stay within that boundary then I think they have an absolute right to make their speeches and be listened to whether I agree with their policies, their opinions etc or not.
the American left/right paradigm
I think to be honest that that's a recurring problem on this forum, but an interesting one. Members who are either American or Americanized have a different perspective on the world to the Europeans. Remember the other day, when you were somewhat shocked and horrified by my indifference to Zionism - well that's because I'm not American and it isn't an issue for me as an Irish person. By the same token, post-Brexit maintenance of the Common Travel Area and avoidance of a hard border in Ireland is of no concern to America but is to the EU, as it influences the Brexit deal regarding the Customs Union and free movement of people.
and we've seen the sorts of issues that arise from that with UK police arresting 4,000 people last year for saying mean things on social media
Death threats are not 'mean things', there are explicit laws dealing with threats of violence, going back hundreds of years.Similar laws exist for use against terrorism.
Agreed, threats of or calls to violence against individuals or identifiable groups of people are not protected. But many of the things that people are being arrested for in the UK and Germany (for example) are hardly credible threats of violence and are instead simply government crackdowns against a population that's getting to uppity.
I'm against the current Polish law (and holocaust denial laws) because they're about criminalizing belief. People have the right to believe wrong things - if not they have no other rights.
Who was arguing that threats of imminent violence not be punished under the law? I certainly never have in my life, as that's a clear exception to free speech. There are numerous examples among those 4,000 people arrested who never made such threats, and merely said something very critical of Islam, an ideology, and all ideologies deserve ferocious and brutal scrutiny. That is the danger I see in those laws. Feel free to sign up to the forum and be taken seriously, btw.
The Bible also says that people aren't suppose to wear clothes made of two different materials. Are we supposed to follow that too? Or just things that are convenient?
@Maf, tain't a question of following "religious arguments" or not! The issue is, rather than "infantilizing adults" (whatever the heck that's supposed to mean), allowing those who perhaps might know better, to weigh in on situations before they spin out of control!! Maybe you're a completely well-adjusted male, doesn't mean everybody else is, does it?
If you are in a position of authority and strength and you see someone being bullied right in front of you, being threatened with homophobic or racist threats, I'd hope you'd at least attempt to get help or express some sort of concerted outrage.
By the by, I have my problems with Israeli hypocrisy myself, so you needn't throw that example up to me. Sadly, I'd have to agree with you there.
Denigrating someone's sexual orientation or religion, while mean spirited and impolite, and something I would stand up for another person if I saw, is a matter of manners and common decency, but certainly not an area for the state to become involved in policing people's thoughts and feelings about other people or groups. It does not rise to the level of excepted speech or the incitement of imminent violence. Stop trying to move the goal post.
tain't a question of following "religious arguments" or not!
Then stop invoking religious texts.
"infantilizing adults" (whatever the heck that's supposed to mean)
It refers to treating adults like small children who need protection. Adults should be able to look out for themselves.
see someone being bullied right in front of you, being threatened with homophobic or racist threats,
Completely unrelated to the question about whether the government should be criminalizing beliefs.
If an adult tells other adults they think the holocaust either didn't happen or is greatly exaggerated then trying to throw them in jail is admitting you have no other arguments.
Freedom of expression only works if it covers the expression of personal beliefs that others find abhorrent or ugly or dangerous.
Home / News / Israel opposing potential new Polish law to criminalise term 'Polish death camps'
