|
I think that very important point is being overlooked. Freedom of speech covers many, many things. It was written to protect discourse, discussion, conversation. Free speech requires active participation by both parties. However, it does not and was never meant to protect sedition. That is what is being dealt with. There would be no problem if these extremists were to participate in a forum, public or private; in a "town hall" session; in a debate. Instead, those parties in question, most of the time non-citizens, espouse and praise violent acts against the country of their domicile. A country's constitution is meant to protect its citizens first and others second; this is a given, especially since such a document would not have been written in the first place had non-citizens been given greater or equal import as citizens. Therefore, since it is an act of sedition and therefore not covered under the protection of free speech AND the party in question is a threat of foreign origin with domicile in that country and therefore not privy to the full rights and protections of citizens, it is not a violation of that country's constitution and would not even be considered one had the party in question been a citizen. I hope this has been of help.
__________________
STEVE MCKENNA!
|