Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
5 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Yes. Alt-right extremism, including white supremacy, should be dealt with through the legal system.  One can denounce.the ideas behind extremism without hinting at "final solutions", or that they "should get what's coming to them."

Mob violence is not a solution to anything, not even to neo-Nazis marching through the streets carrying symbols of hatred and threat toward Jews. As a civilized society we should be able to come together to loudly and firmly condemn those ideas and tactics.  Unfortunately, Trump and too many conservatives fail to do so, instead claiming "its not a serious problem", "it's free speech", "it's because of Liberals/democrats/progressives/Soros/Obama/Clinton" or "Anti-fa is the real problem".  

Compare that reaction to the reaction to of the same people to the Al-Quds rallies.  Those rallies, with the same implicit hatred of and threat to Jews as White Supremacist rallies, are not shrugged of as "part of free speech", or "not a serious problem", though they are still blamed on Liberals/democrats/progressives/Soros/Obama/Clinton.

What about just saying how awful, stupid and even repulsive you think they are? 

Certainly, loud and firm condemnation is a great idea.

I would have to hear what was said at an Al Quds rally to decide whether I thought it crossed my lines.  I remember supporting the rights of Muslims to shout "murderer" and other such comments at the bodies of dead British soldiers as they were brought along the UK equivalent of Canada's Highway of Heroes.  That got me a hard time from some.

Posted
7 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I would have to hear what was said at an Al Quds rally to decide whether I thought it crossed my lines.  I remember supporting the rights of Muslims to shout "murderer" and other such comments at the bodies of dead British soldiers as they were brought along the UK equivalent of Canada's Highway of Heroes.  That got me a hard time from some.

Stick with the good ol' American first amendment, Brandenburg v. Ohio, no more, no less.     Imminent inctement to violence.  If generalized, not imminent; is just rhetoric.

Americans know, soon as you step back from it, some kook like Dialamah will start watering everything down with speech banning under this rubric or that, it never ends with these people.

Posted

Brandenburg v. Ohio, broad strokes, simplified;

"The Jews should be gassed"  - rhetoric, free people can decide what they think of that, and condemn it with their own rhetoric.

"Let's shoot those Jews at the synagogue down the street" - imminent incitement to violence, call the FBI now.

Posted (edited)

Once again, under British law,  including Canada, you have the Queen's Peace and the peace is vastly less tolerant of rabble rousing,

But what happens is, you get extremist kooks like Dialamah who will just keep moving the bar as to what constitutes peace, next thing you know you are indicting a pug for making  a Hitler salute.

This is one of the main reasons the Americans overthrew the British Crown.   They tried to petition for liberty, London used the King's Peace to silence them.

The UK has gone cuckoo.

New Zealand has gone cuckoo.

In Canada the Charter slows the cuckoo a bit, but it's not stopping it.

'The only thing that stops the speech banning cuckoos, is the American first amendment at the threshold of Brandenburg v. Ohio, where it has been since 1969

And this protects the left as well, these leftist kooks in Canada just assume right wing extremists will never get control of the Queen's Peace and then start using it to stomp on them, call them "terrorists" for their rhetoric, have the RCMP drag them away kicking and screaming, it was usually the left which was stomped on under British rule and it will come to pass again, because the pendulum always swings and the British and Canadian left is inciting ever more right wing reaction as they go.

What happens when UKIP is the government?  It's gonna be payback time then.  22 SAS kicking your lefty doors down, enjoy. 

Edited by Dougie93
Posted

I'm not following how this is related to the still unfounded accusations that snopes is biased.

"I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,898
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Flora smith
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...