The only reason Edward Snowden got asylum in Russia is using him for propaganda.
Just because some activists is in a western country doesn't mean they're free from influence or intimidation.
And just to be clear, the bans we have in Germany prohibit spreading lies about some of the worst atrocities ever committed by man. Freedom of speech is a valuable right, but not as valuable as the dignity and life of humans, 50m of which lost their life from 1933-1945.
https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-new-citizenship-rule-pledge-t...
But how about the US Oath of Allegiance, would you consider it a restriction of "Free Speech" that you have to renounce all allegiance to any foreign sovereignty? Is it a restriction of free speech that you have to say something if you want to become a citizen?
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."
State is just some temporary (in the grand scheme of things) form of often violent organization some group of people form at a time to organize their affairs (and force some others into or out of, usually) for their own benefit. (For Israel, this includes defacto permanent military subjugation of millions of people, and stripping them of their rights. This makes it doubly ridiculous that this is almost the only state where you constantly hear from the supporters that it has the "right to exists" somehow.)
States either do exist (if enough people are willing to fund and maintain such an organization, and/or let themselves get killed and/or kill others for it) or they don't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_exist
It's just a philosophical issue. That Germany decided preserving existence of particular current form of Israeli state is useful target for thought policing is basically just ridiculous.
Calls for "destruction" of Israel as a state as it currently is (eg. change of regime from racist religious ethnostate to true democracy) are not necessarily "bad". The state I was born in doesn't exist anymore, BTW. It was replaced with a different state because people called for ending it in '89. And then again at the end of '92. Not many people are crying over it. States come and go all the time.
And it's perfectly possible to question this claim (it is not ipso facto a "right") without being even in the least antisemitic, or wishing physical harm on anyone. Being as you're leaving out the fact that this "sovereign nation" was carved out of another people's land, fundamentally denying their right to self-determination.
It is this usurpation and denial of the rights of the indigenous inhabitants that people question, when they express doubts about the supposedly inalienable "right" of the State of Israel to exist.
(And yes - this generalizes to all countries; it's perfectly reasonable to question the "right" of any country to exist, or to exist with its currently claimed borders).
As you seem to agree that most modern nations have been borne out of injustices of some form or other, I feel obliged to ask this: isn't it taxing to deny every country's right to exist? It feels like it would be if you want to live in a moderate society where people want bygones to be bygones, especially the kinds that nobody can do anything meaningful about.
Personally I feel like the more productive way of arguing is for diminishing the injustices that are happening right now, not against the reasons why those injustices happen in the first place.
I don't see this stance so much as denying the rights of these countries to exist.
But rather, as recognizing that all of them are, for the most part -- faits accomplis. And in particular -- that we are free to disregard obligations imposed by others to pretend (with them) that they have (and at this point I am no longer using your words, but generalizing) some inalienable, "God-given" right to occupy a given piece of territory, within whatever borders they choose to proclaim -- and at the expense of the rights of those already living there.
So on balance, I see this is a decidedly less taxing stance to take.
At the same time -- I'm very much in the "bygones be bygones" camp, as applies to the vast majority of cases. Which doesn't mean, however, that aren't certain major territorial disputes around the world that aren't yet quite ready for the "bygones" designation -- and in fact still need to be properly adjudicated (or barring that, at least protected from deteriorating / being encroached upon even further).
The situation in the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights being one of them.
In fact, I think those moral obligations rank higher than a lot of individual freedoms. Remember that the German constitution puts the dignity of (wo)man above all other rights.
Freedom of Opinion is Article 5 and can be restricted by law and to protect youth and personal honor.
I don't know where you come from but calls for destruction of any country are bad. We might strive for leaders or parties to be exchanged, we might strive for independence of oppressed minorities, but that doesn't mean we want to destroy the country.
You can't weigh evil against other evil. You got to find another way.
To get to the point of my previous comment. Do you expect that demanding anti-zionists to publicly say Israel deserves to be a state will have any impact on their belief? The DW article acknowledges that a very strong anti zionist (or rather plain anti jewish) sentiment exists already in the locals. What good does it do to force people to say this one specific thing?
Free Speech just means that you aren't oppressed to say certain things. Like all rights, also the Freedom of Speech has its boundaries. Slander for example. Germany applies certain sensible restrictions on speech and that's it. That's not negative. Free speech absolutists just like to have no strings attached, but this isn't what holds societies together.
Forgive me for dramatizing, but I fail to see how being rejected for citizenship as a refugee coming from the Palestinian territories because you can't bring yourself to say your life long enemy is implied to have the right to oppress you and your family is anything but pertaining to Free Speech.
When governments demand people (any people) say things (any things) for a purpose (any purpose), that is an infringement of their freedom of speech. I can understand you disagree with that, but for me it's very obvious.
Governments obviously can (must!) ask you to answer (truthfully) in many situations. Just think of taxation. This isn't infringement of freedom of speech.
b.) As a Palestinian you aren't forced by Germans to say Israel can oppress you. You are asked to agree that Israelis have a right to life too (as any human actually has).
Here's a list of the actual questions, from a recent article in Die Welt:
1. Vor wie vielen Jahren gab es erstmals eine jüdische Gemeinde auf dem Gebiet des heutigen Deutschlands?
a) vor etwa 300 Jahren
b) vor etwa 700 Jahren
c) vor etwa 1150 Jahren
d) vor etwa 1700 Jahren*
2. Wer darf bei den rund 40 jüdischen Makkabi-Sportvereinen Mitglied werden?
a) nur Deutsche
b) nur Israelis
c) nur religiöse Menschen
d) alle Menschen\*
3. Welche Städte haben die größten jüdischen Gemeinden in Deutschland?
a) Berlin und München\*
b) Hamburg und Essen
c) Nürnberg und Stuttgart
d) Worms und Speyer
4. Wie heißt das jüdische Gebetshaus?
a) Basilika
b) Moschee
c) Synagoge\*
d) Kirche
5. Auf welcher rechtlichen Grundlage wurde der Staat Israel gegründet?
a) eine Resolution der Vereinten Nationen\*
b) ein Beschluss des Zionistenkongresses
c) ein Vorschlag der Bundesregierung
d) ein Vorschlag der UdSSR
6. Woraus begründet sich Deutschlands besondere Verantwortung für Israel?
a) aus der Mitgliedschaft in der Europäischen Union (EU)
b) aus den nationalsozialistischen Verbrechen\*
c) aus dem Grundgesetz der Bundesrepublik Deutschland
d) aus der christlichen Tradition
7. Was ist ein Beispiel für antisemitisches Verhalten?
a) ein jüdisches Fest besuchen
b) die israelische Regierung kritisieren
c) den Holocaust leugnen\*
d) gegen Juden Fußball spielen
8. Woran erinnern die sogenannten Stolpersteine in Deutschland?
a) an berühmte deutsche Politikerinnen und Politiker
b) an die Opfer des Nationalsozialismus\*
c) an Verkehrstote
d) an bekannte jüdische Musiker
9. Wie kann jemand, der den Holocaust leugnet, bestraft werden?
a) Kürzung sozialer Leistungen
b) bis zu 100 Sozialstunden
c) gar nicht, Holocaustleugnung ist erlaubt
d) mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu fünf Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe\*
10. Welche Handlung mit Bezug auf den Staat Israel ist in Deutschland verboten?
a) die Politik Israels öffentlich kritisieren
b) das Aufhängen einer israelischen Flagge auf dem Privatgrundstück
c) eine Diskussion über die Politik Israels
d) der öffentliche Aufruf zur Vernichtung Israels\*
I would like to propose a test for how free countries are: take a cart-board and write something critical about the current government, hold it up on a major square in the capital. Count the seconds/minutes/hours until they arrest you.
Now compare results across countries.
They can do stuff like that for days/months/years without getting arrested.
1 - https://www.newstatesman.com/diary/2024/04/cancelled-germany...
Because:
"police banned the final two days of the event, citing concern about the potential for hate speech"
The potential? Sounds very Putin-esque if you ask me.
1 - https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/police-shut-down-pro-pa...
> "A detailed questionnaire was designed by the research team, working with law and policy experts on the right of peaceful assembly and freedom of expression. The resulting 143 questions which formed the basis for the research were rooted in the international legal obligations that states have to respect, protect and fulfil the relevant human rights under international treaties to which they are party."
And form nuanced conclusion based on wide array of facts. :)
Feb 11, 2022: "There is nothing more grotesque than a media pushing for war."
Feb 15th: "So... if nobody shows up for the invasion Biden scheduled for tomorrow morning at 3AM, I'm not saying your journalistic credibility was instrumentalized as part of one of those disinformation campaigns you like to write about, but you should at least consider the possibility."
"If there's an invasion tomorrow, dunk on me because I have been spectacularly wrong."
US / EU intel: 1
Snowden / Russia: 0
Yeah, good propaganda - if you're an anti-WEF-globalist - F WEF and F the surveillance state
I must have missed the pro-Ukrainian protests, lawmakers and debates--online and all over the news--in Russia.
Because I can assure you that coverage of pro-Ukrainian protests as unpatriotic happens in Russia too.
Yes, people disagree. Vehemently. And in public. That's sort of the entire difference.
> I can assure you that coverage of pro-Ukrainian protests as unpatriotic happens in Russia too
Where these protesters are congregating that isn't inside a prison?
Do you think when people as powerful as the U.S. President and all the cable networks smear protesters, do you think the protesters have an equal platform/power to dispute this and therefore it's a debate?
My point is not to argue that Russia isn't authoritarian but that every country seeks to delegitimize those who disagree with its powerful. That does not mean that there aren't a lot of people who may disagree incl for example Snowden.
Yes. I'm in New York. Israel/Palestine is enthusiastically debated in public spaces.
And Presidents smear people and causes all the time. The fact that they're complaining about them and not ordering arrests is the salient difference. For a foreign policy issue, the war in Gaza has received a lot of attention, especially considering it's an election year.
> my point is not to argue that Russia isn't authoritarian but that every country seeks to legitimize those who disagree with its powerful
This is the essence of power. The point is how probable it is that the power succeeds. There is no free speech in Russia. Falsely conflating Snowden's situation with that of the Gaza protesters doesn't hold.
This is why there can be a 'debate'.
But as soon as any such debate threatens to actually change something, cops are deployed to beat people up, protesters are arrested and harassed and of course they are constantly smeared in the media.
That is the real difference as far as I can see it.
Don't get me wrong, I am part of the Western world and I'd like it to be true what you say, but why do things like this[1] happen then?
1 - https://www.newstatesman.com/diary/2024/04/cancelled-germany...
I'm fairly sure the regime in the UK has lasted longer, technically. You could say that the laws that enabled the current system came into place in 1707 with the Acts of Union, although the modern interpretation took time to come into effect. You could also argue that the supremacy of parliament and thus the beginning of the current regime started in 1688.
The problem with continuous is that things do change over time, and the American system has also evolved since it was conceived.
Whatever "changes" happen within the US (or the UK) system do not fundamentally uproot the civil servants or the permanent bureaucracy in the West, thus the insinuations remain stable.
Certainly more so than anywhere else in the world. Any changes are minuscule in the grand scheme of things.
[1] - https://apnews.com/article/college-protest-israel-hamas-war-...
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Russian_i...
True, but by local authorities. And in most cases charges were dropped. The total number detained is small, and in most cases I've personally seen, at least in New York, credibly tied to a destructive act that had nothing to do with the protest.
> probably because of having a comically twisted view of how authoritarianism plays out in practice
Absolutely agree. To a sad degree, the current seat of authoritarian politics in America has shifted to Silicon Valley.
> you believing there were no large demonstrations within Russia as being an example of this perspective
I should have clarified without reprisals, but you are correct--the St. Petersburg protests weren't well covered by the international press.
The goal of the USA trapping him there was to get people to disregard his opinions like this. Yes, he can't say the truth regarding the Russia. But he can still say the truth regarding France.
And this is the truth. If this were done by another less powerful country there would be (and has been) outrage.
He became an essential part of their propaganda, he doesn't even have to do it in person, his X account is enough.
Either you've been hugely mislead by anti Snowden people, or you are willfully ignorant, or worse.
Snowden says gave everything he had to the journalists he met with in HK, and destroyed all copies in his possession before attempting to transit through Moscow.
If your belief is that he did otherwise -- you'll have to explain how you "know" this to be the case.
BTW I never said that I believed he was telling the truth.
But that's very different from pretending to simply "know" that he wasn't.
You should read what Daniel Ellsberg had to say about Snowden's decision to flee the country. Things have changed dramatically since Vietnam:
<https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/30/daniel...>
> He didn't have to escape to Russia...
The intent was never to stay in Russia. Snowden's passport was revoked by the US State Department while he was in transit from Hong Kong to -IIRC- Ecuador. His trip had him stop in Russia, which would not let him leave because his passport was no longer valid.
<https://apnews.com/article/82f87def2ddc4abfba271420f4e81ddf>
He did, and took a path that allowed him not to be disappeared, suddenly become suicidal or fatally ill with weird symptoms.