French President Proposes Jail For Terrorist Website Visitors 402
howardd21 writes "French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who is only a month away from an election, argued that it is time to treat those who browse extremist websites the same way as those who consume child pornography. 'Anyone who regularly consults Internet sites which promote terror or hatred or violence will be sentenced to prison,' he told a campaign rally in Strasbourg, in eastern France. 'Don't tell me it's not possible. What is possible for pedophiles should be possible for trainee terrorists and their supporters, too.' Is this a good move for security, or just another step towards a totalitarian society that prohibits free expression?"
Do you have to ask? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Do you have to ask? (Score:5, Insightful)
Naturally, no.
Special exemptions for "special citizens".
Like how Congress passes a law, but conveniently exempts themselves from it's application to themselves.
Re: (Score:3)
So if you want to legally look at kiddie porn you first get a job monitoring for it.
Basically yes. Go work at any ISP/webhost and you'll likely find several depts that end up dealing with those issues that end up having access to that... anything we took to the FBI and Legal would end up getting burned to a CD and stored in a vault... and the vault was often full... their are some things that you cannot unsee...
Re: (Score:3)
Sarkozy is an "Operation Gladio"-style fascist mole. A "Manchurian Candidate".
http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16194033 [sky.com]
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/243240-Toulouse-Shootings-Gifts-Sarko-the-Avenger-Climb-in-Election-Opinion-Polls [sott.net]
Re:Do you have to ask? (Score:5, Insightful)
Police and civilian IT forensic staff have to witness all kinds of completely illegal images/content on a daily basis and there is no question of any wrongdoing on their part.
But then you knew that anyway.
Re:Do you have to ask? (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope the next massive trojan, doesn't start "visiting" these websites, and of course, it won't infect congressmen or even the president's computer.
Because if it infects regular citizens... I guess many people is going to land jail. Great next trick and seems easier than "planting" child porn on people's computers.
Re: (Score:3)
So, I doubt that many people will end up in jail because of a tro
Re:Do you have to ask? (Score:4, Informative)
I hope the next massive trojan, doesn't start "visiting" these websites, and of course, it won't infect congressmen or even the president's computer.
Well, I'm a bit surprised that it hasn't already happened. Or maybe it has, and just hasn't been publicised. The basic technique was documented in the late 1990s. Google for "javascript preload". It's pretty well documented, and useful for legit purposes. Its main use is for a site to download its images to your cache while you're reading their main page(s), so those images will already be there when you go to other pages that use them. This can materially speed up a site's apparent response time. But it's easy to abuse.
When I read about it way back then, I did a bit of experimenting, and found that it was quite easy to fill the browser cache of anyone (who had javascript enabled) with any images or other files that I wanted them to have, from any other site on the Web. Unless they know to look through their cache, they'd never see those files and would never know they were there. In my tests, I used assorted innocuous-looking images (with only an occasonal "artsy" image of nekkid wimmin ;-). But it was pretty obvious that the technique could as easily be used to fill their disks with stuff that would get them fired or fined or jailed.
I still have my code, so I just tested it on a few of the current browsers. It still works just fine, as long as JS is turned on. And google reports that "javascript preload" gets more than 3 million hits, with some on the first page saying things like "How to Preload an Image", so presumably other programmers are using these JS features, too.
And, lest you think I'm some sort of ï½ber-hacker (who even knows that that word contains an umlaut ;-), I won't tell you where to find my demo. I'll just suggest you talk to any web-programmer friends you may have, and ask them to try it. You may be surprised at how quickly they get it working. Or they may show you that they already have it working on their sites. They're likely to say "Hey, every JS programmer knows that!"
And I don't believe that Congress or the President are immune. Can you imagine them running with scripting disabled? Their only immunity is that they can prevent the investigative agencies from examining their browser caches, or if some investigator does so, they can have him fired.
The only actual defense is turning off all scripting. Anything that downloads code and runs it on your machine is an easy entry path for such malware, especially when it's using popular JS features that are there to speed up your web access.
Sarkozy's proposal would be a good way for his minions to frame their opponents by tricking them into downloading lots of illegal stuff. Probably the only way to fight it would be to organize a project to fill his colleagues' disks with files of the sort that they want to make punishable by law. And up above, I told any interested readers how to find instructions on doing that. (I wonder if they're available in French? ;-)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Do you have to ask? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, just journalists and researchers.
Attacking the soul of France... (Score:5, Insightful)
The French should remind themselves that their motto is Liberté, égalité, fraternité, and that all three bits are important.
Re:Attacking the soul of France... (Score:4, Funny)
The French should remind themselves that their motto is Liberté, égalité, fraternité, and that all three bits are important.
Yes, but some bits are more important than others.
Re:Attacking the soul of France... (Score:5, Interesting)
It is certainly true that some people Simply Aren't Interested in ye olde western enlightenment values, no matter how good a job you do of actually upholding them. Those you pretty much have to put up with, with the proviso that if they cross the line, you'll have to kill them.
For everybody else, though, the lousier and more hypocritical your execution of your supposed ideals, the worse you look, and the better the chap down the road who has shit ideals, but is at least real sincere about them, starts to look.
If your sales pitch ends up being "Welcome to the Free World(tm): We offer the finest in postmodern cynicism and brutality cloaked in the noblest sounding invocations of highflown principle than money can buy. Please look directly into the retinal scanner and have an nice day." You can't very well expect to stem fundamentalist recruitment very effectively...
Re:Attacking the soul of France... (Score:4, Insightful)
For everybody else, though, the lousier and more hypocritical your execution of your supposed ideals, the worse you look, and the better the chap down the road who has shit ideals, but is at least real sincere about them, starts to look.
I'm convinced that that is 90% of Ron Paul's appeal. Or Santorum, for that matter.
Re:Attacking the soul of France... (Score:4, Funny)
"Say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos."
- Walter Sobchak
Re:Attacking the soul of France... (Score:4, Insightful)
Pretty much. I'll be curious to see how that plays out. As others said, this is nothing but a transparent attempt to curry favor with the far-right. They are a minority, but a consistent minority. There's some electoral value in getting on a part of their plank. The real test will be the actual election: will Sarkozy be elected because of it, and will he remember this pledge?
To some extent, I feel the same way about this idea as I feel about a lot of campaign rhetoric in the US. Most of it is nothing but basic pandering to extremist and unpatriotic viewpoints. If we'd take every politician at their election year worth, we'd have been in WW3 for the last 15 years or so.
It is not the french which should be reminded (Score:3)
Re:Attacking the soul of France... (Score:5, Insightful)
The French should remind themselves that their motto is Liberté, égalité, fraternité, and that all three bits are important.
I beg to disagree. I live only a few miles from France, in a possibly worse country (Italy). the three words of the motto are sometimes in contradiction of each other, because one of the best tenets of liberty,and relevant to the topic, is that i must be allowed to hate your guts, which means "middle finger to fraternitè", but that I must not be allowed to limit YOUR liberty to hate MY guts.
individuals will mostly prefer liberty over fraternity; the politicians will always prefer fraternity over liberty, because it will give them the means, and the moral justification to meddle in everybody's life and make themselves relevant. this case is no different, and there's no politico like a french one.
Re:Attacking the soul of France... (Score:5, Insightful)
'The French' are perfectly aware of their motto. This inflammatory statement is nothing more than Sarko playing to the far right trying to take votes away from Marie Le Pen as he knows he can't win with the left.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, they are clever enough to realize that the people in power determine what "terrorist" means. Which is not to say that they are all that clever, but more that the majority knows its not going to have such rules applied to fringe elements more closely aligned to them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Attacking the soul of France... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think on a social level however that a lot of the recent flareups are less about religion and more due to poverty and social inequity. Youths who happen to be muslim engage in criminal activity, the police crack down in a heavy handed way and a things turn into a riot with religion as the excuse.
Re:Attacking the soul of France... (Score:4, Informative)
We had the same thing in Belgium, where pupils have never been allowed to wear hats, caps, etc. in class. So to treat everyone equally, neither can Muslims. Which then, according to them, infringes on their right of religious freedom. Which is ridiculous, of course.
If you were referring to anything else, ignore my comment.
Re: (Score:3)
Care to explain how its ridiculous.
It may be an accepted norm for your society, but its not ridiculous.
If you say we also force men to show their hanging dicks and women to expose their breasts, then there is at least some totality to your argument, however segregating a group on hiding face vs hiding breasts shows why these laws are infringement to a groups religious freedoms. I see no harm come of a group deciding to hide their face as most hide their breasts and genitalia.
If you do have a reasonable expl
Re:Attacking the soul of France... (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course the obvious counter is that only the Muslim's WANT to show their faces, so, even if the law applies to everyone, it only actually affects one group.
The counter to this is that this is always the case with laws; they generally affect only those who would break them.
Anyways, as for your anecdote, what if my religion said I should walk around naked? Would it be religious discrimination for the laws saying one can't go to school naked to also apply to me? If it is reasonable to enforce conformity to one societal standard with respect to attire (don't be naked) than it seems like it is also reasonable to enforce another (don't cover your face).
Re: (Score:3)
I guess you meant that the Muslims were the only ones who wanted to HIDE their faces.. but here is a thing, it doesn't say in the Koran that they should hide their faces, and it is not traditional for Muslim women to do so either. The Burka was invented by religious extremists to consolidate their grip on the population, not for any religious reasons.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
We get along just fine out hear not banning any kind of head gear or symbolism..
In the US there are places such as banks and some schools where you are not allowed to wear headgear. US schools also often require uniforms or have strict dress codes which could cause 'infringement' of religion based on your view.
There also a lot of state laws banning public wearing of masks in the US. Evidently many of them were implemented due to Klan activity in the early 20th century.
Incomplete list of such laws: http://www.anapsid.org/cnd/mcs/maskcodes.html [anapsid.org]?
We do not have as much of a bac
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"they also demand French people to adapt to Muslim costumes."
Aha! I think I finally understand why they banned head scarves, then.
Re:Parent post is not "flamebait" (Score:5, Insightful)
May be worth mentioning the guy who killed 70+ people in Sweden was snow white and claimed to be Christian. Look that fact up too.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That was in Norway, though your point is still valid.
Re: (Score:3)
I think that was Norway. Also, some argue that the killer is agnostic - although a "cultural Christian."
I think the killer, in the this case, (Brevivik?) is just insane, like the guy who Giffords.
For sure, the killer was not connected to any terrorist group.
Also, that was all of **one** case. There have been about 7000 terrorist attacks by Muslims over the last 10 years.
Re: (Score:2)
you need to look at some Quebecois french then, tabarnak de crisse callise!
Believe me, there is nothing nice or effeminate about that.
Is It One of Those Laws Where Everyone is Guilty? (Score:3)
The politicians justify this by thinking they're good people and these laws where anyone could be arrested will not be abused. The people justify this because it happens infrequently enough that they can dismiss cases as outliers. But once a jerk is elected and these laws still exist, people start to notice because they'll use them against anyone -- even political enemies.
"I don't like this guy. Go arrest him and make sure to get his computer. We don't have anything on him but we will."
Re:Is It One of Those Laws Where Everyone is Guilt (Score:5, Insightful)
Presidential elections are just one month from now. He just wants to glean some votes from the far-right voters
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
They might be bastards, but at least they're our bastards!
Re:Is It One of Those Laws Where Everyone is Guilt (Score:4, Informative)
doesn't matter. If elections are in just one month, he doesn't need to get this law passed, he doesn't even need to actually flesh out the details of the law, he's just making noise.
And he (probably rightly) assumes that his target audience assumes that muslim and terrorist are synonyms and their favorite websites would not be counted.
What's the definition of an extremist? (Score:2)
meh (Score:2)
They're just a bit nervy because they recently got pwnd by a bunch of moon cultists.
Publicity whore... (Score:5, Insightful)
What he proposed isn't going to happen of course.
Re: (Score:2)
What he proposed isn't going to happen of course.
Of course. And the summary is also wrong in its conclusion: "Is this a good move for security, or just another step towards a totalitarian society that prohibits free expression?"
It's just a step toward all websites using https so that nobody will have a fucking clue what you're looking at anymore. Often these sites have perfectly legit (should we say 'reasonable'?) sections and it's going to be harder and harder to determine which parts the users actually went to.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not a conclusion, it's a question, monkey-face.
Re: (Score:2)
He's aiming to secure the vote of the extreme right since he's in a bad shape for elections. Even the French Communist Party ranks rose from 7% to 15%, so the left in the form of the Front Gauche is poised to sweep the idiot out of power. This latest comment from him is just but a continuation of his crazy remarks that shows his desperation. The other infamous one is the "there are too many foreigners in France", especially ironic when his father immigrated to France himself from Turkey.
He did gain some poi
Violence or Violence? (Score:5, Insightful)
Such a law would be a joy for military recruiters. Click the links below to be put onto a French terrorist watch list!
Army [army.mil], Air Force [af.mil], Navy [navy.mil], Marines! [marines.mil]
Army [defense.gouv.fr], Air Force [defense.gouv.fr], Navy, Marines! [defense.gouv.fr]
I suppose the French President meant violence he does not agree with should be prosecuted. That makes more sense.
Thought police (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Losing liberty because of tolerance (Score:4, Insightful)
So in that sense we should also forbid the free flow of capital, natural resources, telecommunications and just live in our own separate tribes. Then war can make things better when said tribes have an issue because whoever loses gets assimilated or becomes slave labor. Yeah, it definitely is a better system.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
No you idiot (Score:3)
The problem isn't migration, plenty of people do that just fine. But the good immigrants are also something else. EMIGRANTS. They leave one country and culture for another. That works... more or less, it doesn't happen often after all but there are plenty of people who left their old land and never returned.
With north african migration, this is no longer the case, they return every summer, bring their own religion, shops and places to hangout and create a little bit of home in the new country.
They weren't a
Re: (Score:3)
There are plenty of immigrants in Europe who are integrating. Integrating is not a problem if you share some basic common values like individual freedom and dignity (which pretty much all of Western world shares), and you actually want to integrate. The problem is with those that explicitly do not want to integrate. It's a problem that you have in US as well [usatoday.com], it's just that you have a much fewer number of those kinds of immigrants than Europe, and so it's not as pervasive and in-your-face.
Dangers are Relative (Score:3)
Permitting terrorism and hatred are awful things. They lead, directly or not, to real dangers to society and to humanity at large.
However, consider the danger posed by a government given the power to say, "There are things you must not know." Not official secrets, which have some justification, but thoughts of people who think our governmental system is unfair - which is what Islamist thought is all about. How about thoughts about which God is the "right" God? Thoughts about what constitutes Evil or Good?
Governments have been in the business of thought control ever since Socrates, and probably a long time before that.
Whatever danger access to terrorist web sites constitutes to society, giving a government the ability to decide which thoughts you should think and which thoughts are criminal acts is a far greater hazard to humanity than any nut case with a bomb can ever be.
I have visited terrorist websites (Score:5, Interesting)
I want to understand what motivates these people; I want to think about what sort of public policy creates the most freedom, prosperity, safety; I want to understand the enemy and figure out why they're the enemy in the first place.
So I guess I'd be put in jail for this if I lived in France. Is Sarkozy saying that only politicians are able to reason about such things? Hell of a job they've done so far.
Re: (Score:3)
>should be censored.
Your speech is not sufficiently patriotic, citizen. Your speaking out against people who would defend our tribe will be censored forthwith.
See how quick that gets turned around?
--
BMO
Re:I have visited terrorist websites (Score:5, Interesting)
Not the original poster, but there are a lot of valid reasons to view hate sites. (Leaving aside the intellectual freedom issues, etc.)
1. Simple intellectual curiosity into the motivations of terrorists, militant racists, etc..
2. In order to better evaluate the positions that politicians take in fighting terrorism or hate crimes. If I don't know what drives them, how can I evaluate how people want to stop them? How can I best vote and contribute as a citizen?
3. The same morbid curiosity that drives people to read real crime novels/watch movies about serial killers. It's not necessarily a "good" reason but it's a valid one.
4. Professional interest from mental health/cognitive professionals.
5. A friend/family member's concern about somebody who seems to be increasingly sympathetic to terrorists, militant racists, etc. I can't counter the white supremacist's/terrorist's/ethnic cleanser arguments if I don't know what they're arguing.
6. The desire of moderate Christians/Jews/Hindus/Muslims to argue against religiously-motivated terrorism by their co-religionists in general. Most of them do.
Re:I have visited terrorist websites (Score:5, Insightful)
. Why? Why do you want to understand these people?
Know your enemy.
How could this fail? (Score:3)
Look it's obvious that this is the right strategy against terrorism. When the people who regularly visit extremist websites go to jail for it, they will contemplate about the thought crimes they've committed and get a new life as democratic and well-adapted citizens. What else could happen?
Not enough time to pass (Score:5, Informative)
This is a law-project tailored specifically to address the crazy killer that shot 7 people recently in France.
The presidential election is less than 1 month away and no more laws would be discussed or voted in the mean time. So this law would never pass.
The killer was under scrutiny since his return from Afghanistan. Since he hasn't done anything in France, he could be arrested and jailed. They weren't able to detect any suspicious behavior like planning to plant a bomb which is the most common terrorist act in Europe. We have very few gun-related deaths compared to the US, so such a killing spree is very unusual. This is the most obvious reason his planning went undetected.
The point of this stupid law is to give an excuse for the Police to arrest and jail anyone with a slight hint of suspect behavior, before they might be planning to commit actual crime.
As usual, this is stupid and inefficient.
What is this... (Score:3, Informative)
Well ... (Score:2)
Sadly, from the point of the totalitarian society, this is not an "either or" question.
Unfortunately, this proposal sounds a little like thought crime to me. You've not done anything illegal, but by looking at it, you're now a criminal.
If I read a copy of the "Anarchists Cookbook", am I now a terrorist? Once you start outlawing certain kinds of thought and expression, you can definitely be
Banned URL List (Score:3)
Can someone post a comprehensive list of URLs we're not supposed to follow (Anarchist's cookbook, WikiLeaks, and all the rest)? So we can avoid them, of course.
In other news (Score:2)
"Anyone visiting websites for emo teens will be fined for self-inflicted depression that taxes the entire public health care system."
What bullshit thoughts does Sarkozy have in his brain now?
Potentially both (Score:3)
Cutting access to terrorists should certainly reduce their influence and access to new members.
But who decides who is actually a terrorist? In the UK in the 80's our Prime Minister (Margaret Thatcher) used to refer to Nelson Mandela as a terrorist. Th Chinese Communist Party call anyone who stands up to their rule "terrorists", as does Assad in Syria today.
So I understand the reasoning but fear the consequences.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The occupy movement labeled as terrorists in the UK. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/dec/05/occupy-london-police-terrorism-document
Seems to me that anything that opposes the global elitist oligopoly/corporatocracy trends towards being refered to as terrorist in nature.
Anything that threatens the US Dollar Hegemony will have a vicious propaganda campaign waged against it. We will be made to believe that whoever or whatever threatens it eats babies, hates freedom and doesn't put the toilet seat down after t
Obvious Response (Score:2)
France has repeatedly harbored those who my country considers to be terrorists. Time to imprison Sarkozy in Gitmo!
it is an election year (Score:3)
In a few weeks the presidential election will start. What do you think Sarkozy is doing ? he is batting for a renewal of his job. He has to show he is doing something and as usual it is individual liberty which take a shot in the knee.
Whereas it is true that there are some legal precedent (downloading child pornography is punished by law, and as far as i can tell, even in the US, and nazi apologist or race hatred incitations is punishable by law), it would be difficult on the technological side (most of those site are on foreign soil).
Unconstitutional (Score:3)
Sarkozy is just pandering to the extreme right in an election year.
This law would not be applicable given the French constitution, and in fact would also violate EU law. Any law which limits free expression must have a very specific target, and simply saying "terrorism" or "hate speech" is way too vast.
Child pornography is illegal because it can be easily and precisely defined, but what would define terrorist or hateful speech ? And what is the difference between genuine political speech and hate speech ? It's all very subjective. It would also lead to some interesting consequences, like that Mein Kampf would be legal to sell in print but not viewable on the Internet.
Article (in French) [lemonde.fr]
Brings a new worry... (Score:5, Interesting)
...to rickrolling - or call it terrortrolling. Just set up a few fake links for your gullible frenemies, and get them the dawn knock on the door.
Re: (Score:2)
like this one? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1yRMY7g6iE&feature=g-hist&context=G2afe3d3AHT2vXZwBNAA [youtube.com]
One name to look up, to see what's wrong with this (Score:2)
"Julie Amero"
Makes sense (Score:2)
He's exactly right.
Which is why only production of pedophilia should be illegal, and why it should no more be censored than such terroristic revolutionary documents as the Declaration of Independence and the Federalist Papers. Or even Mein Kampf or the Bible.
Government repression of free expression, on the other hand...now that's something that should be considered treasonous.
Offended (Score:2)
it is time to treat those who browse extremist websites the same way as those who consume child pornography
Don't equate me with a terrorist just because I like to download some child porn, put some lettuce in the printer, and make myself a BL(cp)T.
-
Minority Report (Score:3)
Seriously, Sarkosy? Are you seriously going to plunge head-first down this slippery slope? Are you really that stupid?
Stupid... (Score:5, Interesting)
Jailing someone for familiarising themselves with a subject is wrong...
Guides on how to commit acts of terrorism could be perceived as interesting, and are useful reading for someone working on the other side of the fence looking to prevent, deter or even just detect such acts... In fact this is a common problem, those looking to prevent a given activity simply don't understand how those who want to carry out such activities think... Wether it's hacking, burgling, terrorism, piracy etc, and you end up with wholly ineffective measures that look really fancy but are easily circumvented by those who are serious about doing it, while providing significant disruption for innocent civilians.
There seems to be a generally flawed mindset out there that concentrates on big fancy front gates, while totally forgetting about the rotten wooden door at the back.
Personally i think the more people understand about how terrorists think, the greater the chance of their activities being discovered and stopped. Imagine you live next door to someone who keeps bringing bags of fertiliser into their house, are they a keen gardened or can fertiliser be used to make bombs? Have you seen any evidence of well cultivated plants in their back garden? Can you smell canabis coming from their roof space? Or can you smell other chemicals you've read about in the jolly roger's cookbook?
Child porn is entirely different, most people simply won't want to look at it, even if they should stumble across it accidentally.
It means nothing, really (Score:3)
Terrorism and extremism (Score:2)
It's neither (Score:2)
It's a desperate attempt by someone whose popularity is very close to hitting rock bottom... from below.
What about sites that promote the Foreign Legion? (Score:3)
Malheursement sans Rush Limbaugh (Score:3)
"Anyone who regularly consults Internet sites which promote terror or hatred or violence will be sentenced to prison".
Guess I can't visit the Fox News site when I visit France.
9 / 11 comparison with recent events in France (Score:3)
In France, that very tragic event from a week ago may be Sarkozy's lifeline during the coming presidential elections (May). Taking rough and strong measures immediately, and just a few weeks before the elections, may help him to win a second term. Internet freedom in France may not have been endangered if the elections were in two years from now.
Guilt by association (Score:3)
I regularly visit the restroom. Does that make me a piece of shit?
Wait. Don't answer that.
Re:bring it on. (Score:5, Insightful)
this is the kind of warped perspective that makes no sense to me
so much venom for the west
what do you think of guys who hold the hair of eight year old girls and execute them?
i'm not supporting this ridiculous visit-a-website,go-to-jail law. it's stupid
i'm taking a stand against the warped perspective that: the west does something you dislike, so you support something far worse
you do realize it's possible to be disgusted by BOTH islamic radicalization and censorial overreach, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:bring it on. (Score:4, Insightful)
that's insane
we're not talking about fashion or music choice
if enough pakistanis tell you this is ok, its ok by you?:
http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/03/22/202385.html [alarabiya.net]
cannibalism was once ok in certain parts of the world. its about evolving away from bad practices to better ones
you may say i have an absolutist position, but it is you who has the absolutist position: that culture's mores never change, and are unquestionable
i object as a human being to your relativity, an excuse to justify atrocities. nationalism and religion do not excuse gross violations of simple human rights
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"The fourth victim was Myriam Monsonego, seven, daughter of the head teacher, who was reportedly grabbed by the hair and shot in the head."
From: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17428860 [bbc.co.uk]
Is that good enough for you? Cunt.
Re: (Score:2)
the toulouse gunman did this a few days ago, outside the jewish school
cited in numerous news sites
so this was just made up in order to justify censorship?
are you a paranoid schizophrenic?
Terrorist content detected (Score:4, Funny)
Now all of you who have read this post, give yourselves up at the nearest police, s'il vous plais.
Re:bring it on. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because you and a bunch of English/American people hate France doesn't mean everybody hates France. The guy who carried the attacks was pretty much targeting the Western world in any case, and in the case of Sarkozy, he's very afraid of losing the elections since the leftist candidate is going to win so he has started making crazy and racist comments.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:bring it on. (Score:4, Insightful)
Everyone hates France?
Maybe in America, but who cares about what America thinks of an EU country?
The problem here is Sarkozy not France in its entirety.
Re:bring it on. (Score:5, Funny)
Not every wine soaked douchebag is French, you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:2)
A general rule of powers given to government is that if they can be abused. See anti-terror laws used to spy on people alleged to be cheating the school placement system, and jaywalkers who happen to do it in a defence establishment. And I can see so many ways this can be abused to persecute the merely curious.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And probably not the misattributed quote about defending someone's right to say abhorrent things.
Re: (Score:2)
>modded flamebait
What. It's a Police song.
For those who have their panties in a twist about the C- word:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ap0D9PXTeLA [youtube.com]
--
BMO
Re:Hey Sarkozy (Score:5, Insightful)
Since when do laws apply to those that make them?
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn't give me the illusion to be safer. Only the illusion (at least I hope it's an illusion) that I'm getting less and less free.