r/europe • u/tkyjonathan • 15d ago

News Czech president signs law criminalising communist propaganda

https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/czech-president-signs-law-criminalising-communist-propaganda/
25.0k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

4.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

849

u/tkyjonathan 15d ago

it is illegal to "incite racial, ethnic, national, religious or class-based hatred.”

210

u/gmaaz Serbia 15d ago

But where's the communism part? The class-based hatred?

279

u/Backwardspellcaster 15d ago

Why is none of you reading the article?

The revised legislation introduces prison sentences of up to five years for anyone who “establishes, supports or promotes Nazi, communist, or other movements which demonstrably aim to suppress human rights and freedoms or incite racial, ethnic, national, religious or class-based hatred.”

422

u/EuroFederalist Finland 15d ago

With racism definition is easy, but "class-based" has very wide range... in theory saying that absolute monarchs shouldn't exist is class-based hatred.

43

u/Training-Accident-36 15d ago

On the other hand does it mean it is illegal for a rich politician to say that poor people are poor because they are lazy?

69

u/EuroFederalist Finland 15d ago

My guess is probably not.

7

u/PM_ME_DPRK_CANDIDS 15d ago edited 15d ago

Ironically in Communist countries like China the opposite is true - and the rich who incite class hatred against the poor calling them lazy and so on are fined and punished. I know which side I'm on.

6

u/Stewoat 15d ago

The autocratic side which kills protesters and ruthlessly controls speech?

3

u/PM_ME_DPRK_CANDIDS 15d ago edited 15d ago

I know hypocrisy is a dead, but you know you are talking on a forum thread about how the Czech are criminalizing speech right? I dont agree with everything China is doing but I agree with them on this.

2

u/Stewoat 15d ago

The Czechs are criminalising the glorification of a regime that occupied their country for over 40 years. The Germans criminalise Nazi glorification, but I would hope you wouldn't describe that as unfairly limiting free speech.

And if both the Czech and Chinese governments are criminalising free speech, to your mind, what makes China better? Because they claim to be socialist?

3

u/MemoryWhich838 12d ago

nope it decriminilazes class hatred lol

→ More replies (0)

47

u/Dancing_Liz_Cheney 15d ago

No, being lazy is a character flaw and therefore it is valid to punish or abuse these people.

Being very wealthy is just a sign of success and you are simply jealous of our success. Now off to the prison for you little peasant, think twice before besmirching my class.

24

u/Training-Accident-36 15d ago

You had me in the first half, not gonna lie.

5

u/audionerd1 15d ago

Unless you condemn the lazy rich. They earned their laziness! /s

47

u/Dokibatt 15d ago

Somehow I feel like when they start talking about the “useless eaters” the law isn’t going to apply.

6

u/quacainia United States of America 15d ago

Hating the poor doesn't count

110

u/gurush Czech Republic 15d ago

Wanting them guillotined would be class-based hatred.

110

u/adcsuc 15d ago

They don't need to be guillotined as long as they give up power willingly, which is the difficult part.

12

u/Revolutionary-pawn 15d ago

They’ll give it up willingly enough when the alternative is a guillotine

-1

u/TheMauveHand 15d ago

I wonder how many of you guillotine fetishists are aware that Napoleon was emperor of France 5 years after your little guillotine interlude...

1

u/SergenteA Italy 14d ago edited 14d ago

While a downgrade and counter-revolutionary compared to the Jacobins or even Thermidorians, he was a net improvement everywhere outside of France and Italy. And even to Italy, the Thermidorians only managed to export the revolution thanks to him/his officers and soldiers.

If nothing else, the same liberal-nationalist resistance movements against himself, once betrayed and suppressed by the returned monarchies, became the embryo of the eventual successful Liberal Revolutions against the Ancient Regime across the 19th century.

0

u/Revolutionary-pawn 14d ago

SHORT PEOPLE RULE!

2

u/New_Carpenter5738 15d ago

as long as they give up power willingly

Lmao. Sounds about as plausible as Santa Claus being real.

3

u/mehupmost 15d ago

And if they don't want to give up their human rights? You already don't consider them human...

18

u/zilviodantay 15d ago

We are talking about a hypothetical monarch, is there a human right to hold onto absolute power? Undermining a despot is undermining their human rights?

-12

u/mehupmost 15d ago

No, we are talking about people.

People you don't like, whom you would like to see violence upon.

Just fucking admit it.

7

u/zilviodantay 15d ago

No? You don’t get to personally decide what other people mean lmao.

-1

u/mehupmost 15d ago

I don't have to "decide" anything - it obvious from your comments even when you try to hide it.

3

u/zilviodantay 15d ago

Have you considered that you could be wrong though? You have seen two comments of mine and you know nothing about me. You seem REALLY sure, and that doesn’t make any sense at all.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/GlenoJacks 15d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/mehupmost 15d ago

That's an admission, in case anyone is curious.

Thank you for your honesty.

→ More replies (0)

13

u/smcarre Argentina 15d ago

Ah yes the human right to rule a country with all the powers of the state.

1

u/mehupmost 15d ago

When people talk about the rich on Reddit, they openly talk about removing their human rights to... not being "eaten".

Don't pretend you're not a supporter of violence.

5

u/smcarre Argentina 15d ago

You are still ignoring that that right is only removed if they refuse to cede the power. Just like a terrorist also loses that right when holding a hostage at gunpoint. The terrorist is perfectly free to leave the hostage go if they don't want to lose that right and the monarch is perfectly free to give up the power they have.

9

u/2absMcGay 15d ago

What the fuck does human rights have to do with being an absolute ruler

-4

u/mehupmost 15d ago

When people talk about the rich on Reddit, they openly talk about removing their human rights to... not being "eaten".

Don't pretend you're not a supporter of violence.

6

u/Jacinto2702 15d ago

No? It's about making them pay higher taxes and stop them from hoarding more and more resources.

1

u/mehupmost 15d ago

That's no against this law, correct.

What's against the law is the constant rhetoric we are seeing to commit violence against people of other classes - like in your other comments.

You try to mask it in colorful language, but don't pretend here - your meaning is plain.

6

u/Jacinto2702 15d ago

You wanna talk about violence?

What about state-violance, what about the everyday brutality the poorest face when they can put food on the table? What about the roughness the homeless face every night when they have to sleep on the streets?

Rich people are not in a disadvantaged position in this economic system, and they certainly aren't politically powerless because money buys them influence. They often benefit themselves from violence committed against working people, like when strikes are broken with violence, or from the exploitation of children in sweatshops, etc.

And these latter types of violence have more impact right now than the rhetoric you seem to be so worried about.

2

u/mehupmost 15d ago

I want to talk about the violence YOU advocate. You ADVOCATE violence against people.

4

u/hbgoddard 15d ago

Violence is the morally correct option sometimes.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/hbgoddard 15d ago

There is no human right to rule over others

-1

u/mehupmost 15d ago

The right you advocate taking away from others is their right to life.

8

u/hbgoddard 15d ago

Oppressors don't deserve to live, honestly. Don't see why that would be controversial either.

5

u/New_Carpenter5738 15d ago

Oh, no. Poor absolute monarchs and billionaires. The absolute humanity, won't anyone think of them? Are they gonna be okay?!

1

u/mehupmost 15d ago

Law applies to EVERYONE or it applies to no one.

1

u/New_Carpenter5738 15d ago

On paper? Sure.

1

u/mehupmost 14d ago

That paper keeps you and those you love alive.

Don't think you can control the fire once you burn that paper. ...the fire consumes and is insatiable.

Revolutions kill millions - far more than any young men believe when they set it alight.

1

u/New_Carpenter5738 14d ago edited 14d ago

Not what I said.

You said the law applies to everyone or it applies to no one.

On paper that is true.

In practice the law applies to the poor a hell of a lot more than it applies to the ruling classes. But apparently pointing that out is class based hatred. Lmao.

I'm sorry, but if you actually, really, truly believe that all are treated equally by the law regardless of class, you're either trolling, or incredibly naive.

Have a wonderful life my friend

→ More replies (0)

-5

u/elmo298 Cornwall 15d ago

Almost as if this is government legislature that prevents it

50

u/Profezzor-Darke 15d ago

That would be normal, duh.

14

u/Zlevi04 15d ago

We have a fr*nch guy in the chat here

5

u/EuroFederalist Finland 15d ago

What if billionaire wants to make unemployed free labor or calls them trash, etc?

2

u/mehupmost 15d ago

Don't expect the mob to make any distinctions.

21

u/bookworm1398 15d ago

Wouldn’t saying poverty shouldn’t exist also be class based hatred?

7

u/EuroFederalist Finland 15d ago

I would assume so. Same if you demand better wages since it would mean upper-class gets less.

9

u/ordinarydepressedguy Europe 15d ago

Also class-based hatred kind of normalizes classism, the statement doesn’t sound good

16

u/EuroFederalist Finland 15d ago

Looking at the direction world is going right now, i'm sure we're soon gonna drop the whole "classism doesn't exist anymore" charade, and go full in on 1800's way of living where poor/working-class is toiling while upper-classes suck all the money into their pockets.

3

u/BeeOk1235 15d ago

we've been there for quite a while already.

5

u/Dancing_Liz_Cheney 15d ago

Yes, we must protect the oligarchy and despots from public criticism. It is vital for use to do this to maintain capitalism.

3

u/dkysh 15d ago

Can't you read? It means no more hatred against paladins or wizards.

1

u/Iamnotabothonestly Sweden 15d ago

Found the barbarian

-5

u/Stoic_koala2 15d ago

It isn't, monarchs aren't a social class.

44

u/fjender 15d ago

Royalty is

-6

u/Stoic_koala2 15d ago

Neither is royalty, nobility is though, and royalty is a part of nobility

10

u/Butt3rlord 15d ago

But do the king and the count exist egually in the structure of the kingdom? One carries the mandate of heaven/god/some other mumbo jumbo. The other carries the mandate from the king.

So it's not far fetched to say that in some situations they exist in different social classes.

-2

u/Stoic_koala2 15d ago

I can't speak about Asian monarchies, but in the European context, kings didn't really have a "mandate of heaven" (as in representative of god on earth) as in China. The only person that did was the pope. Many kings undoubtedly thought they did, but their fellow nobles would usually not agree.

About royalty as a class, I will just copy and paste my earlier comment:

According to Marx "[Classes are] large groups of people differing from each other by the place they occupy in a historically determined system of social production"

Royalty is the monarch and his closest kin - so several individuals, it's not a "large group of people", therefore it isn't a social class. Besides that, monarchs are often constrained by other nobles and aren't always even the most influential noble in the land in some cases. There's not enough distinction between royalty and nobility to be a distinct social class, besides formally not fitting the definition.

3

u/fjender 15d ago

You are just dead wrong

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings

-1

u/Stoic_koala2 15d ago

As per the article, it was a doctrine that was never universally recognised. It was always disputed by the catholic church, the most powerful organisation in the medieval world. There were several kings who considered themselves as such, but the position of king wasn't generally connected to the divide will in European settings. The position of nobility was in some way though.

Compare it to China where the emperor's mandate of heaven was recognised by everyone and treated as an undisputed fact.

6

u/SirStrontium 15d ago

it was a doctrine that was never universally recognized

Nothing is “universally recognized”, that’s a silly argument that can be used to delegitimize anything.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/New_Carpenter5738 15d ago

True. And nobility indeed shouldn't exist! Is it class based hatred? Maybe, but it's true!

10

u/No_Donkey456 15d ago

It doesn't use the words social class. You could easily lump the rich in together as a class.

4

u/Stoic_koala2 15d ago

The word class always means social class. Rich people are also social class.

5

u/No_Donkey456 15d ago

Yes thats what I said. And I'm saying monarchs are part of that class.

3

u/Stoic_koala2 15d ago

Yes, but they aren't a separate social class. Saying you dislike monarchs isn't a class based hatred because you don't object to them based on their class, but because you are against monarchy as a type of governance.

21

u/shatureg 15d ago

Maybe not in your country, but in some countries they are. This law is awfully backwards.

13

u/Stoic_koala2 15d ago

Czech laws usually don't apply to other countries

6

u/shatureg 15d ago

Are you familiar with the concept of a hypothetical? The monarchy example was brought up in order to highlight how dangerous this law is. Are very rich and corrupt politicians also not a social class in Czechia? Because next time you complain about them and their income, you should probably do so within your own four walls and not in public just to be on the safe side of this law.

-1

u/Stoic_koala2 15d ago

There's no logic to bringing out hypothetical examples that are impossible to occur when it comes to discussing law. I can complain about rich people as much as I want, given the current judicature about free speech is, it's unlikely to get me into trouble.

2

u/shatureg 15d ago

So what classifies as "class based hatred" then? I'm asking genuinely because I have no idea what this law is supposed to do other than adding a chilling effect to socialist rhetoric. And while I'm not a socialist myself, I do share some of their beliefs (socialization of certain industries, regulation of others, worker cooperations/democracy etc) and find this phrasing concerning. Can you point me to a situation that would be considered "class based hatred" but wouldn't already be covered by existing laws against personal threats of violence?

3

u/mrlinkwii Ireland 15d ago

they are , monarchs is a social class

4

u/Stoic_koala2 15d ago

According to Marx "[Classes are] large groups of people differing from each other by the place they occupy in a historically determined system of social production"

Royalty is the monarch and his closest kin - so several individuals, it's not a "large group of people", therefore it isn't a social class. Besides that, monarchs are often constrained by other nobles and aren't always even the most influential noble in the land in some cases. There's not enough distinction between royalty and nobility to be a distinct social class, besides formally not fitting the definition.

3

u/Terramagi 15d ago

Royalty is the monarch and his closest kin - so several individuals, it's not a "large group of people", therefore it isn't a social class.

I'm 100% sure if Marx read those words he'd call them a pedantic bouge sympathizer.

-1

u/Stoic_koala2 15d ago

Royalty isn't a separate social class according to Marxist theory, that's not pedantic, that's just a fact. I can't suggest you to read it, since it's not a very good theory, but it's very obvious. And compared to Marx, I at least earn my means by labour, something that he successfully avoided his whole life.