A Question of Ethics

[LSJ]

While reading about World War II in class, a Jewish girl said that she hates Germany. No one cared, even though she was talking about modern Germany, not WWII Nazi Germany...

I was thinking; is it wrong or acceptable to hate a country?
Either way, our society has controversial issues. No one seems to have a problem with people saying that Iraq sucks, Germany was evil (the people, not the SS), and that they hate Afghanistan without giving reasons found acceptable by others *. Often these people aren't targeting the government, but the actual country. Yet, you would get attacked (either figuratively or physically) for saying that Israel sucks, or that America is a horrible country, without supporting your claims again.
*not that supporting claims makes it justified

I think it should be that if you can voice your hatred for a country, for whatever reasons you have, you should be able to do so about every country, not just the tiny ones with a minority population in your country that you are/were at war with.

Should we have it so it is wrong to openly say your dislike or hatred for a nation, or should people get away with it as free speech?

[Gwendylyn]

If people can openly say they hate homosexuals/blacks/Catholics/midgets (etcetera) and be protected by free speech, I do not see any reason why nations should be exempt. I also see no reason why people wouldn't argue back (esepcially since they do and do it quite vehemently).

The ethics of it are tricky, since I don't know how much free speech is valued in a purely ethical standpoint.

Of course, public figures should follow a more diplomatic and responsible approach, especially when dealing with possible terrorism from affronted nations.

[Shadows]

Although Gwendylyn makes a good point, I think that hating a country itself isn't very acceptable. How can you hate a country for soething most of the people currently living in it didn't have any part in?? I highly oubt that more than3% of Germany had anything to do with WWII, so how can this girl have a problem with them. and yes I saw that she was talking about modern Germany, but was she really? How can she hate the present Germany?? The modern-Germany isn't doing anything to make them evil or whathaveyou. anyways, hating a country isn't possible. There are very few countries these days that have only one type of people, whether you look at them by race, age, culture, religion, etc, etc. etc. I can't imagine anyone hating the US, we are known as the Great Melting POt, we have immagrents and citizens from many countries, you can't say that you hates the uS, mayb you hate the current gov or a certain part of the US, bu tyou cannot hate it entirely.

[Gwendylyn]

Although Gwendylyn makes a good point, I think that hating a country itself isn't very acceptable.

I don't find it acceptable either, which is why I'd use my freedom of speech to point that out.

as far as i'm aware, freedom of speech does not allow you to say anything thats racist, homophobic, sexist, or in any way discriminatory in the UK, and i think thats EU law, not UK law, and so applies to all of europe.

Even looking at the Human Rights article you quoted, there is plenty leeway to interpret that however you want since it never states explicitly that racist/homophobic/sexist/etc speech is against the law (nor does it say discriminatory speech is denied by freedom of speech). If that is how the article is enforced, I'd like to see where this is practically applied (excluding Germany's ban on holocaust denialism).

The bolded part refers to libels, which doesn't fit in this case because making the statement "I hate Afghanistan" or "Afghanistan sucks" is not a lie but a stated opinion. It might also refer to the idea of "My freedom ends where yours begins", in which case this situation still doesn't fit (unless you can show me it does). Of course, I could be interpretting it wrong since I'm not European.

[the Black Prince]

maybe a topic for the ethics forum, given the title...

i for one hate people who abuse the right of freedom of speech, who think it gives them a carte blanche right to say what they like without thought or concern for their audience or targets.

as far as i'm aware, freedom of speech does not allow you to say anything thats racist, homophobic, sexist, or in any way discriminatory in the UK, and i think thats EU law, not UK law, and so applies to all of europe..

but generally speaking, is it wrong to hate a country? yes, very much so, because 99% of the time, most of the reasons you "hate" a country are either mistaken, prejudiced, or nothing to do with the country, and merely its leaders.
to say you hate germany because of the holocaust, is wrong, because that is the fault of the nazis. you'll find the marge majority of modern germans hate the nazis as much as the jews probably do.

*moved to ethos*

[Gaidin]

i for one hate people who abuse the right of freedom of speech, who think it gives them a carte blanche right to say what they like without thought or concern for their audience or targets.

It uhh...does give them that right. I just hate the ones who use that right and then get ****** off and surprised when people respond.

[Sétanta]

You can hardly blamed the poor un-informed masses of the world.

[Tom Paine]

You can hardly blamed the poor un-informed masses of the world.

For not exercising common sense? All rights are qualified rights, so yes you can blame them for it; all rights have responsibilities, so again.

[MaximiIian]

for one hate people who abuse the right of freedom of speech, who think it gives them a carte blanche right to say what they like without thought or concern for their audience or targets.

Yeah, it is kind of annoying when racists are allowed to march through the streets and sling thier festering, enfungulated **** at anyone, i.e the Skokie incident.

marge majority

:sign_ques

*moved to ethos*

Hey, why do guys always post "moved to wherever" whenever you move a thread? I mean, if it's moved, it's kinda obvious that it's been moved. Saying so in a thread is kinda redundant to the ninth magnitude, eh?

[Garbarsardar]

Hey, why do guys always post "moved to wherever" whenever you move a thread? I mean, if it's moved, it's kinda obvious that it's been moved. Saying so in a thread is kinda redundant to the ninth magnitude, eh?

I moved it probably at the same time tBP was posting. Plus we want to increase our letter count. Post count is not fun anymore.

[the Black Prince]

no, it doesn't

European Convention of Human Rights
Freedom of Speech is Article 10, its a qualified right, qualified by Article 10, section 2

The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

of particular note here, the areas in bold.

[Gaidin]

no, it doesn't

European Convention of Human Rights
Freedom of Speech is Article 10, its a qualified right, qualified by Article 10, section 2



of particular note here, the areas in bold.

I guess I get to write it of to cultural differences, as the highest case ive ever heard of something going over speech and freedom thereof is a civil case over here. Though this can vary by state of course. We have a tendency to respond with the slander charges instead of pre-empting them.

I actually prefer it this way due to the nasty nature of precedence. But thats me.

[the Black Prince]

does your bill of rights not include freedom of speech??? i'm assuming your american from the conext of the last post

[Gaidin]

does your bill of rights not include freedom of speech??? i'm assuming your american from the conext of the last post

Yup. But the only things there are restrictions against are statements that would impose a direct and immediate danger. Shouting 'Fire' in a croweded room when there is, in fact, no fire, for an example. This is according to the class I took three years ago so I'm not sure how many places have extended this if any.

[Jesus The Inane]

I was thinking; is it wrong or acceptable to hate a country?

Hate and love, love and hate -- Is it acceptable to love a country? Love and hate are very interesting emotions/feelings. They both can bring you sorrow. And they both can bring you joy. Let me ask you this; What is wrong with hating? Hate is a very powerful feeling, a feeling that can make you feel good, that can make you feel righteous. Hate can make you very efficient at certain things. Just like love.

I shall conclude that it all comes down to whether that hate is productive, or rather said; brings the Good into this world. And by Good, I suppose I mean joy/pleasure. Furthermore, I would go as far as saying that there is nothing wrong with hate in itself, and so cannot be morally wrong.

[RusskiSoldat]

I hate Poland.
In the sense that whenever I get into Politics with Polish nationalists, it ends with fighting.
Of course seeing as how that happenned about twice, and I regularly communicate with most Poles just fine, it's debatable whether I really hate Poland.
When I say I hate a country, it means I see it as a threat and the ruling class as politicaly dangerous.

[the Black Prince]

there ARE some unqualified rights

ARTICLE 3 - Right to be free from Torture
No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

ARTICLE 6 - Right to a fair trial
In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgement shall be pronounced publicly by the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.
Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;
(b) to have adequate time and the facilities for the preparation of his defence;
(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;
(d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;
(e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

ARTICLE 7 - Right to non-retroactive criminal sanctions
No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.

ARTICLE 12 - Right to marry
Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right.

ARTICLE 13 - Right to Human Rights Remedies
Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.

ARTICLE 14 - Right to exercise all rights free from discrimination
The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

this last one is my favourite, because the court of human rights stated that Articles 12 and 14 meant that everyone had a right to marry (article 12), and the right to marry couldn't be restricted by sexuality (article 14), and therefore Gay Marriage was a human right (Karner v Austria 2004: ECHR)

the remaining rights are all qualified, or have exceptions
Article 2 - Right to Life (self defence, public order)
Article 4 - Freedom from Slavery and Forced Labour (military service, civic obligations)
Article 5 - Right to Liberty (criminal sanctions)
Article 8 - Right to Privacy (criminal sanctions, public order, rights of others)
Article 9 - Freedom of Thought (rights of others)
Article 10 - Freedom of Speech (rights of others)
Article 11 - Freedom of Peaceful Assembly (public order, criminal sanctions)

[Zenith Darksea]

Well, since people are divided more by social class than by nationality, I don't see any good excuse for disliking a whole country.

[Tom Paine]

Article 3, is very dependant on definition of crual, inhuman and degrading; solitary confinement is pretty cruel, for instance.
Article 6 doesn't seem to apply any more, in the UK (speeding isn't a trial matter, for example)
Article 7 should keep those who didn't speak hatred in the nation if they hadn't since it was passed and didn't...
Article 12: "according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right." by definition a qualified right.
Article 13, what right to remedy do those whose rights under 6 have been breached have?
Article 14 "national or social origin" different treatment of immigrants.

[the Black Prince]

Article 3 - Yes, the european commission on the prevention of torture did indeed rule that 3 british prisons (all of them remand prisons) were in breach of this article in 1990...

Article 6 - speeding isn't a criminal offence, its a regulatory offence

Article 7 - i don't understand the point you are making

Article 12 - no. it says everyone has the right to marry. and they do. it allows national laws to put restrictions on age and circumstance of marriage, but that doesn't mean that there is an exception to everyone marrying.

Article 13 - breach of article 6 has always been a grounds for appeal in UK cases. a famous example is that of T (a minor) v UK (Court of Human Rights) where the two boys involved in the killing of Jamie Bulger appealed to the court in strasbourg after exhausting all UK appeal routes on the grounds that a) their trial wasn't fair because they were tried in an adult court and couldn't understand proceedings. b) their trial was biased because of the media presence. c) they were subject to an indeterminate sentance imposed by a non judicial authority (they were detained at Her Majesty's pleasure, meaning they were detained until a home secretary decided to release them, which occured when they both reached 18)

the Court upheld the appeal on all 3 grounds, and ordered the UK government to pay compensation. the court did not advise or order any change to their sentance, and only advised, with regard to reason c) that the UK review this sentance and the policy of home secretaries reviewing cases in this manner (something which now should no longer happen)

Article 14 - an immigrant has the right to be treated the same as anyone else... it would, for instance, be unlawful to award a job to a less qualified british person over an immigrant, simply because he was an immigrant