The Democratic Model: Fundamental Vulnerabilities and their Closure [PCD] - The 4 Freedoms Library2024-03-29T16:01:32Zhttp://4freedoms.com/forum/topics/full-mission-statement?groupUrl=admin&commentId=3766518%3AComment%3A131643&x=1&feed=yes&xn_auth=noSome people suggest that even…tag:4freedoms.com,2013-07-26:3766518:Comment:1316432013-07-26T04:55:42.783ZAlan Lakehttp://4freedoms.com/profile/AlanLake
<p>Some people suggest that even more restrictions are need at this the lowest level, Layer1, like for example, a prohibition on Holocaust denial:</p>
<ul>
<li><em>"In one way I would be more restrictive than you, and would not tolerate speech that is </em>plainly false and could lead to violence, e.g., the speech of some Holocaust deniers</li>
</ul>
<p>As it happens I agree on the idea of outlawing Holocaust Denial in the total build of the final system that I prefer, but it does not belong in…</p>
<p>Some people suggest that even more restrictions are need at this the lowest level, Layer1, like for example, a prohibition on Holocaust denial:</p>
<ul>
<li><em>"In one way I would be more restrictive than you, and would not tolerate speech that is </em>plainly false and could lead to violence, e.g., the speech of some Holocaust deniers</li>
</ul>
<p>As it happens I agree on the idea of outlawing Holocaust Denial in the total build of the final system that I prefer, but it does not belong in the base system that everyone needs to use. </p>
<p>The extra restriction wanted (against Holocaust Denial) should not be in layer 1, which is our base definition, but it could be in Layer2 or Layer3. I accept that someone else could want a democracy that allows Holocaust Denial, and it will still function as a democracy and not destroy itself. But that's a discussion for another time and place, it does not belong at the base level. The 2 conditions on the 2 freedoms I've described are non-negotiable. To put it another way, you may see the prohibition of Holocaust Denial as a <strong><em>moral </em> </strong>imperative, (but a Muslim may disagree). However, you should both see the first two freedom qualifications as a <em><strong>logical </strong></em>imperative.</p> Clarification of the Role of…tag:4freedoms.com,2012-06-25:3766518:Comment:1049532012-06-25T15:15:28.239ZAlan Lakehttp://4freedoms.com/profile/AlanLake
<p><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>Clarification of the Role of the 4 Freedoms in Matters of Immigration</strong></span></p>
<p>There is some confusion about the how the definitions of the 4 Freedoms affect a state's position on immigration. This is particularly apparent in the thread <a href="http://4freedoms.ning.com/group/uk/forum/topics/the-imminent-disunity-of-the-united-kingdom?commentId=3766518%3AComment%3A104041&groupId=3766518%3AGroup%3A255" target="_self">around…</a></p>
<p><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>Clarification of the Role of the 4 Freedoms in Matters of Immigration</strong></span></p>
<p>There is some confusion about the how the definitions of the 4 Freedoms affect a state's position on immigration. This is particularly apparent in the thread <a href="http://4freedoms.ning.com/group/uk/forum/topics/the-imminent-disunity-of-the-united-kingdom?commentId=3766518%3AComment%3A104041&groupId=3766518%3AGroup%3A255" target="_self">around this point</a>, but it has occurred elsewhere as well. Therefore, I will try to clarify how the operation of the 4 Freedoms would adjudicate on this issue, and hopefully find that they deliver an acceptable result :-)</p>
<p>Actually, I never really understood why people have such a fetish about the immigration issue until now - I didn't realise that they perceived anti-immigrationism as a form of racist discrimination. It is not.</p>
<p><strong>The Value of Discrimination</strong><br/>First of all, a small digression to elucidate the meaning of "discrimination". To <em>discriminate</em>, in its most basic sense, means to tell apart, to notice possibly tiny differences, and hence see that two different objects are not the same, and that they can there fore be placed into an <em>ordering</em>. The word 'ordering' is also key. In normal thinking it means we can say that A is 'better' than B, but that is allowing a value judgement to creep in. Is black skin better than white skin? It depends on the colour of the dresses you wish to display at a fashion shoot, or the risk of skin cancer from exposure to the sun. So, without knowing the reference frame, you should not get involved in considerations of good and bad etc.</p>
<p>Then this ability to <em>discriminate</em> used to be seen as a virtue. They would say: "He is a man of discrimination", meaning he has good taste, and the ability to tell things well made from things cheaply made, etc. It is obviously important to have this ability. In fact, without the ability to discriminate, we would all still be living in caves. Can you discriminate between a flint-headed axe and a stone-headed axe? Certainly! Can you discriminate between the uses of a spear and those of an axe? Yes again! Then we start the 500,000 year march to civilisation. So we need to discriminate, that is, tell apart, but we do not want to engage in value judgements as part of that act of discrimination (that can come later if desired).</p>
<p><strong>What Should be Discriminated<br/></strong>Then the question is, what discriminations are relevant to the state? If you reply 'none', then we are not allowed to discriminate between the axe murderer and the charity worker. The state has to discriminate between the actions of its citizens, and treat them differently, incarcerating one and protecting the other.</p>
<p>If you reply 'any', then you will allow the state to treat people differently because of their skin colour, eye colour, religion, etc., giving the blue eyed Muslims all the best jobs, for example. So clearly, that isn't right either.</p>
<p>The minimum level of discrimination for a state to preserve itself, is to tell apart those that wish to destroy that state from those that wish to keep it. That is why the first two freedoms each have a caveat about the type of actions they allow to operate within a 4F society, i.e. <em>"<span id="">Any speech allowed -</span> except </em><span id="aeaoofnhgocdbnbeljkmbjdmhbcokfdb-mousedown"><em>that advocating the end of free speech"</em> and <em>"<span id="">Any party allowed -</span> except </em><span><em>one advocating the end of democracy."</em> So that is the base level of discrimination that is allowed in a 4F society. </span></span></p>
<p><span id="aeaoofnhgocdbnbeljkmbjdmhbcokfdb-mousedown"><span>Actually, its not just allowed, its <em>mandated</em>, so the 4th freedom is to stop anything calling itself a religion from escaping those two caveats, so it says: <em>"</em><span><em>Religion has no exemption in public or political matters"</em>. Note the use of the words 'public' and 'political' here. In private matters, 'religion' can say whatever it likes, but as soon as it crosses into the public sphere, it falls under legal purview. This has not totally solved the problem, because now we have the difficulty of distinguishing between the public and the private sphere, but that is, at least, an <em>easier</em> problem to tackle.</span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span>Having distinguished between those that wish to destroy our society and those that wish to keep it (the first two freedoms) and between public acts under legal purview and private acts (the 4th freedom), we have now established and protected our 3rd freedom: <em>"All citizens are equally protected by secular law."</em></span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span><span>This simple statement itself conceals a litany of complexities, far more than I can even begin to cover at this time. But to cut things short, the secular law will at this point begin to discriminate between the behaviour of its citizens on matters of public interest, and punish or reward them accordingly. So, if you commit a criminal act you are punished, and if you go to work you receive a salary. That gives rise to the vast body of the Criminal Law which I can't go into, but suffice it to say that the intention is that the state should not discriminate on arbitrary, personal or private characteristics of a citizen.</span></span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span><span>It is in that sense that we shall take the meaning of "the state does not arbitrarily discriminate" in the following analysis.</span></span></span></span></p>
<p><strong>The Three Geographical Areas of Application<br/></strong>There are 3 questions to address.</p>
<ol>
<li>How do we treat different citizens within our state (which is ruled according to the 4 Freedoms)?</li>
<li>How do we treat non-citizens in their foreign country, if we have taken it over by military occupation (and not assimilated it into our state, so our 4F principles are not automatically applied there)?</li>
<li>How do we treat non-citizens that arrive at our borders and wish to enter?</li>
</ol>
<p>(1) The first question we have already answered: The state does not arbitrarily discriminate between its (own) citizens.</p>
<p>(2) On the 2nd question, how does a 4F state treat people in a foreign country after conquering them, well, I hadn't thought of this possibility until now, but the 4F principles do not say anything about this either. So, if we were fighting a very bitter war with Germany for example, the 4F principles would allow us to treat Germans who are not UK citizens, differently to UK citizens. If we then conquered Nazi Germany and integrated it into the British state, the 4F principles would then apply, and we would have to treat German citizens exactly like UK ones.</p>
<p>This is a principle that goes right back to the Roman state, and was one of the factors that enabled it to succeed. Interestingly, Islam takes a half-way house on this issue, and it also enabled it to succeed. When Islam has conquered a country, you are able to gain equal rights by becoming a Muslim.</p>
<p>(3) On the 3rd question, how does a 4F state treat people who arrive at its borders, there is no adjudication as they are not citizens of that state. It could let every immigrant in (that signs up to its principles), or let in none at all. So as a member of 4F, you can take up either position, or anywhere in between.</p>
<p>Could it let in all Hindus and exclude all Buddhists? That is debatable but academic, because if it did, then once those new Hindu citizens were inside the country, and, say, married some of the Buddhists at the border, then any attempt to stop the Buddhists coming in would be a discrimination against the resident Hindu's rights.</p>
<p>But could it let in all Socialists but exclude all Muslims and Maoists? Yes, because here we are talking about political ideologies, and the latter ideologies are in direct contradiction with the 4F principles and seek to destroy the 4F state. However, if a way could be found to 'tame' the treasonous and seditious aspects of the latter two ideologies, and get their members to commit to a revocation of all the principles which contradict the 4 Freedoms, then it would be arbitrarily discriminatory to exclude them.</p>
<p><strong>Summary</strong><br/>I hope that has clarified the position somewhat, so, in summary, as a 4F member, you can be pro-immigration, anti-immigration, or anywhere in-between. </p>
<p>Your immigration policy, whatever it is, should discriminate between those arriving, according to their political risk to the state, i.e. it should exclude those that wish to destroy it. (How precisely that is defined is debatable at this point).</p>
<p>As regards non-political aspects of the immigrants, the 4F principles would allow you to discriminate between skilled and unskilled, criminal and law abiding, young and old, just like Canada and Australia do, since these are matters of <em>public</em> interest to the state. However it is not advisable to discriminate between black and white, male and female, etc, as, although that is strictly permissible according to the 4 freedoms, it will only lead to further problems and contradictions internally, later on.</p> I'm going to respond to a poi…tag:4freedoms.com,2012-05-22:3766518:Comment:1025142012-05-22T01:43:54.520ZAlan Lakehttp://4freedoms.com/profile/AlanLake
<div class="description xj_comment_editor xg_user_generated" id="desc_3766518Comment81624"><p>I'm going to respond to a point I received from outside 4F.</p>
<ul>
<li><em>"But in another way I am more lenient. It might be healthy to allow those to speak who advocate against free speech. But if they were to act on it, I would quash them."</em></li>
</ul>
<p>Here we come to a problem of perception. I wonder, would you take that point of view as a Christian in Pakistan, where section 295C…</p>
</div>
<div class="description xj_comment_editor xg_user_generated" id="desc_3766518Comment81624"><p>I'm going to respond to a point I received from outside 4F.</p>
<ul>
<li><em>"But in another way I am more lenient. It might be healthy to allow those to speak who advocate against free speech. But if they were to act on it, I would quash them."</em></li>
</ul>
<p>Here we come to a problem of perception. I wonder, would you take that point of view as a Christian in Pakistan, where section 295C discriminates against you and allow others to attack you and your family and take your goods with impunity? <br/>Would you take this point of view in the UK where three of my friends have been threatened with firearms and have received an Osman warning which is a police message that there is a credible threat to their life? Or I may read of some other people like me knifed by a 20 strong Muslim gang while walking down the street, because they feel that area is now Islamic land and non-Muslims don't belong there.</p>
<p><br/>I feel that what we are talking about here is a luxury that belongs in the 1960s, we are not in that world any more, and there are only two or three decades left in which to save the situation in Europe. Have you any idea how effective the police are at watching out for people ready to act on their beliefs? MI5 is currently tracking over 2000 radical and dangerous identified groups in the UK. They just don't have enough staff. The situation you are envisioning of a polite and reasoned discussion in the debating chamber or lecture hall, which benefits all, is a luxury we do not have over here. Our backs are against the wall.<br/><br/>As it happens, I also wrote yesterday on the Voltaire principle of "defending your right to free speech tho I disagree", at the end of this article:<br/><a target="_blank" href="http://4freedoms.ning.com/group/EDL/forum/topics/bring-back-the-court-jester">http://4freedoms.ning.com/group/EDL/forum/topics/bring-back-the-cou...</a><br/>Things have moved on, and the old luxuries and safeties are no more. We have to adapt and we have to toughen our approach, or we are finished.</p>
</div> Thanks Joe, and I found this…tag:4freedoms.com,2012-05-22:3766518:Comment:1023732012-05-22T01:41:42.696ZAlan Lakehttp://4freedoms.com/profile/AlanLake
<div class="description xj_comment_editor xg_user_generated" id="desc_3766518Comment81524"><p>Thanks Joe, and I found this explanation very helpful: <em>"In fact the Bill is a cynical ploy by new Labour to redress the damage done to its Muslim vote by its war in Iraq." </em></p>
<p>This is the kind of thing we have to be really wary of. This method of pressuring for vote share is one of the methods the Islamists used to gain control of formerly Christian Lebanon.</p>
</div>
<div class="description xj_comment_editor xg_user_generated" id="desc_3766518Comment81524"><p>Thanks Joe, and I found this explanation very helpful: <em>"In fact the Bill is a cynical ploy by new Labour to redress the damage done to its Muslim vote by its war in Iraq." </em></p>
<p>This is the kind of thing we have to be really wary of. This method of pressuring for vote share is one of the methods the Islamists used to gain control of formerly Christian Lebanon.</p>
</div> Reply by Joe on September 15,…tag:4freedoms.com,2012-05-22:3766518:Comment:1025132012-05-22T01:40:34.838ZAlan Lakehttp://4freedoms.com/profile/AlanLake
<p><span class="xg_avatar"><a class="fn url" href="http://4freedoms.ning.com/profile/Joe90" title="Joe"><span class="dy-avatar dy-avatar-48"><img alt="" class="photo photo left" height="48" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/54803470?profile=RESIZE_180x180" width="48"></img></span></a></span> <a class="xg_icon xg_icon-permalink" href="http://4freedoms.ning.com/xn/detail/3766518:Comment:81315" name="3766518Comment81315" title="Permalink to this Reply"></a><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>Reply by…</strong></span></p>
<p><span class="xg_avatar"><a class="fn url" href="http://4freedoms.ning.com/profile/Joe90" title="Joe"><span class="dy-avatar dy-avatar-48"><img width="48" height="48" class="photo photo left" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/54803470?profile=RESIZE_180x180" alt=""/></span></a></span><a name="3766518Comment81315" href="http://4freedoms.ning.com/xn/detail/3766518:Comment:81315" title="Permalink to this Reply" class="xg_icon xg_icon-permalink"></a><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>Reply by <a href="http://4freedoms.ning.com/group/argumentation/forum/topic/listForContributor?user=3g0oedh53p9am" class="fn url">Joe</a> on <span class="timestamp">September 15, 2011 at 10:00</span></strong></span></p>
<div class="description xj_comment_editor xg_user_generated" id="desc_3766518Comment81315"><p>"So we need to say:<br/>(a) Any speech is allowed, except that advocating the extinction of these 2 freedoms<br/>(b) Any party is allowed (to canvas for election), except those advocating the extinction of these 2 freedoms."</p>
<p>I've been explaining this in discussions for a couple of years now as "those are axioms of democracy - they are required for the rest to function". People seem to get it.</p>
<div class="description xj_comment_editor xg_user_generated" id="desc_3766518Comment81125"><p>We have had our own parliamentary parties instituting laws to end free speech, specifically in the context of protecting/promoting islam. The 2006 Religious Hatred Act was designed to protect islam from criticism (it was originally and addendum to a 2005 anti-terrorism act -- an act designed to be able to more effectively prevent the terrorist threat from muslims). Clearly a restriction on religious hatred was not required in order to protect catholicism or protestantism from criticism in 40 or so years of terrorist action in Northern Ireland and the mainland. </p>
<p>It was only the House of Lords that insisted (repeatedly) on inserting the "free speech" provisions in the Bill as it passed back to the Lords, provisions that meant we have the freedom to criticise islam.</p>
<p>This Act has been held above the heads of various people in EDL as a threat (two of them were held on remand for 6 weeks awaiting prosecution under this Act, and all because they climbed on a roof and flew the Israeli flag). The government has never yet been able to get a conviction under this law, which may just be thanks to the Lords' insistence. And I do mean "the governent", not the CPS -- each time this Act is used it requires the say-so of the Attorney General (a political appointee of the government).</p>
<p><a target="_blank" href="http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?page=print_article&id_article=903" rel="nofollow">http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?page=print_article&a...</a></p>
<p>"Muslim opinion is divided on the Bill. The Muslim Council of Britain campaigns in favour of it, whilst MAB has taken no position." No. If one prominent muslim group opposed the bill, that would have been a muslim opinion that was divided. Clearly, <strong>muslims did not oppose us having our freedom of speech taken away.</strong></p>
</div>
</div> (a) Many Islamic Fundamentali…tag:4freedoms.com,2012-05-22:3766518:Comment:1026042012-05-22T01:39:38.972ZAlan Lakehttp://4freedoms.com/profile/AlanLake
<p>(a) Many Islamic Fundamentalists in this country say they do not want free speech because they do not want any speech which can insult Allah or Mohamed.<br></br> <br></br> Stepping down a peg, many Muslims proclaim the example of Mohamed in having the pregnant poetess murdered because she made poems that annoyed Mohamed. This is legal as a historical record, but should be illegal as a prescription for current behavior.<br></br> <br></br> (b) The same way you eliminate all other illegal acts. Destroy the…</p>
<p>(a) Many Islamic Fundamentalists in this country say they do not want free speech because they do not want any speech which can insult Allah or Mohamed.<br/> <br/> Stepping down a peg, many Muslims proclaim the example of Mohamed in having the pregnant poetess murdered because she made poems that annoyed Mohamed. This is legal as a historical record, but should be illegal as a prescription for current behavior.<br/> <br/> (b) The same way you eliminate all other illegal acts. Destroy the illegal objects (e.g. drugs or guns but in this case its books and videos). Impose a fine, then imprison the perpetrators, if they continue to commit illegal acts.</p> Reply by John Carlson on July…tag:4freedoms.com,2012-05-22:3766518:Comment:1026032012-05-22T01:39:13.003ZAlan Lakehttp://4freedoms.com/profile/AlanLake
<p><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>Reply by John Carlson on July 24, 2010 at 3:23pm</strong></span></p>
<p>I'm still curious about:<br/> a) How you determine that a specific person advocates the end of free speech<br/> AND<br/> b) Once that has been determined, how, specifically, you eliminate their free speech</p>
<p><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>Reply by John Carlson on July 24, 2010 at 3:23pm</strong></span></p>
<p>I'm still curious about:<br/> a) How you determine that a specific person advocates the end of free speech<br/> AND<br/> b) Once that has been determined, how, specifically, you eliminate their free speech</p> Why shouldn’t a party “advoc…tag:4freedoms.com,2011-12-07:3766518:Comment:913182011-12-07T09:48:09.585ZAlan Lakehttp://4freedoms.com/profile/AlanLake
<ul>
<li><strong>Why shouldn’t a party “advocating the end of democracy” be allowed to run in an election? If they win an election, well, that would be an interesting turn of events anyway…</strong></li>
</ul>
<p>I suspect that he is capriciously speculating about being enslaved and crushed by fascist Nazis or totalitarian Marxists because he is safely ensconced in the spoilt fantasy world (for a Westerner) of modern Japan. For those of us who see a future under racist supremacist Sharia Law…</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Why shouldn’t a party “advocating the end of democracy” be allowed to run in an election? If they win an election, well, that would be an interesting turn of events anyway…</strong></li>
</ul>
<p>I suspect that he is capriciously speculating about being enslaved and crushed by fascist Nazis or totalitarian Marxists because he is safely ensconced in the spoilt fantasy world (for a Westerner) of modern Japan. For those of us who see a future under racist supremacist Sharia Law being forced on our grandchildren, such a comment that it would be <em><strong>"</strong>an interesting turn of events<strong>"</strong></em> is not just academic speculation, its very bad taste.</p>
<p>However, even if we take that comment as a serious criticism, it is covered by my previous reply about self destructing machines and layers of control mechanisms, with the distinction between mandatory controls and optional add-ons.</p> Should a Prime Minister be l…tag:4freedoms.com,2011-12-07:3766518:Comment:905582011-12-07T09:38:49.025ZAlan Lakehttp://4freedoms.com/profile/AlanLake
<ul>
<li><strong>Should a Prime Minister be legally purviewed if he starts praying and citing scriptures and quoting Jesus Christ in his speeches?</strong></li>
</ul>
<p>It obviously depends on what prayers he says and what scriptures he cites. Most of Christianity is not problematical, but there are one or two statements that contravene current law, for example, the one about homosexuality being an abomination in the eyes of the Lord. That would fall under legal purview, not at the mandatory…</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Should a Prime Minister be legally purviewed if he starts praying and citing scriptures and quoting Jesus Christ in his speeches?</strong></li>
</ul>
<p>It obviously depends on what prayers he says and what scriptures he cites. Most of Christianity is not problematical, but there are one or two statements that contravene current law, for example, the one about homosexuality being an abomination in the eyes of the Lord. That would fall under legal purview, not at the mandatory layer 0 of the onion, but at one of the higher levels, so whether or not to give special exemption to the houses of parliament would be an <em>option </em>for that society to choose.</p> If “religion is only exempte…tag:4freedoms.com,2011-12-07:3766518:Comment:915122011-12-07T09:37:26.972ZAlan Lakehttp://4freedoms.com/profile/AlanLake
<ul>
<li><strong>If “religion is only exempted from legal purview in the private sphere”, then why do you want “all religious assemblies and publications” monitored? Monitored by the whom? By the state?</strong></li>
</ul>
<p id="aeaoofnhgocdbnbeljkmbjdmhbcokfdb-mousedown">Obviously, you have to monitor to determine which parts of an organisation's or ideology's teachings are applicable to the public sphere. Unless you want to be like the UK government perhaps, and just ask extremist mosques…</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>If “religion is only exempted from legal purview in the private sphere”, then why do you want “all religious assemblies and publications” monitored? Monitored by the whom? By the state?</strong></li>
</ul>
<p id="aeaoofnhgocdbnbeljkmbjdmhbcokfdb-mousedown">Obviously, you have to monitor to determine which parts of an organisation's or ideology's teachings are applicable to the public sphere. Unless you want to be like the UK government perhaps, and just ask extremist mosques what their teachings are and take their words at face value <span>instead of actually reading the books</span> they are selling and giving away on their premises?</p>
<p>You have to monitor all, because to do otherwise would be discriminatory, which is another key tenet of our secular democracy, as I've also described elsewhere.</p>
<p id="aeaoofnhgocdbnbeljkmbjdmhbcokfdb-mousedown">It would obviously be monitored by the state. We are talking about Secular Democracy and its preservation under threat. We are not talking about voluntary organisations like Soup Kitchens and so on, run by concerned individuals where they see a gap in State intervention. The activities we are talking about need to be authorised and controlled by legislation, and have checks and balances in place to protect against both excessive laxness (our current problem) and excessive strictness.</p>