I am intolerant of intolerance and so can you

Status
Not open for further replies.

Morm

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2009/03/21/cgy-racism-clash.html?ref=rss

So the Aryan Guard (aka neo nazis) In calgary today had their parade.

60 members were allegedly stopped by 200 members of an anti racism group.

Not only were the 200 members of the anti racism group ALL arrestable for blocking a legal parade route, they were impeding on free speech and THEN claimed pre emptive arrests and police brutality for taking them down with force. They were throwing cans and rocks at the paraders. That is assault, by definition, no matter how you cut it. The parade didn't go past the 200 people, by the way.

If you wanna say something, and have yourself a permit to do so especially in a country with free speech as a founding principle, by all means do it. The police need to crack down on people infringing on that. I am not a nazi. I disagree with them on principle. I will defend their free speech and I do think that every single person blocking that parade should have been arrested, not only because they were infringing on a civil right and then assaulting someone for it.

I am disgusted by the fact that free speech is being impeded by intolerance. Intolerance of intolerance is the equivalant to the perfect hypocrisy.

Discuss.

P.S. Source aside from this link is the local news :D
 
Agreed. They could have protested the parade in any number of ways that didn't include blocking its path.

The article is pretty neutral as to who actually started the fighting, though, so I can't say I fully agree with you on having the protesters charged with assault... And I'm sure that not all of the protesters were part of the fighting [although that doesn't absolve them of the free speech infringement], so you can't blame all of them for the actions of the group that was.
 
Mormoopid said:
P.S. Source aside from this link is the local news :D
Click to expand...

that claimed in earnest that the nazis, clearly the more hated group, were attacked.

reguardless, even if they weren't part of any assault at all, they were still in violation of the law in that they blocked a legal parade route. Maybe I wasn't clear enough in saying that some of them were guilty of assault, infringing on free speech and blocking a parade route and others were guilty of just infringing on free speech and blocking a parade route. Either way, they are all accountable while the neo nazis are not. Take that, democracy.

for further reference:
http://www.vancouversun.com/cars/Pr...ti+racism+activists+square/1414730/story.html
 
Mormoopid said:
that claimed in earnest that the nazis, clearly the more hated group, were attacked.
Click to expand...

I didn't see anything explicitly stating that in the first article [perhaps my reading comprehension is just poor], but the second article makes the distinction. Not that it really matters, I should have been able to hazard a guess as to who started it.

I agree fully as to the infringement of free speech, though; just because you don't like what someone says doesn't mean they don't have the right to say it.
 
I'm tired and can't really interpret the news that well, but from my understanding, the anti-racists already had a celebration and the Aryan Guards pretty much scheduled the parade on the same day. That, would be wrong on the side of the Aryan Guards in my opinion.

However, if it were the other side around and it were the anti-racists that picked a fight with the Aryan Guards, of course I'd agree. In other words, whoever was the real intolerant one is the one at fault here.

At the same time though, the Aryan Guards were either getting this or getting negatively posted in the news =/
 
Reguardless of any kind of celebration, the aryan guard was just saying something. Someone stopped them from doing that, in some cases violently, and that is wrong.
 
I don't know, I have a lot of time for antifa and all physical nazi resistance movements. A great deal of me says no, playing their own game is not the answer, violence is wrong; however there is a smaller part (that I cannot ignore) that tells me that these people *should* be fought on their own ground, that they need to be stopped. It's hard.
 
I disagree with the Aryan Guard, and I would want to stop the parade, but violence is just 'feeding the troll', as it were. Violence doesn't solve these things. A nice friendly protest or name calling should do the trick.
 
Is free speach actually a founding principle of canada? It usually isnt in commonwealth countries, but I dunno you guys had to copy america and become a republic so maybe it is different for you..

Have a nice day.
 
It was perfectly acceptable for police to stop the parade. The purpose of free speech is so we can hear the protests against government, companies, rules, etc. Free speech was probably not intended to protect racists. However, I do not think the anti racism group's method of stopping the parade was right. They could've killed someone with the rocks.
 
crynts said:
Free speech was probably not intended to protect racists.
Click to expand...

Regardless of what happened in the parade (I don't really care), this is not true. Free Speech is designed to protect exactly what you don't want to hear, and if you can rationalize stopping something by saying that "this wasn't what free speech was meant for" then you can stop anything.

Of course here it looks like this group did a little more than peaceably assemble, luckily for those who dislike racists (which is really all of us)
 
Chris is me said:
Regardless of what happened in the parade (I don't really care), this is not true. Free Speech is designed to protect exactly what you don't want to hear, and if you can rationalize stopping something by saying that "this wasn't what free speech was meant for" then you can stop anything.

Of course here it looks like this group did a little more than peaceably assemble, luckily for those who dislike racists (which is really all of us)
Click to expand...

I'm going to tend to agree with this, especially considering the at the time period at which Free Speech in the US was instated, Racism wasn't really Taboo.
 
Chris is me said:
Regardless of what happened in the parade (I don't really care), this is not true. Free Speech is designed to protect exactly what you don't want to hear, and if you can rationalize stopping something by saying that "this wasn't what free speech was meant for" then you can stop anything.

Of course here it looks like this group did a little more than peaceably assemble, luckily for those who dislike racists (which is really all of us)
Click to expand...

Freedom of speech does not equal freedom of hate speech. There are limits.
 
Depending on where you are, yes, it does. In the US it is explicitly protected by the First Amendment; I don't have a working knowledge of Canada's foundations so I won't comment on those. As long as your "speech" isn't liable to cause harm to others (the classic "yelling FIRE in a crowded theater" example) you can pretty much say whatever you want as long as it's peaceful and within the boundaries of good taste.*

*How ironic is it that I could have a parade walking down Main Street in any major US city with men dressed in bondage clothing kissing each other, or a parade of people in KKK robes proclaiming all other races inferior.. but the second I start saying "bad words" like fuck and shit I'd be shut down? This country is terribly silly.
 
DM I'm fairly sure hate speech would fall under hate crime here in the U.S. And it should be, as its been shown in the first half of the 20th century when racism is acceptable it does hinder the rights of the discriminated. So I can't say I would be in favor of protecting the right for an Aryan to make baseless racist claims (not that the anti-racist group was justified by using violence against them...)

edit: I did a quick google search and from what I understand hate speech is protected under the first amendment unless it's provoking, one site calls them "fighting words". So my bad, kinda, I guess I thought "fighting words" could be extended to a broader range of speech...
 
akuchi said:
Freedom of speech does not equal freedom of hate speech. There are limits.
Click to expand...

Yes it does, at least in America. The idea of the US First Amendment is that any Government control of speech gives the Government too much power.

(also how easy would it be to call anti government speech hate speech, really)

DM said:
*How ironic is it that I could have a parade walking down Main Street in any major US city with men dressed in bondage clothing kissing each other, or a parade of people in KKK robes proclaiming all other races inferior.. but the second I start saying "bad words" like fuck and shit I'd be shut down? This country is terribly silly.
Click to expand...

That's only over the airwaves! See: Cohen v. California.

the State may not, consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, make the simple public display of this single four-letter expletive a criminal offense.
Click to expand...
 
But surely hate speech is incitement to violence? That's generally how it's seen here, anyway - admittedly, it's a thin line, and one the cunt leader of the BNP unfortunately toes quite well (having more aquittals than convictions for incitement to racial hatred), but it's definitely there.
 
akuchi said:
But surely hate speech is incitement to violence? That's generally how it's seen here, anyway - admittedly, it's a thin line, and one the cunt leader of the BNP unfortunately toes quite well (having more aquittals than convictions for incitement to racial hatred), but it's definitely there.
Click to expand...

It's not inherently incitement to violence, but when it is it becomes a crime. Saying atrocious lies about Jews, in this example, and claiming that they rule the world / oppress people daily / whatever fucked up shit I don't even want to read about is perfectly okay under most free speech codes, as it's an idea. Any advocation of somehow non-peaceably acting to end this approaches clear and present danger.

To move it to a political example, it's like saying that the President should be tried and convicted of war crimes and executed by the Court. There's nothing wrong with that, and the band Rage Against The Machine says it at every show without being arrested. If the speaker called for violence against the President, then you have a problem.

Of course all you Canadians, Brits, etc. are on your own; I have no understanding of your laws.
 
I personally think the Aryan Guard had it coming, having a parade on a day commemorating anti-racism. Free speech or not, they were asking for an ass kicking, and I'm glad the scum bags got it.

Think of the nerve of them; have a racist parade on that day.
 
Mr Goodbar said:
DM I'm fairly sure hate speech would fall under hate crime here in the U.S.
Click to expand...
It's probably best not to argue this with a (CJ major / paralegal / law student / whatever the hell DM is nowadays :P)
 
Mr_Goodbar said:
DM I'm fairly sure hate speech would fall under hate crime here in the U.S.
Click to expand...

Nope. Hate crime laws are usually decided on by a majority of some kind, so naturally every minority gets the short end of the stick. Homosexuals are just now being included in anti-discrimination laws, and laws are still being passed by states to shut gays out. This also obviously applies to Jim Crow laws, etc, but that was more of a modern example to express my confusion at how naive this quote is.

Say what you want, the aryan guard (doesn't deserve to be capitalized) and other hate groups must have a damn good PR guy. What better way to incite hate than by scheduling it on the same day as an anti-racist rally? What better way to get publicity than to have the good guys arrested for assaulting you?

The annoying part about all of this is that everybody knows that what these people are doing is wrong, yet for some reason people feel obligated to defend them. People love saying "intolerance of intolerance is hypocrisy", but that is completely retarded. Being tolerant of intolerance is just as backwards, and it promotes a continued culture of unjustified violence against minorities. The people who aren't affected by hate speech like this (straight, white christian men) will be the first ones to defend their right to hate, but the last ones to actually do something productive when trying to prevent this hate from existing. If you are inciting violence against a group of people, you do not deserve a voice because you obviously have nothing to contribute. Why are we giving people like this a public forum, as if their opinions are actually true, helpful or relevant? It disturbs me that my tax dollars and public roads would be used for something whose sole purpose is to offend people and promote hate. Maybe I'm just angry at the moment...but a parade of people promoting violence against jews, blacks, gays and others really doesn't sound like something that the state could justify sponsoring.

It's one thing to support freedom of speech even when it is obviously dangerous like with nazis, but it is a completely different thing to have that freedom and actually say something. In my opinion, the real harm here is being done by the aryan nazi guard, by treating free speech as a means of spouting irrelevant, dangerous ignorant bullshit and not as a legitimate means of protest. If you have nothing to say, why are you concerned about freedom of speech to begin with? The motive of this gathering was not to protest or speak out against some injustice, it was to promote violence and hate. Assaulting people is going too far, I'll admit, but can we please stop acting like the nazis had the best intentions in mind?

I probably sound like a freedom hating pinko commie right now, but SOMEONE had to stand up and defend the people who are actually the victims here. I love freedom, it just pisses me off when people use that freedom as irresponsibly as the nazis in this case were. "I am proud that our forefathers died for this freedom...so I'm going to use it to fuck around and yell at jews in public" is not something that would register in the mind of a sane person. Maybe I'm a bit biased here...being gay, these people directly inciting violence against me is really frightening. All it takes is one angry person and we could have another Matthew Shepard on our hands =\
 
jrrrrrrr said:
Nope. Hate crime laws are usually decided on by a majority of some kind, so naturally every minority gets the short end of the stick. Homosexuals are just now being included in anti-discrimination laws, and laws are still being passed by states to shut gays out. This also obviously applies to Jim Crow laws, etc, but that was more of a modern example to express my confusion at how naive this quote is.

Say what you want, the aryan guard (doesn't deserve to be capitalized) and other hate groups must have a damn good PR guy. What better way to incite hate than by scheduling it on the same day as an anti-racist rally? What better way to get publicity than to have the good guys arrested for assaulting you?

The annoying part about all of this is that everybody knows that what these people are doing is wrong, yet for some reason people feel obligated to defend them. People love saying "intolerance of intolerance is hypocrisy", but that is completely retarded. Being tolerant of intolerance is just as backwards, and it promotes a continued culture of unjustified violence against minorities. The people who aren't affected by hate speech like this (straight, white christian men) will be the first ones to defend their right to hate, but the last ones to actually do something productive when trying to prevent this hate from existing. If you are inciting violence against a group of people, you do not deserve a voice because you obviously have nothing to contribute. Why are we giving people like this a public forum, as if their opinions are actually true, helpful or relevant? It disturbs me that my tax dollars and public roads would be used for something whose sole purpose is to offend people and promote hate. Maybe I'm just angry at the moment...but a parade of people promoting violence against jews, blacks, gays and others really doesn't sound like something that the state could justify sponsoring.

It's one thing to support freedom of speech even when it is obviously dangerous like with nazis, but it is a completely different thing to have that freedom and actually say something. In my opinion, the real harm here is being done by the aryan nazi guard, by treating free speech as a means of spouting irrelevant, dangerous ignorant bullshit and not as a legitimate means of protest. If you have nothing to say, why are you concerned about freedom of speech to begin with? The motive of this gathering was not to protest or speak out against some injustice, it was to promote violence and hate. Assaulting people is going too far, I'll admit, but can we please stop acting like the nazis had the best intentions in mind?

I probably sound like a freedom hating pinko commie right now, but SOMEONE had to stand up and defend the people who are actually the victims here. I love freedom, it just pisses me off when people use that freedom as irresponsibly as the nazis in this case were. "I am proud that our forefathers died for this freedom...so I'm going to use it to fuck around and yell at jews in public" is not something that would register in the mind of a sane person. Maybe I'm a bit biased here...being gay, these people directly inciting violence against me is really frightening. All it takes is one angry person and we could have another Matthew Shepard on our hands =\
Click to expand...

I couldnt have said it better myself (being Canadian and a (not religious by any means) Jew).

How are people even considering defending these people who (have, and want to) Kill/Hurt people for no reason other then their Race/Religion/Culture.

There is (unless im mistaken), a law (at least in my province) that considers certain insults and the like a form of (verbal) "Abuse", which is illegal. Not to mention it's a threat to the lives of all minorities, which is also illegal. I guess this was not clear at the time of this..mess..


Its one thing to say "<Corperations/Government Parties> Suck", even if they are doing nothing wrong, but its a completely different to say "Kill all of these type of people, they are inferior due to Race/Religion/Culture"

Having people like the OP in the world terrifies me.

Thank god the Museum of Human Rights is coming to Canada soon.
 
You all seem to be missing the point that despite the message, the neo nazi's said theirs legally and the protestors said theirs illegally on several counts. Freedom of speech allows you to say ANYTHING you want, especially in a country where hates crimes/speech are not really an active issue. So technically, the portestors were hideously in violation of the law despite having the better message overall.

It appears as though Jrrrrr gets it :D
 
It doesn't matter that the Neo-Nazis are wrong; if you support free speech, you must be able to support it on all grounds, no matter if it may be morally wrong. That is the ideal of freedom of speech. Well, that is how it is in the US. I can't vouch for any of the Commonwealth nations or other nations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top