The European union is going to hold a discussion on whether to ban the swatstika after Prince Harry's less than charming appearence at a party last week.
Granted it was foolish behavior on his part, but are they really going to ban the symbol from all 25 participating countries? Does this sound fishy to anyone besides me? What about freedom of expression? I don't understand. Yes, the nazi's commited many of the world's greatest atrocities, but I can't help but argue for the right of someone to wear a symbol. Its a symbol.
Here in the united States we have a little thing called the first amendment, and not that its recognised by the Bush administration all too often, but at least we have it, and when it applies, its a beautiful thing.
As the ingenious Aaron Sorkin wrote in my favorite scene of The American President (Michael Douglas's character is the president giving a kick butt national address):
"You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center-stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the land of the free." I couldn't agree more. Here's what one left wing part activist said of the ban:
"I understand how the burden of history weighs upon my German colleagues' view," he said. "However, banning symbols cannot ban evil and risks playing into the hands of those who would seek to subvert the very liberties we most champion."
The thing I'm most affraid of is censorship because once one thing is taken away, what next? Banning the enire mention of naziism in conversation, books, television? Not that any of that is going to happen, it isn't probable, but baning the symbol is just one step in that direction.
i sort of feel this way about guns too. i don't think the solution to our crime problem is to ban weapons. I don't like them, and wish that people didn't own them (of feel they need to own them), but i do believe it is within everyone's right to own one. However, I don't think anyone needs an AK47, or other such weapons. If you hunt or want something for protection, then you should need weapons sufficient for just that. I think the government should ban large scale killing machines, yes. The things that no one needs for any practical use. And put together a tougher screening process.
What do you think?
t h e . l u n c h . g r o u p
AIU Online
At 7:14 PM,
Debaser said…
"Assasination is the extreme form of censorship"
- Bernard Shaw
I agree with what you wrote. If we were to forget about the whole Nazi regime, how long would it take for us to repeat it? That phrase was coined for a reason.
At 7:44 PM,
Victoria said…
First of all, Aaron Sorkin (sp?) is a god.
Secondly, you know me and my thoughts. Blood-boiling at how ready everyone is to ban things lately and how easy the EU seems to scare...
Can we ban bad grammar? Can we ban faux mexican food? Those are USEFUL bans. Banning a symbol of someone's political views is not a power we should hold.
Post a Comment
<< Home