France Shoot-Out

[Montmorency]

Sacking people for expressing political and ideological convictions is the restriction on the freedom of speech you oppose so much.

Freedom of speech is a political notion, extended from the state to the citizen. Not by the employer to its employee.

[Rhyfelwyr]

If Brenus has a genuine concern to censor anything that glorifies terrorism, I wonder if he also campaigns furiously to get all the statues of genocidal, secularist extremists like Robespierre removed, since they are currently dotted all over France.

[Gilrandir]

Freedom of speech is a political notion, extended from the state to the citizen. Not by the employer to its employee.

That is why ideological convictions (expressed by a person thanks to freedom of speech) are not a valid reason for sacking.

[Montmorency]

You'll have to explain how that can be the case, when it's clearly an entirely-separate issue from freedom-of-speech.

[Gilrandir]

You'll have to explain how that can be the case, when it's clearly an entirely-separate issue from freedom-of-speech.

The employer in relation to the employee shouldn't take upon himself the role of the state towards the citizen.
Brenus said that it is a good thing to fire a racist. The racist is a person who is identified by the his/her ideological convictions. If one fires him/her because of them it is infringement on being free to express his/her convictions: he/she suffers the loss of job just because he/she was free enough to express his/her worldview. It is the same as one in France suffered the loss of freedom just because he admired some person who is suspected/convicted of killing four jews in a shop.

[Brenus]

“the statues of genocidal, secularist extremists like Robespierre removed,” Well, first you will have to prove that Robespierre was a genocidal (wich genocide are you talking about? Well, I know as your reference comes from Royalist anti-republican publication: For your info, never existed. If the counter-revolution –who was the first one to kill Priests favourable to the revolution, by the way, small detail, lost it is because the town and ports didn’t allowed the British fleet to debark troops and munitions to the insurgeants). They were part of the "genocided" population, the vast majority of it. Not saying that the repression against the Vendean and Normandy insurrection wasn't harsh. It was. Troops were not nice in the XVII Century.
Of course, you will have to prove that Robespierre was a secularist and an extremist (better historians tried and failed). The man was for the right for woman to vote, against slavery, had a speech against the war launched by Louis the XVI who did sent the French Army plans to his Brother in Law).
History for you: “As a member of the Estates-General, the Constituent Assembly and the Jacobin Club, he opposed the death penalty and advocated the abolition of slavery, while supporting equality of rights, universal male suffrage and the establishment of a republic. He opposed dechristianisation of France, war with Austria and the possibility of a coup by the Marquis de Lafayette. As a member of the Committee of Public Safety, he was an important figure during the period of the Revolution commonly known as the Reign of Terror, which ended a few months after his arrest and execution in July 1794 following the Thermidorian reaction. The Thermidorians accused him of being the "soul" of the Terror, although his guilt in the brutal excesses of the Terror has not been proven.” Wikipedia
He was in fact executed by the ones, recalled by him to Paris to explain themselves about their acts, who committed the atrocities.
Funny how things are…

“Sacking people for expressing political and ideological convictions is the restriction on the freedom of speech you oppose so much.” To be a racist is not an opinion, it is an offense. You can't be openly a Nazi. You have to hind it. Political and ideological against the law are illegal, so they are offenses. Again, to call to murder others is not an opinion, it is an offence. How many times will I have to say it?

“suffered the loss of freedom just because he admired some person who is suspected/convicted of killing four jews in a shop.” I like the JUST. Well, to agree with murder is an offense. To promote murder is an offense. JUST killed 4 Jews: that is not THAT much (many), worth admiring no?
Even you “suspected” is funny: Cold blood obscurantist Muslim extremist killed 4 Jews in a Casher Supermarket (oops, Rhyfelwyr didn’t notice probably, there is access to food in SUPERMARKETS for non-secularists) and a Police officer according to himself on a video on Youtube.

By the way, still nobody explained me the joke from Dieudonné. That not nice guy, I really want a laugh, especially when hurt-in-their-feelings Muslim mobs are torching Churches.
They have not a clue what atheist means apparently, the idiots.

[Husar]

To be a racist is not an opinion, it is an offense. You can't be openly a Nazi. You have to hind it. Political and ideological against the law are illegal, so they are offenses. Again, to call to murder others is not an opinion, it is an offence. How many times will I have to say it?

Of course it is an opinion, you are of the opinion that this or that person should be killed by someone. I watched the killing of the police officer on liveleak and there were a ton of comments about how the US should bomb Mekka to retaliate and how this would rightfully lead to violence against muslims and mosques in Europe etc. I doubt that any of these commenters were arrested, but according to you they should all be in jail, right?

[Brenus]

Did someone actually killed someone following this comments? If yes, yes. I doubt that most of the Nazi leaders killed the Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and others themselves. Most of them in fact didn't, they just were of the opinion all theses others had to be either enslaved or killed. So were Hitler, Himmler, and others actually guilty of murder? If I follow you and others no. In French Laws, yes, as they are the instigators (in UK laws as well, as defined in the Case 1 in the Crown Court).
A French author was find guilty after the Liberation for precisely this. You can't call day-in day-out for the Jews to be killed and be surprised when someone actually do it. It was HIS opinion that Jews should be killed, so some just did it, but, yeah, it was JUST an opinion...

And to anser to you remark, no racism is not an opinion, as stated in French Constitution: "France shall be an indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic. It shall ensure the equality of all citizens before the law, without distinction of origin, race or religion".
So pretending that one race is superior to an other is against the Law.

I might of an opinion to kill you. But until I do it, or someone do it for me, it is an opinion. Now, if I kill you. it stop to be an opinion, as if someone do it following my call.
When someone was killed unlawfully following calls to kill, and you carrying on in inciting more violence, or justifying the murder, yes, you are guilty. When you glorify a racist obscurantist killer for what he did, when you incite in racial and religious violences. That is in the law. It is up to a Court to decide if it was a bad joke, or a real threat. And yes, to incite others to burn Mosques or attack Muslims is a offense. And numbers are not an excuse for not prosecuting. Mob law, lynch law are illegal. You might thing it is a opinion to burn or discriminate minorities, well, not in France and in my experience not in UK.