Strasbourg Court: Communist Red Star is OK (!)

Remove all ads!

And you're right completely -- and I say: if a specific, graphic symbol is hurtful in their culture, their law should prohibit it.

This type of globalization (imagining some big general law) is disgusting. There are cultures. You don't burp several huge ones after a dinner, while in many African cultures, it's an insult if you don't do so. Similarly, there are cultures and historical specifics with their own wounds -- in the Middle East too, they are free to establish such laws. As everywhere else. The fact that wearing a Communist symbol in Hungary is a crime does not mean it should be a crime in USA, South Africa, Australia. There is no universal law. It's arrogant and foolish to imagine that the same laws (in legislation respect) should apply to everyone in every culture, inside their culture.

 

OK, then provide some context of the replaced symbol. The only thing that the article you linked to states is he was wearing a patch with a red star on it. Is the picture a replica of what the patch was?

Umm... Do I have to pick? Both killed millions. I'd say they are both equally bad. Are we supposed to judge on body count alone?

 

I can answer that question. In my opinion the crimes of the Nazis stand above pretty much everything else we humans have done to each other throughout history. Not in the amount of killed (although it can be argued that everyone who died in WW2 can be put at their feet) but the reasons and ways they killed people. People killed in the name of communism are really no different from people killed by any other totalitarian regime throughout history. Stalin killed those who opposed him or those he imagined opposed him. The vast number of the victims of communism would probably be labelled manslaughter in a court of law if you could ever try an ideology. The intent of the cultural revolution wasn't to kill millions of people, it was the result and it might have been foreseen but it wasn't the intention. The horrors in Cambodia wasn't primarily designed to kill people but more a twisted, misguided fanatical attempt to create an impossible utopia.

What the nazis did was premeditated murder. Their stated and proud goal was to exterminate groups of people they deemed to be sub-human. They built factories for that purpose, they spent resources they sorely needed to fight a war on exterminating unwanted human beings. That is why it is worse than what has been done in the name of communism, or in the name of various religions, worse than all the countless atrocities committed by kings and warlords throughout history. Generally atrocities are committed out of some twisted sense of pragmatism, the killings can make sense in some weird and horrible fashion. Not so with the worst of the nazi crimes. The stated goal of communism isn't "kill a bunch of people", the stated goal of nazism is. That is why I find the nazi crimes to be worse than the communist crimes.

 

Well, it apparently is a least a lot broader than in most of Europe. Which is odd when you think about it, because regarding most social issues, most of Europe is considerably more progressive than the US. For example, I doubt there are many European nations that are still arguing over whether birth control should be covered by medical insurance. And a host of other things that would be completely off topic that I won't go into.

But as it does relate to the post, there is obviously some underlying feeling for that in Europe that is not felt in the US. I can understand Germany specifically banning use of the swashtika. Note that it is NOT banned in the US. There are certainly neo-nazi hate groups in the US - many of which are tied to certain chapters of the Ku Klux Klan, but so long as their symbolism and demonstrations do not rise to the level of actual violence, or the perception that they may be inciting violence, they are perfectly legal.

 

No, the replaced image is just an illustration for the topic (so it's not more relevant than the earlier one, but at least not misleading as the earlier one was). The text description clearly states that the person "merely" wore a communist red star, so the corrected photo can't lead to any conclusion.

The question was directed at Ragusa (and it's no problem you answered it, of course; just in case you believed I targeted you with it). And no, it's not only "body count" that matters; the whole system and implementation matters -- e.g. as joacqin described. And as I wrote it too: an industrialized, perfectly organized death factory -- and the fact that people were humiliated before death, their dignity was taken etc.

Exactly. However, the case with the most terrible Communist regimes is very very similar: just the organization is somewhat less precise; but the systematic and "mass" nature is present. The world knows much about the Nazi crimes, and knows less about Communist crimes. But the most terrible Communist crimes also took dignity from people and horribly humiliated them before their torture and slaughter -- and the size and systematism is not much smaller than in case of the Nazi regime.

 

Oh, is that so? And proof for that asinine assertion is that we disagree with you?

For heaven's sake, cut the lecturing already. Your nauseating arrogance is just as grossly insulting as your boundless ignorance.

When exactly did the Communists anything like what the Fascists did, for instance in Hungary (just speaking of Nazis is putting it too narrow)? Just asking. The only one to come close would be Pol Pot IMO, but that guy was down there in Cambodia, and not really a problem for you - it didn't happen in Hungary after all, and it is thus very likely not true. What is so very annoying about your tirades is that you have the two themes "Hungary is treated unfairly" and "Communism is the devil", which you then variegate. Dissent with your glorious ideas is then inevitably sanctioned with your third theme "You all know nothing, only Hungarians (read: Baronius) can understand".

Just as with every other three trick pony, things are getting tiresome quickly.

 

Ragusa, the immense mental complex (inferiority complex?) and cynicism that is coming from your posts all the time makes me think that you need to chill a bit. Visit a psychologist, or try taking a break -- go to holidays. I'm telling it sincerely -- stress doesn't do good.

It's not my problem that half the world is either ignorant (or rather: intentionally blind and hipocritical), when it's about Communist crimes. (Which doesn't mean that every communist regime can be compared to Nazism; but e.g. the Stalin regime was definitely not better or worse than Hitler's).

Or, talking generally:

Their human dignity was taken, in the same cruel and horrible way as it happened with the victims of Nazis.

Those who argue that the Nazi crimes are worse are ignorant. They're different, but not worse (and not "better").

 

Baronius, I'd say you agree with the court that a red five-pointed star needn't automatically mean "communism." I think this is now a personal argument rather than any political statement. Now, did the person who was punished and later ruled in favor of wear just a plain red star or the hammer and sickle one you posted in your first post? I'd appreciate it if you could provide a link.

Personally, I think neither the red star nor the swastika should be automatically banned. It is groups that promote violence and hatred that should be. Symbols can be used for good or evil, and have no say in it either way.

 

He wore a Red Star, there wasn't a hammer in sickle in it to my knowledge. But he admittedly wore it as a Communist symbol.

In theory, you're right. But then there is sensitivity. And I think that is one of the things that makes us people. And law should deal with it too. Human dignity was taken from many people -- some of them survived. There is an immense amount of blood tied to the Nazi Swastika and to the communist Red Star, and their prohibition is both for the people who may be hurt by their sight, and also a reminder to the new generation: horrible things are tied to these symbols. On one hand, some posters argue here how exceptionally terrible and unique the Nazi regime was, and on the other hand, we can also see arguments that symbols are just symbols, and there is much violence done in the name of religion, money etc. So, the real conclusion is, exactly because Nazism and Communism are extraordinary, and responsible for the systematic and cruel death of many millions, tens of millions of people, their symbols should be treated as such as well. Plus, there are many people who are sensitive to their symbols.

For me, freedom of speech ends when there are people who might be hurt with it. It is disgusting to me when I see that some people want to disregard the possible sensitivity of others in the name of freedom of speech, with the pretext that "everyone can be sensitive to something, we can't prohibit everything". Indeed, prohibiting is a dangerous way and may endanger freedom of speech, but allowing everything has the same effect: it endangers the right of people for human dignity.

But some people will never understand this. Becuase nowadays, empathy is a rare thing, and people must experience something on their skin to be able to overcome their idealistic, theoretical thinking about law and order. World is not about law. We need law, but something is much more important: to care about each other and to remain a human, in any and all circumstances.

 

Just another example of a problem with no real solution, IMO. I see the merits of both sides, and yet they can't really coexist peaceably together.

 

That statement hurts me, so you're not allowed to say it anymore. Also, talking about Hungary offends me because my ex-girlfriend was from there and she was a total *****, so you're not allowed to talk about that either.

 

@Gaear: Most things in the world like that. A balance must be found. But the balance is always the balance of the moment
(year, decade, century etc.).

@damedog: you're the perfect negative example of what I was talking about. Total lack of empathy. (What you wrote can't be compared to what many people suffered and may feel -- I wish you never experience such things on your own skin.)

@BTA: I don't want to hurt you, but that is cheap "liberal" talk. Because no matter what that person feels, he can know how he may offend others with it, others who truly suffered or lost their family or parents. Same with the Swastika: as Gaear pointed out, there is no solution, so only balance can be searched. And probably a person who refrains himself from using the Communist red star (no matter if he feels positively about it) will be less hurt than those who may be hurt by the Communist red star. He NEEDS to know this, because the crimes of Communism are not an "opinion", they are HISTORICAL FACTS.

Yes, the other thing besides empathy is selflessness. Even less selfless people can be seen in the interest-driven world nowadays. It's sad.

They may have all the love and benevolence regarding the Communist red star, but the facts remain facts, and history remains history: terrible deeds happened in the name of that symbol. So, from a legal point of view, TRUTH itself is a good justification why to protect people whose human dignity was taken by such regimes.

It's really sad how sensitivity is lacking from people nowadays. Especially from those who have lived their little safe life without any true disasters, and their parents also didn't tell them anything about how the real world works. Yes, it's easy to say that "freedom of speech is more important than not hurting others", and that "those who are sensitive should go to a psychologist" etc. Yes, that's one of the reasons why so many people end up at psychiaters (in the USA, too): people feel rootless, weaker people don't get tolerance, parents don't talk enough to their children (instead they buy some DVD as a gift and send the kids to watch it), for many people there are no true values anymore in this world. Just interest, just "freedom" to do anything (and a lot of cynicism and sarcasm against those who actually still care about traditional values and human respect which was considered normal in our grandparents' times). Every freedom has a limit -- and that limit is exactly the freedom of another person for something else.

 

I do have empathy, but not to the point of shutting a person up because someone is offended. My previous post was making a point about how any and all reasons can be used to silence speech if we are to use that principle, and it can have many dark motivations behind it. If we are to silence speech because people are hurt by it, I can very well imagine mainstream Republicans in the U.S wanting to shut out talk about socialism because of all the bad things associated with groups who claimed the name (but actually weren't socialist, imho). Or how about rap music or black metal. Both of these things have graphic lyrics of death and hatred and shouldn't be allowed either then, someone might be offended! Maybe we can shut out atheism while we're at it since religious people might be hurt by them. Your idea is good in theory but the power to silence people has too much potential for abuse to be allowed.

 

There are critical levels in everything. We're talking about the deaths, suffering and humiliation of tens of millions of people. And unamabiguous symbols that were used by those responsible for the above.

But this is hopeless, and I can't blame you: you never lived in a dictature. You don't know how is it to wake up every day knowing that you don't have any freedom rights.

 

I never doubted this, and I fully agree, of course. But there are limits in everything. Limits in freedom of speech, too. And that is what you can't understand. And if you admit you didn't live in the dictature, how do you think you're more clever about it than those who actually experienced it?

Read less and try to live a bit real life. Otherwise, I would just say: then you want an Anarchy. Because without rules and restrictions, there is anarchy.

Sometimes the past must be closed, but sometimes it just shouldn't and can't be closed. First, because some people who truly suffered just can't close it -- they were victims, they fought with honesty and persistence, and now should we just show them: "oh, sure, the Swastika was a different symbol before your grandparents were burnt alive after tortured to half-death". Second, while things must be closed, the EXPERIENCE and LESSON from those things shouldn't.

Finally, the past means roots. (Off-topic: it's easy to "worry" about the democracy of a country -- which lost its area, resources and pride -- from your safe, well-fed and powerful country. It's easy to dictate what you consider democracy. But the past means roots: Hungary was a thousand-year kingdom, with the biggest gold and silver mines of Europe, and slowly but surely, it is going to regain its place in Europe -- without giving up democracy, of course. Talking of gold: I wonder if it was a good decision to sell our 60+ tons of gold reserve to USA in the 1990's )

 

Monty,
that is prudent. In my humble opinion "agreeing to disagree" is the polite expression for not wanting to get into a protracted and intractable so-called debate in which one side limits itself to staying on message, no matter how inane their message is, relying on persistent reiteration as a surrogate for an argument.