Reposted by Michael Shellenberger
The statement criticizes the freezing of a Swiss citizen's bank accounts and the banning of EU businesses from transacting with him, allegedly due to his speech. It contrasts this action with the EU's stated commitment to freedom of speech, highlighting a perceived inconsistency. The tone is accusatory and challenges the EU's adherence to its own principles.
- The statement suggests harm was done by freezing accounts without due process, violating the principle of doing no harm. [-2]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- It accuses the EU of not respecting privacy and dignity by freezing accounts based on speech, potentially violating this principle. [-2]Principle 2:I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
- The statement engages in criticism of the EU's actions, which could be seen as constructive if it leads to dialogue, but the accusatory tone may hinder this. [-1]Principle 4:I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
- By highlighting a potential inconsistency in the EU's actions, the statement could be seen as using influence to promote accountability and betterment of society. [+1]Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.