Strasbourg Court: Communist Red Star is OK (!)

Remove all ads!

http://www.politics.hu/20111104/str...ary-to-pay-compensation-in-red-star-ban-case/

What the hell is this? So everyone should be allowed to wear a swastica because there is no indication of the restoration of the Nazi dictatorship either?!

Several meanings eh? Red Star is the symbol of Communism. Just like swastica is the symbol of Nazism. They arrest you for wearing a swastica almost everywhere. But the Strasbourg Court used a double standard in case of the Red Star. Isn't this terrible offensing and hurtful for those who lost their family in red regimes? When will Europe understand that the communist regimes are as terrible as the nazi regimes?!

 

You know, it isn't a double standard when two different things are treated differently. Just saying.

​

Incidentally, I think that's what the court has been doing, treating two things differently. Take comfort in that you don't need to guess about their reasoning. They tell you what has been on their mind when they wrote the verdict. That's what verdicts are about. You may find that out, or probably not, if you bothered reading the verdict - which is public, as such verdicts always are. It isn't difficult to find either - i.e. you could put your boundless endurance to some good use.

Besides, that's some crude and nasty propaganda you put up there. Government issue?

 

The person who won the trial against the Hungarian State told in an interview that he plans to rehabilitate the Communist Red Star as the symbol of the fight against nazism and extremism. He also added that he wants to achieve at the Strasbourg Court that sickle and hammer will be allowed again as a symbol. Hell, tens of millions of people died because of Communism. But why not, let's rehabilitate the swastica as well?!!

Following your usual habit of manipulation and twisting, you come with the Heineken symbol. There, that red star is in a CONTEXT, and thus it's clear it's part of a bigger, composite symbol. The red star is not used as a separate entity there. On the other hand, the person who won that trial were using it as a standalone symbol and he admittedly used it as the symbol of Communism.

The symbol of Communism which is responsible for the death, humiliation and suffering of tens of millions of people.

P.S.: the image I initially added was a wrong one, I accidently copied a wrong URL, it's corrected now.

 

The Swastika has been in use as a religous symbol for over 3,000 years. I don't see any more reason for it to be illegal than the red star. I think a ban on either is stupid but if one is allowed to be banned I don't see why the other isn't.

 

Imagine there is a sharp blade, e.g. it looks like a Nazi swastika. And that sharp blade is used to cut your father/mother/child/family (whatever applies) to little pieces, everything is covered with blood. You survive the attack.

You won't care for the rest of your life what religious symbol it was before they used it for this purpose. What will matter to you is the wound you got after your slaughtered family.

There is a high number of people whose feelings may be similar.

 

I don't think it was a "mistake" you posted that Baronius. Incidentally, it was just the picture the case was all about. It was also quite remarkable. It sported three outstretched hands, one with a swastika, another one with a red star and the third with the EU symbol.

Spoiler

​

Dear reader, the background that Baronius, probably overwhelmed by emotion, was incapable of expressing coherently is as follows: This was an anti-eu poster (the legend reads "You can vote with a NO too") that some Hungarian group put out. The people who put it up were arrested in Hungary for using this poster because it contains banned Nazi and Soviet symbols (and not because of the context in which it put them, which is kinda amusing).

Now the Strasbourg court ruffled Baronius' feathers by saying that the arrest violated the European Convention of Human Rights because the law prohibiting the mere display of Nazi and Soviet symbols was formulated too broadly, thus overreaches and infringes upon freedom of expression. He can't have that because the commies were super bad, and thus the star must always and forever be banned. So to him, mapping the outer borders of incomprehension, the verdict is all about the 'Red star being ok'. Figures.

The European Court of Human Rights court in Strasbourg (which is not a EU court by the way, but the one administering the European Convention of Human Rights - two distinct things) elaborates in FRATANOLÓ v. HUNGARY (Application no. 29459/10):

After reading that, it's not difficult to see how they could rule on the poster the way they did. Indeed, if anything, the poster indicates very clearly not identifying with either the Nazis or the Commies, quite the opposite - it's all about lumping them all together with the EU as something equally bad. Now, that's some crude and nasty propaganda, but banning the use of the symbols outright is overreach.

IMO had the Hungarians written a smarter, more nuanced bill, that, in the widest sense, takes into account 'mens rea' it may have stood up in court. But if Fidecz lawmakers are anything like Baronius, they don't do nuance.

 

Oh, I've seen that image (the three hands) before. I'm surprised someone would get in trouble over it, as it's obviously anti-communist and anti-Nazi.

So should you walk around with a swastika on your T-shirt? I generally am ok with free speech, so I guess I'll live with it. Of course, just because it's legal doesn't make it any less tasteless or likely to get you in trouble. You could probably go out with a shirt with "I like being sodomized, ask me about my low rates" and your phone number underneath. It isn't smart, but it might be legal.

 

Thinking about it, since, according to the court the Hungarian law has the reflex "use of communist symbol = offence" (and there is no sensible reason a rational mind could conceive to suggest that their assessment isn't accurate) this motive would then get me into trouble in Hungary:

​

 

Baronius,

I have a question: Did they just rule on a red star - like any generic red star - or specifically the red star with the hammer and sickle? I'm of the opinion that a red star alone would, in fact, be too broad of a restriction. However, if they are talking specifically about a red star with a hammer and sickle, then yes, I agree that that would be Communist symbol.

 

Aldeth,
you can see it yourself in the spoiler in post #6. It's just a star, but in the context the symbolism is unmistakeable.

 

OK, now I get the context, but I still don't get why it should be banned. If you live in a democratic nation, and support the concept of free speech, that picture would be covered. I agree with the court - while it may cause some hard feelings, you can't ban all types of red stars everywhere. The only way you could argue that such a picture shouldn't be allowed is if there was a fear that it would lead to violence or harm to someone.

 

If the Swastika is banned in all contexts (due to its Nazi usage), then the Red Star should be, too, if it's used in an unambigious context. E.g. it's perfectly distinguishable whether someone uses a Heineken symbol, or that person uses a communist red star admittedly (!), i.e. he admits it.

Simply because it would hurt many people, just like the Swastika.

It makes me sad how many BoM members think pragmatically all the time, forgetting about humane approach, about the need that we people shouldn't hurt each other. The Swastika (in its Nazi form) is hurtful to many people, because terrible things were performed under that symbol. I don't want to be unfair with anyone, but I think it's easy to be "constitutional", pragmatic and so on -- from the safety of your home, on an online forum. But if anyone from your family had been tortured, humiliated, killed etc. by such regimes, you would know how to think with a bit more empathy. In Hungary, we consider empathy a very important thing. Because that is one of the things that makes you human -- that you're able to imagine yourself in the place of others. Others who suffered a lot, and may be more sensitive to certain things than yourself.


P.S.: Ragusa, feel free to chew the original photo I linked to, and accuse me of lying. I still repeat (for a last time) to everyone: I wanted to choose an appropriate image (a communist symbol) from an image collection, and my right-click/"Copy image URL" went to the wrong place in the image list (as the images were close to each other).

 

Communism is still a valid political orientation in many places.

Being a Nazi isn't...

 

This is unacceptable pragmatism. It also questions the crimes of the Communist regimes. When will the world put aside the double standard: Nazi unacceptable, Communism/Stalinism tolerable?!

So here we're, again. Another, foreign court is going to say how the Hungarian law WILL judge particular cases. At least in your interpretation, it is in this way. Then let's return to reality: in Hungary, noone, ever, was sanctioned for using a photo (or similar) that you have linked. Simply because there is no Red Star on it., and the context is also pretty clear: it's not a standalone Communist symbol, it's a composite photo. The Red Star, when used as a communist symbol, IS a forbidden symbol -- you can try to defend it in whatever way you wish -- it's a pity I haven't seen you anywhere defending the nazi Swastika in the same way.

 

Here's the thing though - the picture of the three sets of hands is certainly not portraying Nazism or Communism in positive lights. In fact, it's comparing the EU to those things, meaning if anything is being portrayed negatively it's the EU. This, to me, is political propaganda, and in that regard, use of the star and swastika fits in rather well, as those regimes were masters of such.

Going a bit further, use of such symbolism was deliberate precisely because it would hit home with many Hungarians. We only have a little over 20 years since the fall of Communism, so it's in the living memory of every adult Hungarian. But the purpose of the photo isn't to promote Nazism or Communism. In fact, you don't even need to know what the subtitle says to come away with the clear message that the poster is trying to drive home:

Nazism = BAD!
Communism = BAD!
EU = BAD!

Now I also don't believe that the creators of the poster actually feel that the EU will be as bad as the other two. And so in that sense, the poster is also satirical, and political satire has always been covered by freedom of expression.

EDIT: Also don't forget that in America, it's not uncommon to see protests where people are comparing Obama to Hitler or Stalin. That's ALSO covered be freedom of expression, and is a whole lot more of a direct linkage of the message you're sending than using a red star.

 

Aldeth, you missed the point and overlooked something (but nonetheless, of course, your post has good points and the photo I accidently linked originally -- and Ragusa re-posted it -- is an interesting subject for analysis). You missed the point because the photo which Ragusa re-posted has nothing to do with the discussion regarding which symbols should be forbidden and which shouldn't. It was a pure accident from my side that I linked to that picture which confused the European Union into this.

Answer me one question: do you think the crimes of Nazis are worse than the crimes of Communist regimes?

In America, freedom of speech is too broad IMO. But at least there is no double standard there, as far as I can see. (Unlike in the EU, where freedom of speech is limited more rationally usually, but a double standard is often applied.) In the EU, as we know, Holocaust denial is a crime. According to Ragusa, it's correct because holocaust denial is an attack against the German constitution (if I remember his words). Funny that communist crime denial (which is a crime in Hungarian law since 2010) is not considered unconstitutional by Ragusa. Double standard, double standard...

 

Hungary, victimised again?

To wit: Hungary is a party to the European Convention of Human Rights, and, as a result, it has submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the court. That means that the European Court of Human Rights has every right to judge Hungary over the implementation of the convention. That is so, because the Hungarian people, through its representatives, has given them that right. If you don't like that, tough for you.

And whether the Nazis or the communists were worse is beside the point - this is about freedom of expression and whether Hungarian law properly reflects the European Convention of Human Rights. It doesn't, because, as the court lines out, it doesn't take into account trifles like intent.

In my country, we have laws banning the use of for instance the swastika. They have stood up in the European Court of Human Rights, but they are different laws which reflect things like intent. That is why there is no double standard here. Whoever wrote that bill in Hungary just did a crappy job and produced a bill that didn't properly reflect Hungary's obligations under international law.

I already told you that the Hungarians could have written a better bill, banning some display of these symbols, probably with good reason and that would have stood up in court. But just as I said earlier, you folks don't do nuance - that would be "unacceptable pragmatism" as you so inimitably put it.

 

I hope they don't outlaw Red Star Belgrade...would be a shame!

 

Not to mention any of the CSKA teams.

 

Even if every double standard you point out is true, so what? It does nothing to falsify their position. If I say "North Korea is bad", I don't have to say "but so is Somalia, Columbia, etc." to make it a valid point. Bad debate tactic, IMO.