Should be disposed of in the garbage can

Recommend these queer films and series that Magnus E. Marsdal Show more

It is very good that parties from the left wing in Trondheim takes discrimination and racism seriously, and promotes the proposal to declare the city as the antiracist zone. The last ukenes testimony from many who have known fremmedfiendtlige attitudes on the body, shows that this topic requires attention and controversy, not only 17. may-speak where we pat ourselves on the head for that we are so kind and tolerant in this country.

The nordic resistance movement (DNM) was granted the application for two torgmøter in the county of Østfold in October 2018. Here from the meeting in Fredrikstad, norway. Photo: Eagles Castle / NTB Scanpix Show more

surprisingly and scary that the same parties will prohibit the opinions they want to fight.

Mona Berger from SW and her allies, suggests this decision: "the city Council asks kommunedirektøren enter into dialogue with the police with the purpose to be able to ban groups, parties and organizations to use municipal land for the demonstrations with a racist message."

in other words: The political authorities to forhåndssensurere speech they deem "racist". They should put the police voldsmakt in order to suppress such speech so they can't occur at the "municipal land".

Why is this no good idea?

1. The proposal is in derogation of the freedom of speech and forsamlingsfriheten, two prerequisites for democracy that the left and the labour movement has fought for in nearly 200 years.

2. The proposal gets the left to look like hypocrites: Requires freedom of speech for themselves but deny it for others.

3. The proposal can remind you a little bit about the little ærerike the legacy of the stalinist, non-democratic communist parties who used the power of the state to suppress everything they don't like and not reputable other actors are gaining equal freedoms and rights.

4. Prohibitions against racist speech may be counterproductive: It makes the organized rasistene to the martyrs in the fight for freedom of speech (a case with great support) in place for the malicious and kjipe racists (a group with low turnout). There is also a lissepasning to breivik gives party as the progress party, which immediately will throw out in a heroic battle for freedom of expression.

Turn On the LydErrorAllerede plus customer? Log into herError BOKSET UP: the Statue of Winston Churchill in Parliament Square in London have never seen the way out. Video: AP. Reporter: Madeleine Liereng / Dagbladet TV Show more

5. Prohibitions against racist speech can act as a pillow: In the place to argue the point and win hearts and minds against racism, one can simply to say "it is forbidden" and shout at the police. Then wins you nothing in the ideological battle.

6. The proposal is in derogation of freedom of speech on a prinsippløs way because someone is going to be given the power to decide what is to count as "a racist message" and thus prohibit these speech. But what is, and is not, a racist will always be contested and therefore should be subject to free exchange of opinions.

7. To hollow out freedom of speech can turn back on the left side even. Globally, it is first and foremost, our organizations affected by the prohibition, persecution and censorship. If the left side does not have a principle defence of freedom of speech – even the speech we are deadly in fact – how shall we fight for the principle of credibility the day it is our own freedom of expression is at stake?

Let the statues stand Leader

the Answer to these arguments can be that it is not political speech they want to ban, but the type of racism that actually is prohibited by the so-called 'racism paragraph' in the Act of punishment.

This section provides a fine or up to three years in prison for "publicly set forth a discriminatory or hateful statement", which is elaborated as follows:

"discriminatory or hateful statement" means the true or forhåne someone, or promote hatred, persecution or contempt towards someone because of their • a) skin colour or national or ethnic origin, • b) religion or creed, • c) homosexual orientation, or • d) reduced disability."

This is about more than political speech. It's all about, to some extent, violent, racist environments and organizations that can make the city streets unsafe for other groups by spreading fear. Such organizations suppress, in practice, other groups and individuals, freedom of expression, and this must community be able to protect themselves against. This mean that I also have.

the History of the nazis and the fascists in Germany and Italy shows that there can be serious consequences to letting such forces dominate in the streets, regardless of whether the reason to let them hold on to is "freedom of speech" or cowardice, or that you simply underestimate them.

Should not be difficult to understand the Debate

So if we already have a clause against such speech in the criminal code, what is the problem with adopting in the Trondheim city council that the hereafter shall be enforced to the "municipal land"?

1) the Proposal is all about forhåndssensur , not to punish the illegal actions or utterances that are committed or proposed. As is well known, are the so-called 'racism paragraph' already. When it made a particular decision, it must be because you want something more than what is already required by the law, namely to forhåndssensurere speech which has not taken place.

2) the Proposal becomes all the more hopeless by looking away from that the actual basis for the ban you suggest – namely, a definition of what is to count as a hateful speech that promotes persecution and contempt, etc. – often will be stridens core if the courts need to process cases under the so-called 'racism paragraph'. This battle is intercepted completely by politically controlled forhåndssensur of the citizens ' speech.

3) The so-called 'racism paragraph' is basically problematic, because it can restrict the right to freedom of speech is protected by the Constitution. It can nevertheless be defended from society's need to protect themselves against organised and violent fremmedfiendtlighet that suppresses the other groups ' real freedom of speech. But that paragraph is troubling, it should not be venstresidas kampsak to enforce it as rough as the over head possible. And in any case not with the politically directed forhåndssensur of the citizens ' speech.

I support 100 per cent the initiative to put the fight against racism and discrimination on the agenda in Trondheim, and hope parties in several municipalities follow suit. But I hope the proposal ytringsforbud encounter so much resistance – even from left wing – that it will be added in the skrivebordsskuffa, or, preferably: disposed of in the garbage can.

We are all racists Comment You can submit your article and opinion piece in Dagbladet here

Want to discuss?

Visit Dagbladet debate!