Talk:Identity, Tradition, Sovereignty/Archive 1

Archive 1

EU or EC (European Confederacy)?

Is this the beginning of a European confederacy? or just a small group exercising their democratic freedoms, I personally hope its the latter. --Jsimeon75 10:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't really know what you're getting at... What do you mean? —Nightstallion (?) 10:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Jsimeon75 is wants to know if this is an independence movement (A. Yes) and if this could be violent (A. Not Yet!). They resist like most people in europe(i think!) the creation (possibly forced, possibly already happened) of a United States of Europe in name or via the back door. But to show refinement on this the British Independance from Europe party UKIP (who on many issues i support) will not be part of this group because they are thought to be just Bigots. Hint links to soccer hooligans is a bad sign as they are often the footsoldiers of nazi groups like Combat 18.Hypnosadist 18:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

In regards to your question, it is important to note that the parties in the Identity, Tradition, and Sovereignty group are not unanimously eurosceptic. I don't think their common value is euroscepticism and opposition to the EU, but rather things like xenophobia, (in some cases) White supremacism, anti-Semitism, conservatism in the social sphere, consolidation of traditional institutions, nationalism, etc. The Greater Romania Party, for example, is actually rather pro-EU. Its focus has been more at domestic rather than European level: it is predominantly anti-minority-rights. So, as reprehensible as it may be, I don't think the IST group is in any way "separatist" or an "independence movement" (particularly since the EU is not even a federation yet). Ronline ✉ 02:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Watching the launch press conference in the European Parliament on Europe by Satellite right now. Gollnisch is doing the talking. – Kaihsu 14:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Great! Could you keep us up-to-date? ;) —Nightstallion (?) 14:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I will watch this closely. We know from history of what the far right is capable.

Remember, though, that IST is still a very small movement, and with the exception perhaps of Vlaams Belang, the IST parties don't really have a big voice in shaping society and politics. I'm a lot more worried about the situation in countries such as Poland and Latvia, where it's the mainstream, governing parties (like Law and Justice), part of more mainstream EP blocs such as EPP-ED and UEN that are advocating really scary policies against minorities. Ronline ✉ 12:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Such as? Biruitorul 22:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, several Law and Justice and League of Polish Families politicians have made very inflammatory statements in the media about LGBT people, while breaching fundamental rights such as the freedom of assembly by denying access to gay rights and anti-discrimination parades. See Wojciech Wierzejski, who sits in the Independence and Democracy group in the EP: I fail to see why the new ITS formation is proving so controversial and yet no-one is saying anything about MEPs advocating just as dangerous, if not more dangerous, policies sitting in the ID and UEN groups. The Polish government, through the Ministry of Justice, is also persecuting LGBT rights organisations by investigating them (and only them) for criminal connections and, of all things, pedophilia, while also emitting an order to investigate child sex crimes committed by gay people (again, an example of indirect discrimination that reminds one of Nazi-era Germany). Furthermore, Law and Justice advocates a return to the death penalty and has even sought to influence EU policy regarding this (of course, it has been unsuccessful), while also being accused of anti-Semitism. In Latvia, the situation is similar, with Jan Smits, no less than the current human rights commissioner of Latvia, also speaking out publicly against LGBT people and inciting homophobia. My point is that, as bad as they are, the ITS parties are not, in my opinion, worse than some parties currently in the EP which are just as much organised in political groups, and which actually have more influence because they are either governing parties or sit in formations that are not immediately stigmatised as "right-wing fascists" (such as the UEN, which includes both the moderate Fianna Fail and the odious Law and Justice and League of Polish Families). Ronline ✉ 07:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not quite right, Ronline. Everyone knows that ID is a bunch of eurosceptics and that UEN is the moderate far-right; Fianna Fail is the *ONLY* moderate party in UEN, and nobody really understands why they're still with them and not with the EDP or someone else. But yes, you're right, there are a number of nuts in UEN and ID as well, of course. —Nightstallion (?) 09:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, that doesn't sound too bad - "really scary" to me implies, well, gas chambers and Gulags, or at least Islamic-style actions of the type you'll soon see as Muslims gain power in Europe. First off, define "minority". I think one important characteristic of such a group would be (de facto) immutability, and with the group you cite, that isn't the case - we're talking about people who choose to behave in a certain way, but could just as easily stop behaving that way or start behaving another way. Those parades could threaten public order, so their suppression is justified, and anyway, what about the rights of the Catholic majority, who may not wish to be exposed to such displays? As for Wierzejski: first of all, he's young, so we can expect more fiery language from him. Furthermore, even though I as a liberal (when even I start calling myself a liberal, you know the term has lost all meaning) might abhor the actual violence that could result from his words, I applaud the injection of a more thuggish, edgy discourse into mainstream European politics that does its bit to upset the rotting apple-cart of consensus politics. I also would imagine that Mr. Wierzejski is speaking for the constituents who elected him. Between a flesh-and-blood human being who speaks his mind, and a nameless, faceless, expense account-fed unelected Eurocrat who does not appreciate that his days are numbered, like Günter Verheugen (naked beach escapades notwithstanding), I'll take the former any day. Mere investigations - especially when justified, and, your dismissive remark notwithstanding, some right-wing studies do confirm a link - do not constitute persecution, and certainly have nothing to do with Nazi Germany. As a last resort, "persecuted" "minorities" in Poland have 26 other EU member states where they can settle in - no questions asked. Accusations of anti-Semitism do not equal anti-Semitism. Capital punishment in Europe is actually quite popular and opposition to it is almost purely an elitist leftist project. For instance, Saddam's hanging received 51% support in Spain, 53% in Germany, 58% in France, and 69% in Britain. The European public wants capital punishment, and this is quite true in Poland, so the fact that a party speaks for its voters, while perhaps unusual in the EU, where votes are treated as mere bingo chips, should not really surprise us. I haven't seen Mr Smits' remarks, but why not stand up for what's right and decry the depraved acts of some people? I see nothing wrong with a little moral clarity to break through the morass of post-modernist obscurantism currently enveloping the Continent. Biruitorul 22:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, there is no reason why the status of minority and immutability are incompatible. A minority does not have to be "immutable" - I would still define subcultures such as, say, the goth subculture or the BDSM community as "minorities" in the broader sense that are sidelined in the contemporary discourse. Another class of non-immutable minority is made up of religious minorities, who can "easily" stop professing a religion and convert to another one. In that case, would you agree, for example, that Orthodox minorities in, say, Hungary or Croatia, be stripped of their rights just because they can "easily" stop professing Orthodoxism and adopt Catholicism? A lot of the discussion around gay rights focusses on the idea that gay people are born that way and cannot change. This should actually be irrelevant - the idea is that even if they choose to be that way, they should still be protected in living their way of life free of prejudice and discrimination, in the same way as everyone else should be protected when making choices that don't affect anyone else. Tolerance and human rights isn't only about accepting people the way they were born, but also accepting people's choices to live their life the way they want to as long as there are no social externalities. However, the vast majority of scientific literature shows that same-sex attraction is, indeed, involuntary, and I have no yet heard about absolutely any LGBT person changing his/her orientation just like that, when he/she wants to (but again, at the end of the day, I fail to see the relevance of that).

Whether religion is or is not an immutable characteristic bears exploring. While an individual may say that he has ceased to be a Christian, that's probably the result of being led astray by Satan - the heretic's soul need only be touched by divine grace before he returns to his senses. On an aggregate level, though, it's fair to say that religion is a more-or-less immutable characteristic of peoples. Ethnic Romanians, for instance, are, on the whole, Orthodox. So are Serbs, Russians, Greeks, etc. Croats and Poles are Catholic. Jews are (evidently) Jewish. And so on. Yes, there are many exceptions, but for 1700 years, being Orthodox has been part of being Romanian (never mind, for the moment, that there was neither an Orthodox church per se nor a Romania until much later). So I would put religion in a different class - it's less than a biological characteristic, but more than a mere ideology. And I do think the state has a valid interest in curtailing some of the lifestyles you cite, as there are negative externalities (at least, negative for the majority of Polish voters, one might think) such as the corruption of public morals and the spreading of disease. Biruitorul 17:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

As to the parade threating public order - that argument really is nonsensical. The only reason why the public order is being threatened is because of external groups (like anti-gay protesters). In that case, they should be the ones being punished, not the initial protesters who have no intention of inciting violence or disturbing the public order. Under the "public order" argument, every single mildly-controversial march would have to be banned simply because there are groups against that march that could potentially disturb the "public order". And the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that European governments also have a positive obligation to facilitate public marches and protect them against violence. To give you an analogy: it would be just like banning the wearing of short skirts because they incite rape. The idea is to charge the rapist, not the victim. As to your Catholic majority argument: in a free society, where there is freedom of speech, people, including the majority, are bound to be exposed to things they do not agree with. That is not grounds for banning that speech or action. Under that theory, any form of political campaigning or minority activism could never take place: if they majority of people are for nuclear energy, there could never be any anti-nuclear marches, if the majority of people are against abortion, there could never be any abortion-rights marches, etc. The whole point of a democracy is that you have the freedom to state your view, to make it public and to campaign for it. That's how changes in laws come about.

First of all, this march was especially controversial, and it could just be that, given the limited resources available to the Warsaw police, they were better off cancelling it. Remember, despite recent growth, Poland is still one of the EU's poorer members, so lack of state capacity rather than something more "sinister" might be the explanation here. As to the Catholic majority point: yes, freedom of expression is important, but it ought to be exercised with decency and discretion. Poland was a democracy from 1920 to 1926; you can be sure that at that time, the organisers of such a march would have been arrested and served long prison terms, whereas no arrests took place last year, so on that count at least, some "progress" has been achieved. Biruitorul 17:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

As to Wierzejski: we don't need justifications for him - yes, he is young, yes, he is speaking for his constitutents. That doesn't, however, make his actions neither good nor acceptable, and furthermore, it still highlights the point that the UEN contains these sorts of people who advocate these sorts of actions (not that I have anything particular about the UEN as an EP group). You're right that mere investigations do not amount to persecution per se. However, they are indirect discrimination and harassment when they are done in a selective way, targeting only one community, and when they are very clearly accompanied by harassing speech. They seem to have been conducted for homophobic reasons and to intimidate the LGBT community rather than as a genuine attempt to investigate and prevent pedophilia in Poland.

I disagree - I find it refreshing when a politician remembers who elected him. As for the investigations: the fact is that governments like to use their power to target their ideological enemies. The PiS government has its own targets, but one tends to see increased scrutiny of large corporations by socialist governments, too, or (at least hypothetically) of farmers by Green governments. None of this really worries me, though: you can be sure that as PiS applies more pressure, the targeted groups will scream more loudly (o-să urle mai tare) until eventually external pressure on the Polish government will force them to relax. Or else the individuals involved in those groups will close up shop and find better uses for their time, creating the dreaded "chilling effect" on speech. Biruitorul 17:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Your point about freedom of movement really, really, really misses the point. Just because the minorities of Poland have 26 other countries to move to freely (which is still in many ways restricted) does not *in any way* constitute a right for the Government of Poland to discriminate against them. Minorities shouldn't be forced to move - they are indigenous citizens of their country and have every right to be treated equally as others. Not to mention that, as an EU member, Poland has obligations to respect their rights just like all the other 26 members.

Let me try to explain. For me, one of the factors that distinguishes a fairly repressive society from a totally repressive one is the possibility of escape. Belarus, for instance, is a dictatorship, but (without knowing for sure) I'm willing to bet that the border with Poland is relatively porous, and that highly oppressed Belarusians do have a realistic option of fleeing. That's not to justify Lukashenko's policies, but it does set him apart from Kim Jong Il, as not only is North Korea far worse than even Belarus, but escape from there is far more difficult. If you're an ordinary North Koran sitting in Pyongyang and decide to leave, that's not very doable. Of course, Poland is a democracy, but part of the package with having an EU that is as of yet not a federal state is that states will have varying levels of personal freedom (with lowest common denominator standards), and if someone really can't take life in Poland anymore, he is just a plane, train or bus ticket (or even a car ride) away from the greater freedom that he desires, and that can be found in, say, the Netherlands. Biruitorul 17:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

(Just an aside here .. Belarusians can travel to Poland quite legally. Even members of the political opposition often travel abroad. But they're seldom granted asylum anywhere. Anyway they would rather see their own country back on the rails than leave it. Mr Lukashenko is more concerned with holding onto his power at home than denying foreign travel or emigration. In Mr Hussein's Iraq, by comparison, attempting to leave the country could cost you your life.) -- Abut 20:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Finally - the capital punishment point: how can polls about Saddam Hussein's death accurately show the perceptions of Europeans about the death penalty in general? The fact that a slight majority of people in EU countries support the death penalty for Saddam does not mean they would support it being introduced in their own country and be utilised against "common criminals". This British poll shows that even for crimes such as child murder, support for the death penalty is 43%, while for adult murder it is 23%. This poll even indicates that for Saddam Hussein, only 38% of French people supported the death penalty, compared to 14% of Spanish and 20% of Italians. This poll shows 76% of Italians are against the death penalty. So, I think it is quite clear to say that the majority of EU citizens, at least in the EU-15, do not support the death penalty, and in any case, even based on your poll data, abolitionism cannot be seen "almost purely [as] an elitist leftist project" (in your poll data, the majorities are slight! 47% of the population is not an "elitist leftist" sector!) Ronline ✉ 00:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You have your polls, I have mine. Here's one that cites 70% support for capital punishment in Poland. Yes, support for the death penalty is probably lower in the EU-15, but it's a debate worth having - the notion that cp is "incompatible with European values" (whatever those are) is rubbish, and the kind of palaver that rightly distances people ever further from Brussels. Biruitorul 17:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding that last point, restrictions can and are applied in (what is claimed to be) the interests of public safety, national security and the like. The authorities require written notice well in advance and can impose conditions if they believe the procession could result in violence, damage to property, intimidation (as in the old Ku Klux Kan marches for example), disrupt the lives of the residents of the area where the procession is taking place etc. In certain circumstances, month long bans of all processions can be enacted. There is no absolute right to organize a procession, and the way I see it, the authorities would sooner prohibit the procession to protect them from violence than go out with them and hold their hands. Call this good or bad, but that's the way things are in most if not all EU member states.--Rudjek 00:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

controversy section

What's up with this section. The ITS has not created any controversy. Intangible2.0 23:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the Grauniad link in the article is evidence of controversy, because anything the left doesn't like is controversial. There's probably a better title for this section, however. Argyriou (talk) 00:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you to whoever removed the obviously POV orientated comments in this section. (Barnoir 01:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC))

The POV comments are back and I can't erase them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.230.129.22 (talk) 03:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

Various deleters have described this section as irrelevant, but this group is known primarily for its controversial nature. It has been described as "Trivia" rather than controversy, but if it is not controversial then why have people started an edit war? It has been said that the comments and actions of key members of the party are irrelevant to the party itself - but the exact same edits describe other actions and comments made by party members. It has been said that pending charges are unworthy of mention in Wikipedia, but then why is an announcement of the pending formation of this party judged worthy of an entry? The section describes POVs, but the entire article describes POVs. Understanding the controversy is crucial to understanding the topic itself. Mike Serfas 17:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Implications ?

What are the implications of the formation of this group? How will the balance of power shift, and/or how will this group affect the E.U.? I think that a disscussion of this should be included as the information becomes available. Thanks. Sirtrebuchet 23:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I am honestly quite surprised at the amount of press this has generated. It's not really a big deal, since these parties have been in the European Parliament for years anyway, as Non-Inscrits, united loosely as part of Euronat. So, I don't see how the formation of the group will have any influence on either the EU's policy or the balance of power in the parliament (the neo-fascist MEPs had voting powers before, too, and they only have 20 MEPs, or about 3% of the total). The only difference now is that they are united in a formalised group, and thus have more symbolic clout. But I don't believe the formation of IST will either influence EU politics nor lead to more votes for far-right parties. As a side note - in May 2007, there will be EP elections in Romania. The Greater Romania Party, which now has 5 MEPs, will find it rather hard to get above 3 MEPs (8% of the vote) in this election, so I think IST will soon find itself with less than 20 MEPs. Ronline ✉ 02:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Aye, indeed. —Nightstallion (?) 07:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Conversely, mind you, Ataka are polling much higher in Bulgaria... I was reading they were expected to move up to 3 MEPs. The Tom 07:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's true, particularly considering that EP elections do tend to "scale up" the more extremist parties and produce relative losses for the moderates/mainstream. Bulgaria has 18 seats in the EP, and it may be possible for Ataka to get up to 4 MEPs in there. This will however be counterbalanced by what I predict to be a very poor performance for the Greater Romania Party in Romania, in part due to the rise of the competing New Generation Party, which could ideologically be quite the same, but which wants to join the European People's Party (!) Ronline ✉ 12:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Trivia section

The trivia section should be taken down. This isn't even POV or one-sidedness, it's a blatant attempt at ridiculing the members of the group. Is a trivia section even necessary for a Current Event article? Not to mention that some of the trivia there is too meaningless to even be placed at someone's biography. 89.0.238.46 01:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust charge

I've put this charge back in for the following reasons. It involves the head of this political group Bruno Gollnisch as opposed to a minor member. Holocaust denial in much of europe is thought of as the worst non-violent crime. It clearly states that he awaiting a verdict in a trial so it is NPOV. Its verifiable due to it being a BBC link. Any other arguments against this line.Hypnosadist 18:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

As long as there is no verdict, I can see no reason to include it here because it does not affect the workings of the ITS. The info about the court case is already present in to Gollnish article, so nothing is lost. Intangible2.0 18:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"it does not affect the workings of the ITS" yes i agree with that but it does effect how people view this new group. I think we need some other peoples opinions on this.Hypnosadist 19:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree don't include it. But I'm not European and do think people often make too much of a fuss about the holocaust so perhaps my views aren't that important Nil Einne 15:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason this is important is Holocaust denial is a necessary first step for it to happen again, looks like i'll just have to wait for the guilty verdict.Hypnosadist 18:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Avoiding another nazi, communist or religious genocide does not mean going to the opposite extreme and allowing every possible right to be taken by everyone who makes a noise, ignoring the cost we all pay in the end for our do-gooding.

“The further it swings away, the further it will swing back...”

213.114.87.165 11:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Grammar (adverbs)

The phrase "a relatively ideologically loose entity" seems gramatically awkward at best. Would "a relatively loose entity ideologically" or simply "an ideologically loose entity" be better? It seems to me the two adverbs together are confusing. - Mark Dixon 03:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. What about one of these alternatives:

1. "... an ideologically relatively loose entity" (correct adv order)
2. "... an ideologically loose entity" (as above)
3. "ideologically the group will function as a relatively loose entity"

-- Abut 13:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

ok. someone has re-worded it without the double adverb. -- Abut 09:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Signatures missing?

Is there still 3 signatures missing? How the group was recognize if so? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.83.86.20 (talk) 00:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

intro description

The first (intro) paragraph says what they're "described by their adversaries" as, but doesn't say what they describe themselves as. Normally in these sorts of cases we put both up front, like "that considers itself [x], but is described by its adversaries as [y]". --Delirium 14:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Moving "Naming"

The following section says more about journalists than the group and does not belog in the article.--Henrygb 22:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Naming

Journalists were initially unclear about the group's name. Some press reports identified the group as “Identity, Tradition and Sovereignty”, but statements from both Bruno Gollnisch and Ashley Mote in the French and English languages, respectively, have omitted "et" or "and" from the group's name.

Prior to these announcements, Yahoo! News, quoting The Guardian newspaper, indicated the Greater Romania Party had said that the group would be named either “Europe of the Fatherlands” or “Identity, Sovereignty, Tradition”. Meanwhile Der Standard and some other German-language newspapers in early articles identified the group as “Identität - Souveränität - Transparenz”. Later articles use the official name “Identität, Tradition, Souveränität”.

far-right

This is POV. Christian democrats are right of centre, ITS is right-wing. Far right would involve abnegation of democracy, probably achieved through forcible seizure of power.

Fair use rationale for Image:ITS logo.png

Image:ITS logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)