That's bullshit rkz. Surely you can find a better retort than insinuations about what I can and can't handle.

You are no better than I am.

"No better"? I never stated or insinuated I was better than anyone. Much less stated I should have more freedom or rights than anyone, or any group.

Should i not take your statement, "most people can't handle freedom and you prove it" literally?

Am I to assume you feel/stated that you feel comfortable sorting out who should have freedom of speech and who should not; who gets to say what and who does not?

I don't think you should assume anything.

Are you going to answer my question?

If you mean that I am stating that:
A: Most people cannot handle being free
B: I feel you are one of them based on your opinions expressed in here
C: That enough in Europe and other nations feel it is acceptable to hold the same oppressive attitude toward those who do not think/speak as they do, most cannot handle freedom

Absolutely.

Your turn.

Well that's your opinion rkz. Very far from fact if you're making a comparison between say the US and Australia.

You are a product of your environment just as much as anyone else and that's very clear.

The US constitution is very far from a perfect document as is the US government very far from a perfect form of governance. Consider first that criticizing another way of life or thought doesn't make your own way of life or thought better.

No country is perfect in the way it manages its people and its laws. Not even the US believe it or not.

Just because other nations are not the US does not mean they or the people who live there are less free simply because they don't have the same constitution as you do.

Actually I was talking to you about the Euro policy then your opinion, I don't remember bringing Australia into it.

Are you going to answer my question now that I answered yours?

I believe everyone in a democratic nation has a right to state their case and try and change the things that they think are wrong within their society.

If I had a problem with the laws regarding free speach and the right to demonstrate in my country I would do something about it.

At this stage I have no problem with them and i believe them to be fair.

We are comparing apples and oranges. Freedom as a word carries different cultural connotations in different cultural groups. Most Americans will have a slightly different set of assumptions about the concept of freedom than do most Europeans.

I still say that is BS. Freedom is freedom.
Some just don't want their neighbors to have it so they are ok with giving it up themselves.

What is truly funny to me is that by making those groups "outlaws" Europe makes them MUCH more attractive to the disenfranchised youth that they target, harder to track, more powerful and entrenched within their own community, forces them to deal with terrorist groups (which the Euro groups do and the US groups do not), and makes it much harder to know what they are doing and discussing at any time.
It also sends a message of weakness, states clearly that they cannot handle them and, therefore, must make special laws for them based on fear. It lends them credibility.
Dumb, dumb, DUMB.

Yea, I would have to agree, Euopeans don't have much to talk about when talking about treatment of immigrants, legal or otherwise. They certainly should not be throwing stones from the glass house they live in.

What, no rational, clear retort?

So, unless we have perfected our technique for dealing with the immigration issue, any denizens of Europe have no right to comment on American immigration issues, when it is raised on an internet forum? I seem to recall I have been in here many times railing against my own country's handling of immigration, I don't reserve my negative opinion for America on this.

Is that aimed at me? I didn't feel there was much point continuing the conversation. This is something we have discussed before and I think there's little chance of either of us moving in any way nearer to the other in our opinions.

But to answer your charge. If you are referring to making right wing political groups illegal, that is not really true of Britain. Certain activities, including speech intended to incite racial hatred, are illegal. The definitions are very narrow and this is seen, by most people, as no more of a bar to free expression as are libel and slander laws. The same applies to published material.

Right wing political organisations are as free to form and exist as any other group as long as their stated intent does not contravene the laws already mentioned. The British National Party stands in elections and from time to time wins seats. They publish leaflets with fairly racist stuff, but it treads enough of a line that it doesn't contravene the laws. Other organisations are also careful when publishing, so as not to contravene libel laws. Yet, in terms of what can and does get published we are no more (arguably much less) censored than anywhere else. Likewise in terms of what can be, and is shown on television.

Those judicial attitudes to libel have been a part of our culture for a very long time, and the laws on inciting racial hatred to me seem very similar. One protects an individual or organisation from malicious or frivolous attacks on the character, and the other protects people from a similar attack on their ethnicity.

This is the way we organise our society. We consider our society to be free in our own terms. You are free to define 'freedom' in whatever way best corresponds to your cultural identity.