Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
bcsapper

On the use of violence against those peacefully expressing views with which one disagrees.

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

The courts were sympathetic, but ultimately the judges ruled that an order is an order, and you won't take it, off to the Queen's dungeon with you.

It's just the way Canadian law is written, it's mostly archaic, left over from the British Empire of the 19th century.

I did mention the cowards in charge...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I did mention the cowards in charge...

Canadians like it this way, make no mistake, the vast majority of Canadians fear and loathe the alternative, bear in mind that in America where you have a right to protest, they tolerate a very high level of rabble rousing indeed, Canadians recoil from it, Canadians are afraid of freedom.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dougie93 said:

Canadians like it this way, make no mistake, the vast majority of Canadians fear and loathe the alternative, bear in mind that in America where you have a right to protest, they tolerate a very high level of rabble rousing indeed, Canadians recoil from it, Canadians are afraid of freedom.

Do I have to repeat my last post?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Do I have to repeat my last post?

I hesitate to indict Canadians in general as being cowards.  

Everybody is afraid, you don't know if they are a coward unless and until they fail to go over the top.

Until a man actually declines to go over the top at the breach, I will not indict him as a coward.

Sometimes people have to work themselves up to it, going over the top at the breach is the hardest hill to climb, hence why Frank Mellish is my hero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

I hesitate to indict Canadians in general as being cowards.  

Everybody is afraid, you don't know if they are a coward unless and until they fail to go over the top.

Until a man actually declines to go over the top at the breach, I will not indict him as a coward.

Sometimes people have to work themselves up to it, going over the top at the breach is the hardest hill to climb, hence why Frank Mellish is my hero.

If, when they come back from the top, they shut an old woman up because her views are upsetting to a few outraged snowflakes, then my description stands. 

I can't imagine they would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

If, when they come back from the top, they shut an old woman up because her views are upsetting to a few outraged snowflakes, then my description stands. 

I can't imagine they would.

I uphold your prerogative to call people whatever you please, and I call people all sorts of name too, but for me, coward is the ultimate indictment, I don't throw that one around lightly, and in the unlikely event that I would, it would only be to a man's face,  so he could at least demand satisfaction and prove me wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

I uphold your prerogative to call people whatever you please, and I call people all sorts of name too, but for me, coward is the ultimate indictment, I don't throw that one around lightly, and in the unlikely event that I would, it would only be to a man's face,  so he could at least demand satisfaction and prove me wrong.

Views are views.  I think anyone who locks an old woman up for expressing her views is a coward.  That's my view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bcsapper said:

Views are views.  I think anyone who locks an old woman up for expressing her views is a coward.  That's my view.

I'm not in anyway wronged nor offended by it, I'm a firebrand and I pass no judgement on you for the fire in your belly.

Indicting for cowardice is just not my way, I was selected and trained to be a leader, if a man is cowering in the bottom of his trench, that is my failing, but that is not the time to jack him up, that is the time to reach down and take him by the hand, and say "come with me, we'll do this together, If I can do it you can do it, ain't no thang"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shady said:

You’re quite right.  In a civil society, violence has no place in or against protest.

Unless they're protesting a pipeline, but of course those are terrorists so they get what deserve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, eyeball said:

Unless they're protesting a pipeline, but of course those are terrorists so they get what deserve.

Not if they're peacefully protesting it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

Not if they're peacefully protesting it.

They have no right to peaceful protest to waylay the Queen's Peace, "peaceful protest" means stand aside with your placards and let the pipeline pass, or else.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other thing about the pipeline protests is the involvement of Americans, both funding and participating.

That empowers the Crown to invoke "Foreign Interference", which is Defence of the Realm, so they don't need an order in council to go militarized then, because again, Canada has no Posse Comitatus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peaceful protests are a complete waste of time, you can see what happens in Hong Kong, that would happen in Canada too, either you are going to riot in the streets, or you're not, if not, the government is not afraid, therefore you are just posing and you know it and they know it and everybody knows it.

Sudan is another case, they brought the dictator down, but that was only by revolutionary upheaval in the streets, violent civil disorder, until his own army got scared of the people and arrested their boss.

Anybody who says "peaceful protest" is just bourgeois, not going to kill nor die for their principles, I'm not calling them cowards, but don't waste our mfing time with your wanh wanh protests to nowhere.

Everything is ultimately decided by force, if you're not prepared to go there, so be it, but don't delude yourself that you can effect change without applying some sort of force and/or enduring force being imposed upon you, there's no such thing as a free lunch.

They shot Gandhi's followers, the Gurkhas mowed them down in a hail of gunfire, they shot Martin Luther King, it's all coming down to force in the end, whether that is incoming or outgoing or both.

Any protest which remains peaceful, is totally ineffective, because that just means it is being ignored, because the powers that be are not threatened by it.

In the case of both Gandhi and MLK, those were not peaceful protests, the protestors were non violent, but the protests themselves were confrontational, it was revolution, they were deliberately provoking the government to overreach and get violent, because that's how you bring governments down, and even you're not going to fight back, you still must be prepared to die for your protest.

Buncha pansy Canadians waving placards, please, give it a rest already, nobody cares, because it's not about us, it's all about you, you and your virtue signalling, without taking any risks at all, because you're never gonna charge the barricades, you just want to be on the CBC or something, so everyone can see how virtuous you are,  which makes you the "twats", to use Sappers lingo.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, bcsapper said:

I'm obviously not trying hard enough...

It's not clear what you are trying to do, first of all the thread title is vague, second, I look in to see what its about, and its just you mouthing off about nobody should use force against people who are not using force, which is silly, considering that using force against people not using force, is what the nation state is all about, starting with forcing you to pay taxes, and the cops getting violent about it when you don't, when they kick down your door.

This entire society is underpinned by state force and violence to keep people in line, and it works in Canada, because the people here almost entirely bourgeois, mostly because they are protected by the Americans and so face no prospect of ever having to kill and die for anything, hence their butter soft totally ineffective peaceful protests, which are peaceful, because in fact they are scared of the government, so they make sure not to provoke it lest the RCMP bop them on the head.

I mean, did you miss the G7 summit in Toronto?  A handful of kids showed up and threw some tuna cans at the cops, and the entire Government of Canada went into a panic, literally martial law, for tuna cans, and the cops just went around beating the shit out of random people who were not protesting anything at all and had no idea what was going on.    You should be scared of this government, the Government of Canada is cuckoo, knee jerk authoritarian, and totally militarized.

I mean, grow up already, naive infantalized Canadians, look it in the face; your government is inherently and utterly criminal, they don't even deny it, the Prime Minister just said that it's okay if you break the law, so long as it creates some jobs in Quebec.    Can we rob banks now, if it somehow employs a Quebecker?

Lift up your heads and look around, this country is a banana republic, don't bother protesting, criminal states don't care.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weird title. But I accept your free speech right to name things whatever you want. Others might disagree...

The irony is that determined opponents of free speech these days are mostly not the goverment. Not that they aren't frantically pushing the government into that role. And they're almost all on the Left. They're of the "Of course I respect free speech, just not THEIR free speech! That sort of speech is dangerous to society because society is not nearly as brilliant as I am and can be fooled!"

And of course, online we're hearing more and more about the same type of mentality on the part of private companies who are the new owners of all the common speech exchange plazas. People don't go to a public square to make their speech any more - in part because we don't have any here - they go online. Well, those online squares are owned by corporations which are run by Left wingers from the Left coast and they have no time for free speech which offends them.

Incidentally, why is it the West coast has all the most militant lefties? Is it something about being afraid of the snow, or what? Of course, The West coast (both here and in the US) also has all the worst slums and homeless problems, which I suspect is not coincidental to the type of 'progressive' governments they have over there.

In any event I subscribe to the view of Jonathan Haidt who has described anti-racism/diversity as the new religion of the Left. And like all religions you have fundamentalists, zealots who get all bug-eyed furious over blasphemy. When you see people screaming hatred and lashing out with clubs and bicycle chains against other people who are merely speaking their opinion what you're seeing is the equivalent of the Pakistani mobs attacking people for blasphemy. Religious zealots cannot be argued or reasoned with. Their minds are closed (and largely empty).

Edited by Argus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

It's not clear what you are trying to do, first of all the thread title is vague, second, I look in to see what its about, and its just you mouthing off about nobody should use force against people who are not using force, which is silly, considering that using force against people not using force, is what the nation state is all about, starting with forcing you to pay taxes, and the cops getting violent about it when you don't, when they kick down your door.

This entire society is underpinned by state force and violence to keep people in line, and it works in Canada, because the people here almost entirely bourgeois, mostly because they are protected by the Americans and so face no prospect of ever having to kill and die for anything, hence their butter soft totally ineffective peaceful protests, which are peaceful, because in fact they are scared of the government, so they make sure not to provoke it lest the RCMP bop them on the head.

I mean, did you miss the G7 summit in Toronto?  A handful of kids showed up and threw some tuna cans at the cops, and the entire Government of Canada went into a panic, literally martial law, for tuna cans, and the cops just went around beating the shit out of random people who were not protesting anything at all and had no idea what was going on.    You should be scared of this government, the Government of Canada is cuckoo, knee jerk authoritarian, and totally militarized.

I mean, grow up already, naive infantalized Canadians, look it in the face; your government is inherently and utterly criminal, they don't even deny it, the Prime Minister just said that it's okay if you break the law, so long as it creates some jobs in Quebec.    Can we rob banks now, if it somehow employs a Quebecker?

Lift up your heads and look around, this country is a banana republic, don't bother protesting, criminal states don't care.

The thread title is based on the closing of another thread because those in it weren't trying hard enough.  It seemed a little arbitrary to me, so I opened another one, as we were invited to do.

I didn't expect you to come on to it mouthing off about the Queen and your buddies, but hey, it's a forum right?  I should have tried harder to make the topic more fun.

That said, the rest of your post is just disingenuous nonsense. 

 

Edited by bcsapper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Argus said:

Weird title. But I accept your free speech right to name things whatever you want. Others might disagree...

The irony is that determined opponents of free speech these days are mostly not the goverment. Not that they aren't frantically pushing the government into that role. And they're almost all on the Left. They're of the "Of course I respect free speech, just not THEIR free speech! That sort of speech is dangerous to society because society is not nearly as brilliant as I am and can be fooled!"

And of course, online we're hearing more and more about the same type of mentality on the part of private companies who are the new owners of all the common speech exchange plazas. People don't go to a public square to make their speech any more - in part because we don't have any here - they go online. Well, those online squares are owned by corporations which are run by Left wingers from the Left coast and they have no time for free speech which offends them.

Incidentally, why is it the West coast has all the most militant lefties? Is it something about being afraid of the snow, or what? Of course, The West coast (both here and in the US) also has all the worst slums and homeless problems, which I suspect is not coincidental to the type of 'progressive' governments they have over there.

In any event I subscribe to the view of Jonathan Haidt who has described anti-racism/diversity as the new religion of the Left. And like all religions you have fundamentalists, zealots who get all bug-eyed furious over blasphemy. When you see people screaming hatred and lashing out with clubs and bicycle chains against other people who are merely speaking their opinion what you're seeing is the equivalent of the Pakistani mobs attacking people for blasphemy. Religious zealots cannot be argued or reasoned with. Their minds are closed (and largely empty).

The thread title is based on the closing of another thread because those in it weren't trying hard enough.  It seemed a little arbitrary to me, so I "tried again", as we were invited to.

I remember being able to edit thread titles, so I was going to change it after a while, but I'll be damned if I can figure out how to now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

The thread title is based on the closing of another thread because those in it weren't trying hard enough.  It seemed a little arbitrary to me, so I "tried again", as we were invited to.

I remember being able to edit thread titles, so I was going to change it after a while, but I'll be damned if I can figure out how to now.

You can't edit thread titles. You have to ask Charles to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

They have no right to peaceful protest to waylay the Queen's Peace, "peaceful protest" means stand aside with your placards and let the pipeline pass, or else.

 

Of course. If the old lady in your other post was drop kicking pregnant teenagers as they attempted to enter an abortion clinic I would happily support her arrest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Argus said:

You can't edit thread titles. You have to ask Charles to do it.

Well, I'm not doin that!

At least anyone interested is forced to read the OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

Bcs, your position is pretty elementary to pluralistic society.

It's not so cut and dried when folks choose to 'peacefully' march while carrying symbols of violence.

Sure it is.  You have the right to carry whatever sign you want opposing someone carrying a swastika, but if they don't hit you, you don't have the right to hit them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
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.


×
×
  • Create New...