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, bcsapper said:

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. 

Am I allowed to physically threaten them.

Share this post


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

Am I allowed to physically threaten them.

Dunno about Portland, but in Canada you can't.  The extremist right-wing neighbour only had to mime shooting someone to have charges of death threats successfully used against him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Am I allowed to physically threaten them.

You're allowed to do whatever the law says.  That's not my argument.  If we were arguing about what the law says, there would only be one post.  Pointless arguing against facts.

I'm talking about right and wrong.

Or, as a second response, should they allowed to physically threaten you?

Edited by bcsapper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump has mentioned making anti-fa a terror organization.  An opinion I have come across is that because anti-fa isn't an organization, but rather people who share an idea, naming anti-fa a terror organization is a way to target left-wing people who openly oppose the current government.  Is this opinion Credible or Conspiritard?

Share this post


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

 

I'm talking about right and wrong.

Or, as a second response, should they allowed to physically threaten you?

Is it right for anyone to physically threaten?

I'm ok with your position, but it's not cut and dried all the time, see.

Share this post


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

Is it right for anyone to physically threaten?

I'm ok with your position, but it's not cut and dried all the time, see.

Who decides on the threat?  What might not be cut and dried is what constitutes threatening behaviour. 

Would showing up to a protest in a helmet and a mask do that?  I'm okay with it personally, as long as they don't hurt anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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 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. 

 

I just read and react, the lack of a thread title seemed curious, then I gave a reaction to the seemingly random post at the beginning.

The Queen is central to everything in Canada, including why you don't have a right to protest.

I remember the fallen everyday, I'm not a just remember them on Remembrance Day kind of guy.

Peaceful protesting is disingenuous nonsense, though I find it to more preening than cowardice.

Share this post


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

Who decides on the threat?  What might not be cut and dried is what constitutes threatening behaviour. 

Would showing up to a protest in a helmet and a mask do that?  I'm okay with it personally, as long as they don't hurt anyone.

I would consider showing up with weapons (not necessarily guns) and wearing a mask a threat, an intent to use violence.  I'm okay with banning protesters from covering their faces and carrying weapons (not necessarily guns).

Antifa uses physical violence to terminate free speech as they physically beat down anyone with differing opinions purposefully causing terror to push their agenda. There’s a reason they wear masks.   No matter who the protesters are and even if we disagree with their views, they are entitled to rally peacefully but ANTIFA usually causes the violence. 

As per Rep. Dan Crenshaw:  In Hong Kong, “antifascists wave American flags, demand freedom and actually fight fascists.  In Portland ‘antifascists’ burn American flags and  demand violence in the name of socialism.”  The difference is Antifa is a terrorist organization.  

The rally was termed an “End Domestic Terrorism” rally 

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/nation/2019/08/17/portland-rally-white-nationalist-antifa/39975053/

As of early afternoon, most of the right-wing groups had left the area via a downtown bridge. Police used officers on bikes and in riot gear to keep black-clad, helmet- and mask-wearing anti-fascist protesters — known as antifa — from following them.

But hundreds of people remained downtown and on nearby streets, and there were skirmishes throughout the day. Police declared a gathering of mostly left-wing protesters near

Pioneer Courthouse Square

a “civil disturbance” and told people to leave

Edited by scribblet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Trump has mentioned making anti-fa a terror organization.  An opinion I have come across is that because anti-fa isn't an organization, but rather people who share an idea, naming anti-fa a terror organization is a way to target left-wing people who openly oppose the current government.  Is this opinion Credible or Conspiritard?

If they don't have a headquarters and a membership card it's tough to see how one could do that. 

Share this post


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

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.

Once again, it's the Queen's Peace, somebody did blow up the Morgentaler clinic after all, I would assume the Crown views the old lady as incitement to civil disorder if left unchecked, vanguard of a much more radical American Pro Life Movement, though they won't come straight out and say that, they'll make up some other rubric to silence her.

They don't let the Wesboro Baptists into Canada neither, any sort of association with radical American political movements scares the bejeezers out of the Canadian Nanny State,

Share this post


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

I would consider showing up with weapons (not necessarily guns) and wearing a mask a threat, an intent to use violence.  I'm okay with banning protesters from covering their faces and carrying weapons (not necessarily guns).

Antifa uses physical violence to terminate free speech as they physically beat down anyone with differing opinions purposefully causing terror to push their agenda. There’s a reason they wear masks.   No matter who the protesters are and even if we disagree with their views, they are entitled to rally peacefully but ANTIFA usually causes the violence. 

As per Rep. Dan Crenshaw:  In Hong Kong, “antifascists wave American flags, demand freedom and actually fight fascists.  In Portland ‘antifascists’ burn American flags and  demand violence in the name of socialism.”  The difference is Antifa is a terrorist organization.  

The rally was termed an “End Domestic Terrorism” rally 

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/nation/2019/08/17/portland-rally-white-nationalist-antifa/39975053/

As of early afternoon, most of the right-wing groups had left the area via a downtown bridge. Police used officers on bikes and in riot gear to keep black-clad, helmet- and mask-wearing anti-fascist protesters — known as antifa — from following them.

But hundreds of people remained downtown and on nearby streets, and there were skirmishes throughout the day. Police declared a gathering of mostly left-wing protesters near

Pioneer Courthouse Square

a “civil disturbance” and told people to leave

Weapons, sure, but a mask might just be paronoia.  What if they were wearing a burka?

I agree with your points about Antifa, but they are not an organization.  They are like football hooligans were in the UK in the seventies.  Most of them have a valid reason to be where they are, but some just go for the aggro.

Edited by bcsapper

Share this post


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

Once again, it's the Queen's Peace, somebody did blow up the Morgentaler clinic after all, I would assume the Crown views the old lady as incitement to civil disorder if left unchecked, vanguard of a much more radical American Pro Life Movement, though they won't come straight out and say that, they'll make up some other rubric to silence her.

They don't let the Wesboro Baptists into Canada neither, any sort of association with radical American political movements scares the bejeezers out of the Canadian Nanny State,

Ah, so if you might be a problem, sometime in the future...

Like I said, cowards.

Share this post


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

Ah, so if you might be a problem, sometime in the future...

Like I said, cowards.

"Pre-crime" or prior restraint  is legion in a nanny police state of course.

Share this post


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

"Pre-crime" or prior restraint  is legion in a nanny police state of course.

Wrong though, right?

Share this post


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

Who decides on the threat?  What might not be cut and dried is what constitutes threatening behaviour. 

Would showing up to a protest in a helmet and a mask do that?  I'm okay with it personally, as long as they don't hurt anyone.

 

Legislators, police officers, prosecutors, judges, and juries.

Canada has already decided to criminalize so called "hate speech", so that horse has already left the barn.   State power (violence) will suppress such speech by design as another member described above.

Hate speech is protected expression (1st Amendment right) in the United States, but how many here would openly defend that right even in a peaceful protest context ?   Most just acquiesce to social pressure to label/ban such speech as a threat, regardless of any constitutional merits.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Legislators, police officers, prosecutors, judges, and juries.

Canada has already decided to criminalize so called "hate speech", so that horse has already left the barn.   State power (violence) will suppress such speech by design as another member described above.

Hate speech is protected expression (1st Amendment right) in the United States, but how many here would openly defend that right even in a peaceful protest context ?   Most just acquiesce to social pressure to label/ban such speech as a threat, regardless of any constitutional merits.

 

I would.  That's really the whole point of it.  Me and Noam Chomsky, as it happens, as someone pointed out in another thread.

Share this post


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

Wrong though, right?

Depends how loyal to Canada you are I suppose, I'm half American,  so I don't actually view Canada as being a free country.

Share this post


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

Depends how loyal to Canada you are I suppose, I'm half American,  so I don't actually view Canada as being a free country.

I'm half English, and I don't view either as being free at the moment.

Loyalty is not in question.  If England and Canada were engaged in any sport, there's no doubt who I would want to win.

Share this post


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

Weapons, sure, but a mask might just be paronoia.  What if they were wearing a burka?

Paranoia , I don't think so, there's only one reason they show up wearing masks and that's because they know they  are intending violence and could arrested.    Banning a burka would be problematic but, really, they shouldn't be allowed either, at least just the face covering should not be allowed.    The violent left is on the rise and is fuelling much of the violence and hate as they, supposedly in the name of protecting (what exactly) these  'antifascists'  have granted themselves the authority to determine exactly who can hold rallies etc., and who should not.  It's not their call, everyone has the right to peaceful rallies and or freedom of assembly.

They are a secret sect/group/organization call them what you will, who do have the ability to organize their violent protests and the more violent they become, the more they try to prevent people with whom they disagree from assembling peacefully, the more they become the enemy of freedom and in so doing ultimately end up helping the right. 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

I'm half English, and I don't view either as being free at the moment.

Loyalty is not in question.  If England and Canada were engaged in any sport, there's no doubt who I would want to win.

England has gone completely off the deep end, more of a police state than even Canada, the security apparatus built to fight the PIRA is now out of control and running amok.

Share this post


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

I would.  That's really the whole point of it.  Me and Noam Chomsky, as it happens, as someone pointed out in another thread.

 

Agreed, but it goes back long before Chomsky spouted the obvious.   Others blazed the trail with blood and lawsuits (e.g. Flynt & Goldstein) in U.S. courts.

Still, very few here have defended the free speech rights of those with "hateful" ideas, left or right.    Maybe they are afraid that the RCMP will come after them, but I suspect they are even more afraid to buck the virtue signaling trend.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Still, very few here have defended the free speech rights of those with "hateful" ideas, left or right.    Maybe they are afraid that the RCMP will come after them, but I suspect they are even more afraid to buck the virtue signaling trend.

America is the only free country, Brandenburg v Ohio and not one step back, Oorah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

In that case, no freedom from harrassment or bullying. I can say the mean words all I want.

As long as they are just words, I would say so.  What punishment would you suggest for saying something that hurt someone else's feelings?

Of course, no-one is obligated to listen, or to provide you with a platform.  You can be ignored, banned, ostracized, but not jailed or fined.  I would say.

And then there is slander, libel, etc.  And probably at some point the harrassment and the bullying can be shown to cause physical harm. 

The problem with supporting freedom of speech is that people assume you support the right to set up AC/DC's sound system across the street from the offices of the NAACP and broadcast "I hate *******" 24 hours a day at 120 dB.

Share this post


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

1. Who decides on the threat?   

2. Would showing up to a protest in a helmet and a mask do that?  

1. You do.  I'm asking you.

2. You are getting it.

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...