Return Home Members Area Experts Area The best AskMe alternative!Answerway.com - You Have Questions? We have Answers! Answerway Information Contact Us Online Help
 Wednesday 3rd December 2008 04:06:40 PM


 

Username:

Password:

or
Join Now!

 

Home/Government/International Relations

Forum Ask A Question   Question Board   FAQs Search
Return to Question Board

Question Details Asked By Asked On
Sunshine week curious98 03/15/05

    Hello,
    Sunshine week:

    With further reference to my previous post re. the above matter, I would like to elaborate a little bit more on the subject merely for the sake of debating.
    And to avoid unnecessarily vexing my US friends, being that I’m an European, I will concentrate on Europe.
    Freedom of expression is one of the most fundamental rights that we can enjoy as individuals. And it is fundamental to the existence of democracy and the respect of human dignity. This is probably one of the greatest accomplishments mankind has attained since 1789. However, it is also one of the most dangerous rights, because freedom of expression means the freedom to express one's discontent with the status quo and the desire to change it. As such, it is one of the most threatened rights, with governments - and even human rights groups - all over the world constantly trying to curtail it.
    In Europe, as you probably know, we have many different political parties that may go from the very extreme and radical right-wing ideologies (neo-nazis or fascists groups, for instance), to the very extreme and radical left-wing ideologies (nostalgic communists, leftist socialists, etc.).
    The 731 members of the European Union Parliament, for instance, are made up for their 6th term (from 2004 to 2009) of the following political parties:
    PPE-DE - Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats
    PSE – Socialist Group in the European Parliament
    ALDE - Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe
    Verts/ALE - Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance
    GUE/NGL - Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left
    IND/DEM - Independence/Democracy Group
    UEN - Union for Europe of the Nations Group
    NI - Non-attached Members
    These are, of course, the European political groups that, because of their importance, are entitled to participate in the European Parliament. Radical parties are not allowed in the Euro parliament but, nonetheless, they exist in each individual country.
    Now then, each one of these political ideologies have their own organs of opinion, whether press, radio or TV. In other words, while they all pretend this is not so, each newspaper, radio or TV reacts to whatever political news depending on the political ideology of their board of directors and/or owners.
    The logical consequence is that the same political event and/or decision taken by your own political Administration may look completely different whether you are looking at it from the party(s) in the Government or from the party(s) in the opposition.
    The same thing happens, of course, in the USA. But there, the differences between Democrats and Republicans are minor ones, as compared with that of Europe. From our own point of view, both US Democrats and Republicans are considered as belonging to the right wing, with one being more conservative than the other. Those in the Republican Party tend to form their opinions closer to more traditional values, most of which originate from the Bible. Democrats, on the other hand, often base their opinions off of more modern ideas, usually not derived from the Bible. Correct me if I am wrong.
    But over here, differences can be mammoth differences. For instance, when it comes to analyzing the US foreign policy (one of the Europeans favorite themes), differences can go from considering Mr. Bush, God’s direct messenger, who is always right and devoted to his people, to consider him a regular gangster who only thinks of his own interest… It all depends on the kind of newspaper you choose or the radio you listen to.
    And this is where the problem lies, because instead of becoming a tool whereby people may know what is going on around the world and why, so we can decide whether we endorse or oppose our respective Governments, we are submerged in a bottomless pit of contradictory information and lies. And the very foundation of the freedom of speech becomes defeated, because instead of information what we get is disinformation.
    One example. A couple of weeks ago, at the Catalonia Parliament, the President of the Generalitat (an equivalent to a Governor of one of your States) was accused by the leader of the opposition (who had been governing the previous term) of miscalculating the necessary funds to build an extension of the Barcelona subway with the end result that one of the tunnels had collapsed, dragging along a couple of buildings, thanks God without any casualties.
    In the heated discussion that ensued such accusation the President, through a slip of the tongue, accused the opposition leader of the previous Administration, of having been collecting a 3% commission on all building contracts signed during his term in office, and added he could prove it, whereby this guy was so furious that he said in front of the TV cameras (the session was being broadcasted) that he was going to sue the President for slander. The following day, for the first time in our History, he did commence legal proceedings against the President of the Generalitat of Catalonia.
    Two days ago, the President appeared on TV to publicly declare that he took back his words and apologized before the Parliament, saying he had made a mistake and he did not mean what he say, whereby, the leader of the opposition who was next to him, smiled, shook hands with him (almost kissed him), and declared he accepted his apologies and would, consequently, immediately cancel the proceedings.
    Some newspapers have praised the president’s courage while others have stolled the opposition leader’s generosity. However, they have all deemed convenient not to speak of what is probably the only truth, i.e., that both politics have decided that it would go against their mutual political interests to go any further into the case, for the most probable thing is that both Administrations (the previous one and the new one) had been and are collecting some kind of commission from the contractors.
    The freedom of speech has been curtailed here because of some political misdeeds and wrongdoings that need to be hidden away from the public knowledge.
    As a consequence of which, we shall never know whether those two Administrations are formed by rogue and crook politics, which they probably are, anyway.
    France's embattled finance minister resigned last Friday after allegations he used government money to rent an $18,500-a-month apartment for his family while trying to control public spending as a Cabinet member.
    "I am aware that I committed blunders and, above all, a serious error of judgment regarding the conditions of my official lodgings," Gaymard said in his resignation statement.
    France’s President Mr. Chirac has quickly tried to elude his own responsibility by claiming ignorance of the case, which is hard to believe, bearing in mind he had attended, a few weeks ago, a party Mr. Gaymard gave precisely to inaugurate his expensive living quarters.
    Scotland's First Minister Henry McLeish is to resign from the post.
    The shock announcement came as a debate was due to start on the handling of the Officegate scandal, which centered on expenses claimed for his Glenrothes constituency office.
    Although both the Conservatives and the Scottish National Party are demanding the first minister's resignation, nobody seems to be willing to disclose the actual reason of the resignation.
    Political corruption is widespread all over the world. There was a time, perhaps, when politicians were truly patriots who really cared about their countries. But that period lasted a few years only and it can be condensed in the gap of time going from the early 1900 to the end of WWII, at the very best. And only in some parts of the World.
    But ever since, corruption has invaded us and, as a consequence, freedom of speech has been curtailed or is being manipulated.
    And it is very sad, because a North American writer once said: Democracies die behind closed doors…
    Regards
    Curious98

Your Options
    Additional Options are only visible when you login! !

vq/In   © Copyright 2002-2008 Answerway.org. All rights reserved. User Guidelines. Expert Guidelines.
Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.   Make Us Your Homepage
. Bookmark Answerway.