[pp.int.general] freedom of speech

[Carlos Ayala Vargas]

Reinier Bakels wrote:
> I value the freedom of speech, but I believe one should refrain from 
> negative generalisations that are experienced as very unpleasant by 
> certain communities, e.g. muslims.
I guess that you recommend to refrain from making negative 
generalisations *because of those generalisations being false* -actually 
I'm against the "/all people is x/" generalisations (as one does not 
know all people); I prefer (as long as backed with evidences) the "/many 
people is x/" or even "/most people is x/"-.

Because if, not talking only about muslims, but about any other belief 
(theist, atheist, agnostic, etc), gender (male, female), sexual 
orientation (hetero, homo, bi, etc), ethnic origin (white, black, gipsy, 
India indian, American indian, etc) ... and even just about specific 
individuals ... would you recommend to refrain from negative comments if 
true? I mean, where do you find the problem, in making negative 
comments, in making generalisations, or in both? I just see a problem in 
making generalisations, while *making negative statements (e.g.: _most 
Spanish MPs, namely most PP & PSOE MPs, are not trustworthy_) is not a 
problem for me, as long as those statements are true*.
> And the fact that such opinions are not seen as crimes or torts imho 
> does not imply that one is socially allowed to say anything that is 
> not against the law.
Define /socially allowed/: do you mean /being lynched/ or something like 
that -I thought that State has the monopoly of /violence/, and that 
anyone who dare to challenge it (i.e., physically attacking anyone who 
insults that person) was punished by criminal justice-? do you mean 
being /socially marginalized/ -if a person punches me, I accuse that 
person of having punched me and (specially if I prove that it actually 
happened) there is people who turn their backs on me, shame on whoever 
who does such thing-?
> I referred to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former Somali refugee, who became a 
> Dutch parliament member and now lives in the US. After she quit Islam, 
> and pubklished a lot about that, she became under threat. In our 
> country, as a MEP she was protected by bodyguards, payd by the 
> government. The US government refuses to pay her protection;"we never 
> do that".
US government is free to decide whether to give Ayaan protection or not; 
US citizens are free to decide whether to reward or punish such 
decision; and Ayaan is free to decide whether USA is a country where she 
feels protected enough from the threats she actually suffers. Who's 
right there? I leave on each one's hands to decide it.
> Imho somehow that makes sense. If you needphysical protection for your 
> opinions, you are not a "good communicator".
I possitively find that statement as fully rejectable, because in PIRATA 
we "/condemn the use of violence applied to make political claims 
outside democratic paths"/, and also /"will also condemn any attempt 
against anyone's life and integrity, and will condemn any attempt of 
excluding and prosecuting people because of their ideologies, faith or 
beliefs, nationality, race, gender or sexual preferences/"; that 
includes condemning the fact that Ayaan Hirsi Ali has her life 
threatened because of her thoughts -which at most would may cause her to 
be brought to justice (and to be found guilty or not guilty, depending 
on what she said), but never to be assassinated because of those 
thoughts-. And we think so not just because of Spanish Political Parties 
law making it a legal requirement, but also because we believe in it.

Please take these e-mail addresses and share your viewpoint with any of 
these associations of ETA victims, some of them victims just because of 
criticizing terrorism:

prensa at fundacionvt.org
webmaster at faavt.org

(there are others like AVT, Basta ya!, Foro Ermua, etc, you can search 
for their e-mail addresses ... also you can search for simmilar 
associations from other countries)

They'll simply hallucinate when they read that if them -specially some 
of them- were forced to flee from their homes was just because of not 
being "/good communicators/". Actually, and finishing this mail as I 
started it:

- wasn't that a negative comment on terrorism victims made by you?
- wasn't that generalising?



                                                                                          
Carlos Ayala
                                                                                          
( Aiarakoa )

                                                                   
Partido Pirata National Board's Chairman