Hello, my name is Henrik Jönsson
and today I am standing in the beautiful surroundings of the Swedish West Coast archipelago
and I want to talk about criminalization of opinions
...why these are dangerous, no matter how well intended they might be
and why the left wing suddenly is hitting the brakes and defending the liberal position!
To incite people to ban things is very simple
all you need is for a provocateur to challenge broadly accepted morality
a couple of broadly loved celebrities, backed up by some kind of loosely academic "expert"
and they create an online movement.
Most of the time, the core values of these kinds of campaigns are sound:
like "Molesting children is wrong" or "Violence is bad"
but their collective expression tend to be over-simplified and democratically dangerous
"We have to promote general social concern, and less materialism in young people"
As a politician - particularly in an election year
it is tempting to try to capitalize on popular outrage
to gain approval as a doer, and siding with the people against "evil"
"Why can't we all just get along?"
However, those in high office need to be equipped with both a cool head and an educated mind to keep defending
the long-term quality of the law, when the short-tempered storms of outrage are tearing at the sails of democracy
"A country is built on the Law" was the axiom of Charlemange the 15th of Sweden.
The expression is far older, dating back to the old communal municipalities of ancient Sweden
It implies a great responsibility for those who make, interpret and enforce the law.
The idea that everyone is equal before the law is the foundation of the modern societal contract.
Law is the basis of our civilization, and not something you mess around with.
and you don't dither with it for short-term popularity
The Law is difficult to change, and with good reason:
It needs protection from the subjective moods of the moment
which otherwise might corrupt it under an irresponsible government
"The government wants a climate target of 50-40-30"
"...so we are asking for a climate target of 40-27-30."
"Get yourself together!"
You cannot, for instance, make a law that applies to just 9000 specific people.
and history will not be kind to those who
pretended to believe this in the hope of stealing a few extra votes for the general election of 2018.
In light of how, for instance, the Nordic Resistance League at numerous occasions disrupted
democratic dialogue in Almedalen, the media has been calling for a "ban on racism".
and a week ago, the weakened and increasingly desperate Social Democratic party
caved in and called for a general criminalization of "racism"
In practice, this is a politically motivated subjective mandate to ban unwanted organizations
A restriction of organizational freedom is an oppressive move, and it is easy to imagine
future law enforcement officers scanning facebook posts and hard drives for crimes of opinion.
"Can I talk to Mr McKinskey, I think I know what's going on!"
"We're turning you over to the federal authorities of Denver which will place you under arrest!"
The Law must by democratic necessity be kept more general than targeting "views". Deeds should count for more than words and opinions.
The minority whip of the Moderates presented a legislatively less unrealistic proposal.
The proposal criminalizes membership in "Organizations accepting violence".
This proposal targets both the far right, the extreme left and islamism.
"Feministic Initiative" - Swedens most well-reported political party which has never been close to parliament
comments: "The government should not compromise with the Moderates."
"Their proposal is generally criminalizing violent organizations"
"and risks affecting much broader organizations than racists and Nazis."
"Risks affecting much broader" indeed. Risks affecting the violent friends of the left wing.
The left party also has an instinct of survival, and is opposing the proposal.
The whole left wing is entangled in a myriad activist groups of which many risk being hit by the new laws.
It is easy to picture police first picking off the NMR, then going for the AFA, the Syndicalists and appropriating the servers of the hard left identity policy advocates of the "Research Group"
Now allow me, as a very contemporary necessity of self defense, establish that I am neither a racist, a Nazi or a fascist.
I am a Libertarian, and represent ideas of freedom built on mutual respect for completely individual lifestyle choices under responsibility and rule of law.
With this moral formality out of the way, we can now proceed to discuss what is wrong with criminalizing opinions.
It is very difficult to ban opinions and -isms.
For one thing, there is a problem of defining them.
How do you codify into law what constitutes Nazism or racism?
It is very easy to change identity markers with the purpose of circumventing the law.
You can stop calling yourself a "Nazi". Symbols can be changed. Forms of organizations can be modified. Words and phrases substituted.
"Doubleplusgood, eh?"
This mode of operation has been used by drug designers for decades in order to circumvent the definition of criminal drugs.
You change a few molecular bindings, and Hey Presto!
you've got yourself a brand new, unknown and legal drug!
As a result, the law is forced to run faster and faster to play catch up. And has to devote more and more text to define what is criminal.
The law thus becomes evermore specific and messy.
It is more difficult to build a country on a law that has opened the doors to subjectivity.
But this is what the left wing demands
in order to protect it's own violent organizations
and still criminalize the violent organizations of their opponents.
Attorney General Morgan Johanssons comment on this controversy is typical for our time:
"Sure, there's a risk that we'll end up discussing that you're no longer allowed to think what you want"
"...but we can't have people allowed to hate and hunt one another down!"
This is the core issue. It is already illegal to hate and hunt people down!
Violence is illegal!
It is illegal to infringe on the freedom of speech, and to disrupt public meetings.
But Sweden is in a situation where law enforcement does not have the resources to enforce the existing laws.
To invent new, increasingly specific laws on top of the existing - and sound ones - is a superficial attempt to pretend making a difference.
A bonfire of the vanities in which the privilege to define what is criminal is handed over to the increasingly wreckless identitarian fringe.
"That's unbelievably offensive!"
"Micro aggression! Cultural appropriation!"
"Offensive! Offensive! Offensive!"
It is important to remember that the power to define criminal opinions which Mr Morgan Johansson is attempting to acquire
will also be given to all coming forms of government. And it is likely that a not distant government
might be something Mr Johansson is quite incapable of imagining.
"I can't, I am a little man, a little man"
"He is... he is a great man."
The identitarian complex never cared about or understood the point of freedom of opinion and speech.
Instead, they have progressively let fringe movements push forward an agenda of what should be allowed to be said, and in what form it should be expressed.
It would be desirable to carry a broad discussion on how existing laws effectively can be enforced.
so that we can secure the liberties of an open society without regulations of speech, thought and opinion.
Do you think laws should be kept general, and actively be enforced?
...rather than to be made up for show, while eroding the legitimacy of the law?
Please share this video, and subscribe to my YouTube-channel.
Do you have an opinion on the rule of law, democracy and freedom?
Write me a comment - I appreciate all respectful commentary!
If you like my videos, feel free to support me via Patreon. There is a link for this purpose down in the video description.
My name is Henrik Jönsson. And I enjoy my freedom of opinion. For now.
Thank you very much for watching this video.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét