> Between February 2023 and July 1, 2022, that did not happen in three investigations, the CTIVD said. The supervisory body did not say which communities were involved but did explain that by “community,” it means a population group “based, for example, on ethnicity, religious belief, or occupational group.” So, theoretically, the police intelligence services may have been spying on visitors to a certain mosque or protesting farmers.
We really have a problem with targeted surveillance of specific communities like visitors of a specific mosque? Or a pub frequented by known nazis? I don't get it. The article doesn't have enough details to form an opinion!
> like visitors of a specific mosque? Or a pub frequented by known nazis?
But the article had a slightly different example than yours:
> on visitors to a certain mosque or protesting farmers
You changed "protesting farmers" to "a pub frequented by known nazis." It's emotionally easy not to have a problem with targeted surveillance of nazis, but surveilling farmers, who are currently protesting throughout Europe? That's clearly politically motivated surveillance of ordinary, peaceful, law-abiding citizens who dissent from the government's views.
The protesting farmers have been blocking highways with their tractors and lighting fires containing asbestos (also on / near highways). You could argue that the former should be allowed as part of a protest, but the latter moves you squarely outside the "law-abiding citizens" category.
It's a group that by the nature of their production cycle is very exploitable (you have to sell the harvest or it litterally turns into manure), and yet they are extremely essential to a population's survival (unlike e.g. hairdressers, no food ruins your month in a way an overdue trim can't match).
So you want to keep farms up even in times the market wont.
What makes them a singular category in this regard? Genuine question. Virtually all agricultural sectors enjoy some form of subsidy, for what I think are obvious reasons. Likewise it's not like the idea of government money going to less-than-optimally-productive labor is unheard of.
That’s the case in the US as well. What do you think agriculture subsidies are?
If you want countries that don’t subsidize agriculture that has been Aussie and NZ since the 80s iirc. Though I haven’t lived in those countries for a decade or two now and Covid and various financial panics over the last decades resulted in a variety of corporate hand outs so it seems plausible that those businesses have got some government support since then.
> The protesting farmers have been blocking highways with their tractors
Yeah, that's kind the idea of a protest. If you don't create enough inconvenience, than it will be, at best, a small line in a newspaper. "10 thousand farmers gathered in an abandoned meadow and drove around in protest." Yes, cute.
They are going this far because, obviously, they have the feeling they haven't been heard, and/or because they feel decisions are being made that are not taking into account the reality of their profession.
> lighting fires containing asbestos
This sounds like nothing more than a dubious scaremongering claim to discredit whatever concern they are trying to air. It -might- be something that happened anecdotally and accidentally, but to describe it as something done deliberately while also putting their own health in danger requires quite a bit more proof than hearsay.
It has happened regularly at farmer protests, so speculating that it might be accidental is absurd. They deliberately burn garbage containing asbestos. They are criminals that deserve to be behind bars.
The farmers have been anything but peaceful. They've destroyed public & private property, doused it in literal shit, started fires and threatened politicians. They've also blocked roads preventing emergency services from getting through.
In this case the unfortunate answer is that they were given cushy subsidies and preferential treatment for years and this is sadly no longer sustainable due to climate change. They are now entitled and angry.
It's understandable they don't like it, but the reaction is ridiculously extreme.
Farmers were peaceful because they were in a position of privilege over many other businesses. It was being subjected to the same pressure that everyone else was that caused issues.
I get that that would be a hard transition, but you don’t get to say “they were peaceful before when others weren’t” when the lack of peacefulness from others was largely because they weren’t getting the same support and protection that these groups were getting, especially when they’re directly demonstrating in their responses now that they fundamentally agree with the issues that caused prior protests and riots, now that those issues also impact them.
Right, but their own population isn't currently having trouble importing food (that I know of). Farm subsidies are essentially a form of insurance against famine.
I think these things are cyclical, I can think of many previous protest cycles with farmers being aggressive. Different countries have different protest cultures of course.
>The farmers have been anything but peaceful. They've destroyed public & private property, doused it in literal shit, started fires and threatened politicians.
Yeah, so? That's how they like their protests in France (and how we like them in several parts of Europe too).
The French state itself was established on a much more violent rebellion...
Let me know how you like it when you have hundreds of loud, angry people hanging out in front of your house, lighting tires and pallets on fire and dousing your house with animal shit.
> That's clearly politically motivated surveillance of ordinary, peaceful, law-abiding citizens who dissent from the government's views.
Peaceful? In Germany, a particularly nasty incident made headlines where a drunk farmer tried to evade a roadblock and ended up injuring a policeman [1], just last week two got arrested for attempting to run over cops [2], others spread feces and trash over a highway and lit up barricades [3], and the large demonstration in January in Berlin had over ten arrests for violence as well as explosives [4].
In the netherlands several of these "protesters" have been rounded up, arrested or otherwise prosecuted. Some later on. Several have been found guilty of breaking the law. Some as young as 17 or 19¹.
Regardless of the political view or perspective or stance: they are provably not law-abiding.
If that's the worst across multiple countries, it seems very peaceful. Much worse happens in the general public.
Are you suggesting that because a few people did things you don't like, everyone involved is violent? That is not only clearly false, but very dangerous.
If significant elements of a widespread protest show signs of radicalisation - and there are lots of signs - then it is the job of the police to investigate, how serious and organized the radicals are. Some drunk nuts blowing off steam vs. the beginning of domestic terrorism.
I did not say anything about the police being justified in suppressing legal protest. I said they have the duty to investigate, if there is suspicion of radicalisation.
And about signs, in germany the economy ministre could not leave his ferry, because of aggressive protesters. I did not noticed a widespread condemnation of said action by the rest of the protestors. That alone justifies investigation.
"That is oppression and a tool of oppression, and it's got a long history."
Not per se. If it means rounding everyone up regulary and search all their homes for the sake of it - then yes. But investigations can also be discrete.
"And if there were, so what? Why must this law be enforced so utterly?"
Why must a government not bow to a violent mob? Because it would end democracy, if they would. It would mean, give right to those people, who can get the most determinated hooligans.
What do you mean? Not in theory? Theory doesn't matter, because in reality people abuse power if they have it, as they do with that power.
> Why must a government not bow to a violent mob? Because it would end democracy, if they would. It would mean, give right to those people, who can get the most determinated hooligans.
That sounds apocolyptic. There have been many protests in democracies, many with some violence, and the democracies survive. What democracy has fallen to violent protestors?
"There have been many protests in democracies, many with some violence, and the democracies survive. "
Yeah, because they do not bow to violence.
"What democracy has fallen to violent protestors?"
The US would have, if they would have accepted that the "protesters" could storm the capitol without consequence for example and decide the outcome of a election by force.
It's a very absolutist argument. Not all protests or violence are the same, and almost none are a threat to democracy.
I don't support violent protest, but absolutist law and order are a much bigger threat to liberty, a way to criminalize and shut down dissent. It's just weaponizing the law.
Dude, I am arguing that violent people need to be investigated. Nothing more. Do you really debate that?
I did not say in any word, a whole group needs to be locked down, because one stepped out of line. But if the group openly supports the violence of that one person - well then they invited further investigation to determine if there is more planned in secret. It is a grey area for sure and I am not a fan of police regulary overstepping those lines to stop some drunk nuts. But they do have to check, on whether the nuts are arming themself and getting more dangerous. How would you propose it should work? Ignoring it?
Investigation itself is a politically, emotionally, and sometimes financially and socially damaging act, and can lead to oppression.
1) Don't draw the line at zero violence.
Law enforcement overlooks minor violence all the time: For example, for a bar fight where someone gets a bloody nose, the police might just send everyone home. Police often resolve violent disputes through mediation. Many women allege that domestic violence is almost always ignored.
Where to draw the line is a bit tricky. It could depend on personal or property damage - maybe misdemeanors go home, felonies get arrested.
2) Discard the idea that people in protests are somehow more suspect of being insurrectionists.
3) Discard the guilt-by-association. If one of my co-workers or family members commits a violent crime, the whole company/family shouldn't be investigated. Guilt or innocence is an individual thing. Yes, if someone is an active member in an organization whose mission is violence, that is a different story.
"Many women allege that domestic violence is almost always ignored."
And you think, that is a good thing?
There used to be laws up until recently, saying there is no such thing as rape in a marriage. And that husbands need to tame their wifes. Some policemen amd judges still think like that.
Not my take.
And everthing else you argue, was besides every point I made.
I said explicitely, that police needs to investigate upon violence especially in political context, to determine if it is a real threat. Not to process every bloddy nose and not with guilt by association - unless the other protestors do celebrate the violence. Then there is at least suspicion by association and also possible guilt. Do you debate that?
Let's talk to each other in good faith, respectfully. Maybe I'm in good faith; the solution to disagreement is not to assume the other is all wrong. Maybe I know something you don't, maybe vice-versa, probably both.
I'm confused by this statement:
> I said explicitely, that police needs to investigate upon violence especially in political context, to determine if it is a real threat. Not to process every bloddy nose ...
So do you want them to investigate every bloody nose - every minor act of violence - in a political context or don't you? My understanding is that you do, and that's what I addressed.
> not with guilt by association - unless the other protestors do celebrate the violence. Then there is at least suspicion by association and also possible guilt. Do you debate that?
A celebration is not nearly enough, by my point of view. If they helped plan or execute it, if they are in an organization's mission is violence, then I'd understand investigating them.
"So do you want them to investigate every bloody nose - every minor act of violence - in a political context or don't you?"
It is not about processing every individual bloody nose in court, but the context. To determine, if the aggressors potentially will do more than bloody noses in the future. This is one of the jobs of the police and that was and is my point all along.
(but if a individual was charged by someone and wants investigation, then yes, that bloody nose needs to be processed)
"A celebration is not nearly enough, by my point of view. If they helped plan or execute it, if they are in an organization's mission is violence, then I'd understand investigating them."
And here is where we disagree, if a group of people celebrates violence, then violence is de facto part of their mission. Why else would they cheer for it, if they do not support it? And if they support it, well ..
> To determine, if the aggressors potentiall will do more than bloody noses in the future. This is one of the jobs of the police
That's the question at the heart of the matter: What are the parameters, in your opinion? Can they just investigate dissent on the basis of a bloody nose, based on their own judgment? I think we need narrow restrictions, including objective reasons, or they can quash dissent just through intimidation of investigation.
> if a group of people celebrates violence, then violence is de facto part of their mission.
Maybe they are some drunk or otherwise thoughtless people, or people just lost in mob psychology - the norms of the moment, or over-excited?
Have you been to a protest? IME, most people don't really know much about what's going on and they have no direction or organization. They wander around looking for something to do; you can't really see what's happening - all the other people's heads are at your eye level; if people cheer, others cheer without knowing why. The news clips pick out a tiny fraction of the area for a tiny fraction of time.
I've been to protests where violence occurred that you likely saw on TV. I oppose the violence, but it was a few people in a tiny corner of the protest. My guess is that they wanted attention and had an audience. It had nothing to do with 99.99% of the people there, almost all of whom were perfectly safe and peaceful, but that violence was all that was on TV.
> my point all along.
If you are making a point 'all along' and the other person doesn't understand, isn't that probably on you? I'd assume it's me. I could get just as frustrated as you seem to be, but I assume communication is challenging, and I expectthat we will almost always reach the point of misunderstanding, and then the best communication occurs:
That's when I learn the things that are outside my assumptions - including ones I'm not aware of - and perceptions and limitations. Because that's where the breakdown always occurs.
I just need to be curious and trust the other person knows things that are far beyond me.
Quite some. Not so much as participant for various reasons, more so as a observer.
And the pattern I observed, is the very same from left to right to environmental to whatever. And most of the protests have their own media, which acts the same across the sprectrum:
- not ever mentioning violence by the own group
- but if the own violence brings in a violent counter reaction from the police - that violence gets dramaticed "oh the evil and violent police"
And if there is violence from the own mob, the own mob will celebrate it. Or ignore it, but very seldom be stopped.
And being drunk is an explanation, not an excuse. And group psychology is a valid analysis, but it makes the group not any better. And groups can do aweful things, precisely when they individually have no idea whats going on but going "with the flow". That can flow into nasty places.
So, I am really not a fan of the police in general.
But if people cheer violence and act as a coherent group - well, then whose job is it, to investigate whether they will keep it down, if not the police? Some revolutionary council?
Yup. Totally justifies bypassing the law and putting all the farmers under surveillance.
> as well as explosives
As read: "Verstoß gegen das Sprengstoffgesetz" or, in plain English "A violation of the law on explosives". Which says absolutely nothing, as fireworks would already qualify as explosives if forbidden.
The article specified them as examples and I found them quite framing. So yes, I changed it to cases where no one would probably have a problem with it. I'd personally have a problem with farmers being surveilled just because they are farmers and are protesting. I wanted to show that we need more data before having an opinion, as it depends on the details.
The "protesting farmers" is just speculation from the NOS, and might as well be Nazis or motorbike gangs or extreme-left activists or $anything_else. Previous poster merely used it as an example to illustrate that these type of specifics matter.
Also these "protesting farmers" involved a number of violent incidents, intimidation, threats, and things like that. Look, things aren't black-white here, but "peaceful, law-abiding citizens" is very much a distortion of what happened.
Since Russia through Hungary organise and support the farmer protests monetarily and politically, there is no question that they should be monitored on some level.
MCC is a shill university to transform state money to private, it’s not even a secret. They moved billions of Euros through it. Also, Hungary is utterly compromised, which can be checked by using the keywords spy, Russia and Hungary together. It’s compromised on every level. A good article about it is here: https://www.direkt36.hu/putyin-hekkerei-is-latjak-a-magyar-k...
I have a problem with “surveilling nazis”. If they’re not actively committing criminal acts, and there isn’t a warrant demonstrating with specificity that the particular facility or group is involved (e.g the same requirement for any other warrant) they should not be subject to any more surveillance than say a Christian group, or a Muslim group, or an lgbt group, or hell a group of sports team supporters. The amount of surveillance should be zero.
I hate nazis with a passion, and would never be ok employing or working with someone who’s basic life belief is that a bunch of their coworkers (maybe including me?) don’t have the right to exist and are fundamentally inferior (if nothing else a cynical 100% capitalist take would be that having a Nazi anywhere in your management hierarchy will clearly open your company to plausible discrimination suits).
Before anyone brings up accepting others beliefs, that’s not an issue. There is a basic social contract: you can believe whatever you want without consequences until your beliefs get to “other people don’t get to have the same rights as me”. The “paradox of tolerance” is BS used by bigots to try and allow them to attack the rights of others with impunity under the guise of accepting other’s beliefs.
It's not about belief for me. People can believe what they want. But there's a sub-group of Nazis that want to topple the government and I think they, including all of their potential networks, should be surveilled. Just like all the leftists, islamists, and other terrorists or extremists. I don't agree with surveillance because of simple beliefs or religions though.
Can you define what "leftist" that should be surveilled when literally all politics is a spectrum of left to right? Certainly in the US the majority of politically motivated violence for decades has been by people explicitly on the right end of the spectrum.
Based on my experience in the US the use of the specific label "leftist" is generally used on people who support policies that are common in much of the liberal world, so coalescing "leftist" with people who promote killing people is a pretty gross choice. Do you want to reconsider your phrasing? Especially given you then say you disagree with surveillance because of "simple beliefs or religions" which is directly in opposition to "surveil all the leftists".
You were quite close but then decided not to do the final proper mental step. When I put leftists in a line with nazis, what kind of leftists could I possibly mean?
Also, I'm German, so I mean people like this for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction There are plenty anti-state leftists group, even in the US. And you probably very well know it, so I'm kind of annoyed at your question tbh.
> Do you want to reconsider your phrasing?
Absolutely not. Leftist means in support of left politics. You imply that the political left has no extreme wing this way. Same as with muslims, there's a range of beliefs, and a subset of those groups are not ok.
No. Popper was not using the "paradox of intolerance" to be a bigot attacking the rights of others. What Popper did was give a name to the behavior bigots were already demonstrating. Bigots don't say "you have to support my beliefs because of the paradox of tolerance", they say "you are not being tolerant if you don't support my intolerance" (for whatever group they're targeting).
It's somewhat disingenuous to present an idea in terms of the circumstances in which it was introduced as being equivalent to that idea after people have had time to actually think about it and discuss it. It implies that no problem can be resolved in the time following its introduction.
When Popper started talking about this as the "paradox of intolerance" it was "how do we resolve this issue where a maximally tolerant society must inherently become intolerant", but that was 80 odd years ago, and in that time the generally accepted answer is that tolerance is a social contract, and part of that is that tolerance is necessarily a two way street, so if your belief is that some other group[s] are not permitted to exist, or have the same rights, then no other group has to tolerate your beliefs. There is no problem of cycles of responsibility, because your intolerance was the initial trigger.
> What Popper did was give a name to the behavior bigots were already demonstrating. Bigots don't say "you have to support my beliefs because of the paradox of tolerance", they say "you are not being tolerant if you don't support my intolerance" (for whatever group they're targeting).
No, and no. He didn't "give a name to the behavior of bigots", and he didn't posit that bigots demand tolerance on rational grounds. In fact, he says something close to the opposite :
"...for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols"
> in that time the generally accepted answer is that tolerance is a social contract, and part of that is that tolerance is necessarily a two way street
... in that time? That description of tolerance is baked into his argument. The entire paradox, short as it is, revolved around the handling of (ultimately, violent) edge cases who don't care about meeting you anywhere.
I'm not going to continue engaging in this thread, but just for general and future reference here is the footnote we've been discussing :
"Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal. " -- The Open Society & Its Enemies
> The article doesn't have enough details to form an opinion!
It does, unless your interest is in justifying the breaking of law and abuse of powers.
These people were granted amazing powers, are paid from taxes, and yet somehow it's too much to expect that they'd have an ounce of respect for the law and the privacy of their supposed fellow citizens. Unscrupulous individuals who work overtime to figure out ways to abuse their powers.
And it really is unfathomable to me how it's possible for someone to be an agent of government, knowing you're responsible for being that for which no one nowhere should trust their government with any powers, and somehow still being able to go about your daily activities without your conscience tearing you into pieces. Impossible to say enough bad things about these specimens.
The point here is that this is something the intelligence agencies are allowed to do but only if done for a well grounded reason. It seems that step has been skipped.
I'd be miffed if the police sidestepped the law and tracked my whereabouts just because I was in an organisation where a couple of other members have suspicions raised about them.
If, say, one member of a mosque is under surveillance for good reasons and then you extend that to everyone attending the mosque for no particular reason other than "well, maybe we'll catch something, doesn't to try": that's probably not a good thing.
On the other hand, if the imam is preaching violent rhetoric, multiple members are under surveillance for good reasons, and there's good reasons to believe that the violence is an important part of the mosque community in the first place (rather than a relatively small detail): then that's perhaps not such a bad thing. You don't "accidentally" associate with that kind of thing.
Or: you probably don't need detailed reasons to put someone in Don Corleone's employ under surveillance.
I was just addressing the "tracked my whereabouts just because I was in an organisation where a couple of other members have suspicions raised about them" bit.
Being at the same spot doesn't make you "associated" with everyone else that's in that same spot.
I'm no religious person, but I would imagine praying in a mosque is very different to personally knowing everyone else that's praying in the same mosque. Even if you do meet everyone it's not like they're gonna introduce themselves with "hi, I'm $stereotypicalMuslimName, and I plan on doing a terrorist attack next month".
The connection needs to be far more substantial than that to warrant surveillance.
Not religious either, but my understanding is that churches/mosques/etc are often the hub of social life for religious people, and the regulars definitely know each other.
As someone who attended a couple of churches for many years, it's not necessarily "the hub of social life." Plenty of people show up, sit through the sermon/mass/whatever, and then leave afterwards. If you're really social, you might stick around for a coffee afterwards, but you're probably sitting at a table with the same few people every week.
It's similar to a school. You might have a social group of a dozen peers you're familiar with, and you might or might not ever do anything outside of school with those people. There are also hundreds of other students in different sets or levels of classes who you might not ever learn the name of.
Of course, it will vary between large churches and small churches, and probably between areas with lots of churches and areas with only a few. But I wanted to explain that since it sounds like you had at least an exaggerated idea of how religious people socialize via their places of worship.
A mosque can have hundreds of worshippers who turn up every Friday like clockwork. Each might know the 20-30 other people from a similar geographic background and barely talk to the rest, let alone have any idea that they're up to something nefarious.
I don’t think we have to live in that kind of world. The problem with that is $GOOD_GROUP and $BAD_GROUP are subjective judgements. That’s why you need cause for an investigation.
Are you referring to the US, where women have no freedom to decide what happens inside their uterus and slavery is still allowed for their millions of prisoners?
No, you're not guilty by associating, you're potentially useful and potentially sus.
When investigating serious crimes, there is no such thing as too much information. If you say hello and chit-chat with Bomberman every Sunday, I want to know what you talk about, I want to know what he wears, when he was sick and didn't show up, I want to know how he smells, I want to know everything, and given that you associate with him, I was hoping you could provide some information.
I mean, we're talking about tracking those hanging out at places where terrorists are known to gather, and associating with said terrorists, however casually? That's just military sense. Are we just supposed to let the known terrorist go to the bar, have his/her coded conversations with an unknown subject, and then let that subject go on his/her merry way without looking any further into the matter? That would be naive in the extreme.
Firstly we're not talking about "terrorists" but people who intelligence services have "received a signal" about. That's pretty ambiguous but sounds like it could mean an anonymous tip-off or information from another department.
Secondly, no one's suggesting that they let everyone go their merry way without looking into anything. Only that widespread surveillance must be justified e.g. the evidence must pass some threshold and other responses have been ruled out.
Might be a legitimate concern, but not enough evidence for Police surveillance. You mention "military sense", but this isn't a war. If there is terrorist suspicion, I'd say it is more in the intelligence jurisdiction.
> We really have a problem with targeted surveillance of specific communities like visitors of a specific mosque? Or a pub frequented by known nazis?
There's one of a hell of a difference between the right to religious expression and the right to drink in a pub.
The former is protected in many constitutions (USA: First Amendment, Germany: Art. 4 Abs. 2 Grundgesetz, Netherlands: Art. 6 no. 1 Constitution) as well as in Art. 18 of the Declaration of Human Rights, the latter is not.
Well, a lot of people, including you, seem to misunderstand me. I had very specific examples in my head with demonstrated (planned) actions against others or the state. I was even thinking about a very specific nazi pub in Germany. It's not about beliefs or religion for me. I couldn't care less and don't agree with "Generalverdacht" or "Sippenhaft" at all. On the opposite.
The real problem in Europe is that we allow radical mosques funded by shady Middle-Eastern actors to even operate. Or maybe it is the fact we have too many marginalized people who are easily brainwashed to support such ideologies.
Either way, surveillance is just a symptom of deeper political failures.
> Either way, surveillance is just a symptom of deeper political failures.
I'd say, limited surveillance is trying to unify tolerance and openness while not putting all people of one belief/religion for example in the same category.
I think it is more correct to say that religion has been used as an easy excuse and a way to bind closer the group causing violence and to dehumanize the victim group.
@dang, one day I would imagine that you can deal with Islamophobia with the same scrutiny you have toward other forms of racism. Maybe in a different world.
Islamophobia is a problematic term, since there is no unified concept of Islam to begin with. What is seen Islamophobic by a radical Muslim of Wahhabi sect (as an exmaple) may be seen as legitimate criticism by a moderate one. Based on my understanding it's mainly mosques with radical teachings and funding from certain countries that are being monitored.
I have not mentioned Islam anywhere, and strongly believe that any organized group that spreads hate and violence needs to be investigated and dealt with.
I think it's a demonstration of who is 'inside' and who is 'outside'. On HN, if you talk about racism or issues with white males, you get chased away - those are the people here, on the inside.
If you talk about women or Muslims, for example, they are objects of examination - what are they like? what do they do? They aren't participants, mostly; you don't have a lot of women and Muslims posting about it - think about it: if we want to know about Islam, why don't we listen to Muslims, who would actually know from a lifetime of direct experience? What we see is mostly from the perspective of someone looking at Muslims - they are on the outside. A predictable result of the ignorance is stereotypes and prejudice. And even prejudiced and hateful ideas are treated as 'curiosity' - the curiosity of (mostly) white males. Nobody is curious about racism or sexism, for example.
My sense is that what I see on HN, maybe unconciously, is moderated to accomodate the insiders.
I totally agree that the "normalisation" of Islamophobia is concerning, and the rise since last October is particularly alarming... but the GP didn't mention Islam at all - they were clearly making a blanket statement about all religion.
It’s honestly a bit islamophobic to assume that anyone saying religious violence is bad must be attacking Muslims, isn’t it? Jumping to that conclusion requires a bunch of leaps that I’m not sure are actually true.
I agree, the tree of comments below you just belies these prejudiced and hateful attitudes. Concerned but not surprised that many people interested in tech topics are choosing to discuss how it’s ok to surveil people for their religion and put guilt by association on them… instead of discussing why targeted surveillance of groups based on religion or place of worship is problematic, fueled by bigotry and ignorance.
Religious groups aren't (well, shouldn't) be special. They're just like fans of a sports club and if they cause violence and hate, they should be investigated.
Part of dealing with Islamophobia would be dealing with problematic posts like yours ascribing intentions and emotionally charged sentiments to statements that display no such intention. Go ahead and exactly quote the scrutinizable statement in the post above you, please.
>muh *phobia
There's nothing irrational in fear of islam, since whole "religion" is a call to conquest of others. Try opening a history book for a change instead of larping online about things you never experienced.
It's a matter of severity. If (fans of) a sports team frequently vandalizes a town after their team plays then yes, they absolutely should be surveilled.
Then the question is: is that down to the religion as a whole, or individuals therein? Is it morally defensible to target a whole demographic based on the actions of a few?
Think hard on that one, it says a lot about what kind of person you are, what your morals and personally held values are.
You can boil down anything to individuals. The war in Ukraine would not be happening if every individual refused to partake. But you know very well that is not how society works.
People share beliefs, they join a movement, and they do that mostly via small organizations like religious groups, political parties, friendship circles, internet forums and so on.
Your logic is the same as the kind one expects from Twitter posts about having one poison M&M in a bowl of M&Ms, so let’s throw out the entire bowl. Here’s why it’s stupid to think like that:
1) People are not borgs or hive mind enjoined entities. Yes, they may share beliefs or have friendship circles etc. but it’s irresponsible and reaching to believe that everyone thinks or will act the same simply by virtue of being in the same mosque or temple or church etc.
2) So because people are not borgs, there is a lot of factionalization, even in the same religious group, political party, Internet forum.
3) Even still, unless someone is actively going out to do something for some organization, you cannot penalize them for thought crimes by their association. Why? Because doing so usually leads to spread of authoritarian control.
This is a rough response to your comment because people already know these things on some level. I think some people willfully choose to be stupid because of their biases.
I never said anything like that. I’m opposing the idea that you should not look into that bowl because “not all M&Ms are poisoned”.
I am strongly opposed to surveillance in general and happy that they unearthed this as a violation, but at some point people will inevitably fall into buckets when an investigation is happening. There is nothing new about this.
A tip comes in about someone who frequents church X organizing a terrorist attack. Do you do a background check on church goers, look for suspicious activity, or sit back and twiddle your thumbs because this is “unfair targeting”?
Several attacks have actually happened in NL over the past decades, and recently scary connections with extremist groups found. It’s not hypothetical.
> A tip comes in about someone who frequents church X organizing a terrorist attack. Do you do a background check on church goers, look for suspicious activity, or sit back and twiddle your thumbs because this is “unfair targeting”?
Obviously no one will agree that the situation you described merits inaction. Preemptive surveillance “in case there is a terrorist” is a human rights violation because no one should be deprived of their privacy. Privacy is fundamental to psychological well being, creativity and self-determination.
Moreover, what’s to stop ideological enemies of one faction from sending false tips? Or to prevent progressive political action. For example, the FBI certainly considered civil rights activists as terrorists at one point (some still do, in different contexts). What if someone creates false flag terrorists to target a whole race? What if someone radicalizes someone by targeted harassment and stalking, and then blames their religion or culture if the target does something violent?
Yes, violence is scary and psychopaths doubly so. The response to violence and psychopaths is not to sacrifice human rights. We need to understand people and create more social cohesion. I think this also means understanding and identifying psychopathic and anti-social behaviors.
I don’t think killing people or locking them away from society is ever the answer because we will never run short of people to kill or lock away. We need less barbaric ways to deal with people, while also understanding the need for justice and revenge that being subject to such violence can create. The solution is not brute force surveillance. All this does is create resentment and political strife, and might lead to genocide.
Yes I have. Look for other comments from me for nuance.
I'm thinking about extremists and terrorists. So you're against surveillance of a mosque that is known to interact on the regular with terrorists? Or a nazi pub where attacks on the state are planned?
I have a problem with surveillance on any criteria that's only marginally more specific than 'people the government doesn't like' or 'people who don't like the government'.
All internet users are tracked, either by American and American-allied intelligence services or their own governments, all the time. If you're in the Western sphere of influence everything you say and do on any internet connected device goes to an NSA server for analysis, assuming they don't simply have direct access to your data through PRISM or secret warrants. And we kill people over metadata.
You can assume that what the Dutch are doing here is standard operating procedure everywhere, and that any laws to the contrary are just a facade.
>All internet users are tracked, either by American and American-allied intelligence services or their own governments, all the time. If you're in the Western sphere of influence everything
Curious how you imply in both of these statements that this is a uniquely "western sphere" government activity.
I suppose that the governments of China, Russia and all the myriad states that aren't part of the western sphere are simply privacy and freedom-loving paragons of not being irresponsible with state power?
>Curious how you imply in both of these statements that this is a uniquely "western sphere" government activity.
I didn't. The purpose of the clause "or their own governments" in the part of the comment you copied was to contrast the clause "American and American-allied intelligence services" (collectively referring to the "western" sphere of influence), inclusive of non-western spheres of influence, such as China and Russia.
Please, put in the minimum effort to read and understand all of the words people write, rather than simply scanning them to find some bad-faith interpretation from which to engage in political sniping. I am not the strawman living rent-free in your head. I never said anything about any non-Western government being freedom-loving paragons.
We really have a problem with targeted surveillance of specific communities like visitors of a specific mosque? Or a pub frequented by known nazis? I don't get it. The article doesn't have enough details to form an opinion!