Swastika Ban Opposed by Hindus

[الله أكبر]

Talk it up, using this as a source of info: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6269627.stm

Or if you don't want to read the article, the short story is that German politicians are pushing for a ban on the display of swastikas across the EU.  They have encountered resistance from Hindu groups, as the swastika is a Hindu symbol that has been in use long before Hitler and the Nazi party used it.

Conflicts always seem to take on some sense of being dire when religion comes into play (e.g. why so many people think all terrorists are driven by Islam).  It's a difficult subject to deal with because people are hesitant to offend a group of a particular faith, as those groups tend to take quite a high degree of pride in their religion and are willing to defend it.

As for the outcome of this case in Europe, the common acceptance of the symbol is that which associates it with Nazism, fascism, anti-Semetism, and so on.  Perhaps there could be some restriction placed on the use of the swastika, i.e. allowing only Hindu people to use it, or only allowing religious figures in Hindu temples to use it.  A bipartite solution could possibly restricting the colors used.  Just about any swastika I've ever seen is black, in a white circle, bordered with red.  Hindu use of the swastika could use alternate coloring, or perhaps be used only as part of a larger religious expression (Hindu art is known to be complex).  In either case, contrary sentiments will be felt.  If it is banned, Hindus won't be allowed to display one of their religious symbols (an analogy made in the article is banning the Christian cross because the KKK used it).  If there is no ban, Europeans will be presented with the symbol which represents so much death and destruction to them.

[Larry Flyntz]

I'm always wary of any violation of free speech. I don't think the fact that a symbol is offensive/inappropriate is enough to ban it.

For this reason, I will always support the rights of the KKK (so far as their tactics do not violate others' property rights, of course), flag burning, etc. The right to speak one's mind freely is more compelling than one's right to not be offended, in my opinion. Of course, I'm looking at this from an American perspective. The American Constitution provides for freedom of speech, whereas it does not in any way provide for a right to not be offended or a right to comfort. I have no idea what the EU's position on this is. I've never been too keen on international politics.

Plus, banning the swastika would give it even more of a stigma, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, per se, but I don't see how it's a good thing, either. Nazism existed; the Holocaust happened. I don't see how banning the swastika will do any good. Sure, it serves as a reminder of those bad things, but doesn't the world always say "We'll never forget?" Being uncomfortably reminded of a terrible tragedy is not an inherently bad thing.

I also worry about the kind of precedent this might set. I hate to use the phrase "slippery slope," but banning offensive things is a slippery slope. Should racial slurs be banned? Vulgar words? It could go on and on.

I think the religious considerations only add to the already compelling argument against banning it.

[الله أكبر]

I have no idea what the EU's position on this is. I've never been too keen on international politics.

It's tough to say what exactly is "the EU's position," as the EU is not the homogeneous body that many people think it to be.  Each member state has different preferences on policy issues, voting behavior, etc. Regardless, when this ban was proposed by Germany a few years ago, the UK was one of the most outspoken opponents to the bill.  I don't know which other countries supported or opposed it.

I also worry about the kind of precedent this might set. I hate to use the phrase "slippery slope," but banning offensive things is a slippery slope. Should racial slurs be banned? Vulgar words? It could go on and on.

I side with you that there should be no ban, but who is to say that a precedent will be set?  Your technique of "what if" claims makes the assumption that European governments, upon realizing that they have the ability to repress one kind of offensive speech, will continue on some type of banning-binge against cuss words and the like, at which point anyone with an iota of rationale would bar it.  I sincerely doubt such a ban would ever pass in any legislative body  except for those in some sort of totalitarian regime (or perhaps Singapore :grin:).

[Jelone]

Europeans will be presented with the symbol which represents so much death and destruction to them.

...and yet, we all still have armed forces.

Banning symbols of expression, especially religious expression, is kind of fascist, which is antithetical to what the Allied forces fought against (or at least in retrospective). Removing the swastika doesn't undo the events of World War II.

I understand that the Europeans suffered greatly during this time period, though, so maybe they should ban history books too. Maybe round up all of the old people who experienced WWII and put them in a camp while we're at it. I wouldn't want Elie Wiesel bringing everybody down.